Talk:Vanniyar/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Prostitution and other occupations of Pallis, apart from being agricultural slaves of Vellalas

Pallis, although originally agricultural slaves of Brahmins and Vellalars, they eventually took other occupations later. Here is the citation from Project Gutenberg's Castes and Tribes of Southern India, by Edgar Thurston "The Pallis live in separate streets or quarters distinctively known as the Palli teru or Kudi teru (ryots’ quarter). The bulk of them are labourers, but many now farm their own lands, while others are engaged in trade or in Government service. The occupations of [17]those whom I have examined at Madras and Chingleput were as follows:— Merchant. Cultivator. Bullock and pony cart driver. Printer. Lascar. Sweetmeat vendor. Flower vendor. Fitter. Sawyer. Oil-presser. Gardener. Polisher. Bricklayer. Mason"

Also Palli women, occasionally took prostitution as an occupation when their men became "Pandarams" ( priests)

Here is the reference from the same book

"The mendicant Pandārams, who are recruited from various classes, wear the lingam, and do not abstain from eating flesh. Many villages have a Pandāram as the priest of the shrine of the village deity, who is frequently a Palli who has become a Pandāram by donning the lingam. The females are said to live, in some cases, by prostitution." Note that Pandaram is not caste, at least according to Edgar Thurston, as it means priests who came from many castes including Pallis and Vellalars. ( reference is there in the book)

I would request people to add this text to historical status paragraph

X : ( Current paragraph of Historical status)

Y: (Add this text as last lines of current paragraph) - Edgar Thurston further noted that a bulk of Pallis were labourers eventually took occupations such as Merchant, Bullock and pony cart driver, Printer, Lascar, Sweetmeat vendor, Flower vendor, Fitter, Sawyer, Oil-presser, Gardener, Polisher, Bricklayer and Mason". He further noted that when Palli men became Pandaram(priest) their women occasionally resorted to prostitution"

Please include this edit in the article. Regards. 103.203.228.200 (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Link for the referred source : "https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42996/42996-h/42996-h.htm" 103.203.228.200 (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of this topic initiated by 103.203.228.200 for violating wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view and personal interest to attack a particular community only.

Moreover vanniyar article is a contentious topic and sensitive to a considerable population in tamilnadu who forms 28% population in Tamil Nadu and 65% population in Pondicherry

source : https://journalsofindia.com/vanniyars/.

Authors and editors must come to consensus before final edit.

Further to note from the same citation- Project Gutenberg's Castes and Tribes of Southern India, by Edgar Thurston " Pandarams are said to have been originally Sōzhia Vellālas " and additionally " pandarams are class composed of recruits from various castes (e.g.,Vellāla and Palli) "

source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42996/42996-h/42996-h.htm#

So its clear that pandarams are not pallis only. so we cant include prostitution topic to the main article of vanniyar. Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

No, Pudhuvalluvan, it's not the case that "authors and editors must come to consensus before final edit". See Wikipedia:Be bold. (And there are no final edits.) However, there is no way we can use Thurston as a reference; it's much too old. Sources from the British Raj period are not considered reliable. Use modern academic sources. Bishonen | tålk 07:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. But i found below from wikipedia only.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Vanniyar, along with other pages relating to South Asian social groups, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, do not make the edit. Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. That refers to reinstating edits that have been reverted. You must get consensus on talk before doing that; you don't need to get consensus before other kinds of edits. But I have a more important question. You are a new user; can I ask if you have discovered your own talkpage, User talk:Pudhuvalluvan? I have written comments for you there. It would be good if you replied to them. Bishonen | tålk 08:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC).

User:C1MM , what do you think about edit? Edgar Thurston, though old, was a key contributor to the census data of Indian people during his period. I think it shouldn't be a problem as long as we mention that the stated claim is true according to Edgar Thurston and may not be agreeable with other sources that may have a different take ( in case they differ). Please review this and close this edit request. 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The suggested edit is selectively choosed against original Edgar Thurston's context and inappropriate to include in vanniyar main article . hence suggested to delete this topic from talk page. thanks.

Below is from same cited page..

Pandarams are said to have been originally Sōzhia Vellālas " and additionally " pandarams are class composed of recruits from various castes (e.g.,Vellāla and Palli) "

source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42996/42996-h/42996-h.htm# Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that mentioning Edgar Thurston (also mention he is colonial-era) is enough to give an indication. I think as long as we are aware that this is Thurston's claim we can put it in. But it would be much better to find a modern source for this claim. C1MM (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This is what I have been saying. Also it isn't like Edgar Thurston was commenting on a topic that requires sophisticated expertise - genetics for example. He just documented the occupation Pallis were engaged in during his time and all it must have taken are "eyes" to see what job people are doing and "intellectual honesty" to write and document what was being observed. He hardly could have got it wrong unless there is an implication that Edgar was lying and had an agenda to associate Pallis with occupations they never took. User: Sitush, what do you say?

. 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bishonen@C1MM@Sitush @Nittawinoda

Kindly note, it is not about credibility of Edgar Thurston.

Its about creditibility of @24thHusbandofDraupathi

He selectively choosed these texts to use against pallis. Kindly read that full paragraph texts in the referred link.

As per Edgar Thurston mention pandarams are formed from sozhiya vellalar,vellalar and pallis.

And its very few sample and neglible to include under historical occupation status.

Edgar Thurston made many reference about pallis for their higher status in social hierarchy but those were never included or ignored .

Its hard to understand why admins and editors allowed only selective statements from resources that can degrade the status of a particular community.

Requesting to delete this edit suggestion completely. Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for requesting edit. But we consider British raj sources are unreliable. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable.3F Kautilyalundit (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose this edit request: I strongly oppose using British Colonial era sources in this article. Please see discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable.3F. As per this discussion the consensus is that one should avoid using British Colonial era sources unless there is a secondary modern source. If every editor like @C1MM is going to use their own discretion to include statements based on British era sources then what is the use of having an academic discussion and arriving at a consensus. We should follow the consensus based on the discussion and avoid using British era sources. If there is a more recent discussion regarding using Colonial era sources then please share the link so everyone can see. I once made a few edits to this article a long time ago and very recently some users/editors accused me for some reason and it is still not clear to me as to what I am being accused of. Therefore even though I have privileges to edit this article I am very reluctant to do so and have decided to refrain from making further edits to this page. I request @Bishonen, @Sitush to remove the edit about "Vanniyar being servants of Vellalar.."[1] which was added by @C1MM since the statement solely relies on Thurston's source which is a British Colonial era resource. There are no secondary modern sources to support this claim so request that this statement be removed from the Vanniyar page. The other statements and sources around this line only talk about the status of Vanniyar in general and do not contain any information about Vanniyar having once been the servants of Vellalar. So this content has to be removed. Nittawinoda (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with it and I easily can't find any sources that say Vanniyars were doing prostitution. @C1MM's edit might be unreliable, according to the raj era sources consensus. But there are other sources to make it reliable:

1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/177526?read-now=1&seq=22 - jstor paper 1962 (p 358)

2. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Land_and_Caste_in_South_India/mVqyAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=adscripti%20glebae&pg=PA58&printsec=frontcover - gbooks 1965

3. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_World_of_the_Rural_Labourer_in_Colon/5YqGAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=adscripti&dq=adscripti&printsec=frontcover - gbooks 1992

These 3 sources say "Palli were slaves of Brahmins and they were once predial slaves, the adscirpti glebae (Slaves can be sold with the land) of Vellalar landlords" with the census report. Kautilyalundit (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to edit and add the fact that Pallis were not only slaves and serving their Vellalar masters but also were serving Brahmins. 103.158.244.134 (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Personaly, I don't like to degrade a caste or a society. But still, Wikipedia is based on what sources says and the consensus. Kautilyalundit (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Tho the article already talks about the domestic slavery of Vanniyars. But to whom? So I'll suggest to add "They were once predial slaves of Vellalar landlords, and then they became slaves to Brahmins" to the "domestic slavery" section but after the line of "such as restriction of freedom, forced labour and ownership." with the sources which I mentioned above. @C1MM@Sitush You two do have better knowledge about these things. Consider it if it seems good to add. Kautilyalundit (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilyalundit if we use modern sources which themselves reference Raj era censuses then we must be extremely careful to ensure that we fully reflect all aspects of what the modern source says, which almost always will mean reading the entire source rather than a page or two. The Raj censuses were very poor & reluable modern writers acknowledge this when citing them. I created Census of India prior to independence some years ago & that gives you some ideas about the issues. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad to have you here, mate. Yup, that's why I'm saying we should consider what other sources says too but in the raj era references matter. You did nice work on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_India_prior_to_independence. Keep rocking, man! Kautilyalundit (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilyalundit@Sitush@Nittawinoda

I oppose the edit request :

Reason: The source is not reliable enough to edit a Contentious_topic.

It is clear that classification of pallis were not clear in british era itself.Often it was confused with another caste called "pallan" . We should exert caution till we get credible academic information on Vanniyars. Thanks.

The below texts are from same source jstor paper 1962 which is self explanatory .

Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/177526?read-now=1&seq=22

Page 356 :

Before using the census data on caste, it is necessary to consider how reliable they are. The first problem is to define “ caste” ; the point at which one distinguishes a caste from a sub-caste, is almost a matter of individual preference. The 1871 and 1881 censuses lump together, under the terms palli and pariah , a number of groups which are separately classified as castes in later reports. Again, where the sub-division of castes is very broad, the danger of the inclusion of castes whose traditional occupation is not agricultural labour is large.

Page 357 : The only major caste which is difficult to classify is the Tamil palli or

vannian. Although the palli are included in all the censuses, they were not,

unlike the other agricultural labour castes, untouchables. This, together with

the fact that few of the early reports on serfdom in the Tamil districts mention

them, makes it unlikely that they were traditionally serfs. In fact the Collector of Tanjore wrote in 1819 that “ the slaves here are of two castes only,the Pallar and the Pariah.

Page 358:

The Collector, South Arcot, wrote to the Board of Revenue in 1819 that “the slaves in this collectorate are mostly of the pulley and pariah castes”, where pulley may stand either for palli or pallan.** Slavery Papers, 1828, p. 871, states On phonetic grounds, pulley should mean palli, but from conditions In other districts pallan is more likely.

Also in 1871 and 1901. less than 20% of the palli were actually agricultural labourers. it would probably be safer to exclude the palli from the agricultural labour castes. Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pudhuvalluvan Just commenting on a bit of this: you perhaps need to be aware that pretty much any group that wasn't considered to be a "martial race" would be lumped together as agrarian by the Brits at various times - it was a hopelessly inaccurate system. - Sitush (talk)\ Sitush (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush I agree your point in general,but i would like to stress on the fact as discussed in this same 1962 book. Pallis could be easily confused with Pallans/pallars. The one letter mistake changes martial race to agrarian race. Caste division and population distribution is numerous and complex in Tamilnadu (now and then). As you said british era sources and modern sources based on british era census cannot be considered reliable. Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pudhuvalluvan No, I didn't say modern sources based on the Raj censuses are unreliable. I said we need carefully to reflect them because they usually include provisos relating to their use of those censuses somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nittawinoda If the only sources we have are those from the Raj era then we should be silent on the issue. In the specific case of Thurston, he relied for much of his knowledge on a single Brahmin adviser who also acted as translator. Obviously, a Brahmin has huge vested interests in denigrating so-called lower castes, and Thurston's works have many inconsistencies which at least in part reflect an uncritical assessment of what he was told. He has no more expertise than the average person in the street. - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nittawinoda@Sitush@24thHusbandofDraupathi@C1MM

The wikipedia's main article of vanniyar contains selective line from Edgar Thurston's book “ Edgar Thurston noted that at his time, the Vanniyars, then called Pallis, were mainly agricultural servants of Vellalars, and had only recently started making claims to higher status “

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanniyar#Historical_status

But the original context from his book says below

“The name Vanniyan,” Mr. H. A. Stuart writes, seems to have been introduced by the Brāhmans, possibly to gratify the desire of the Pallis for genealogical distinction. Padaiyāchi means a soldier, and is also of late origin. That the Pallis were once an influential and independent community may be admitted, and in their present desire to be classed as Kshatriyas they are merely giving expression to this belief, but, unless an entirely new meaning is to be given to the term Kshatriya, their claim must be dismissed as absurd. After the fall of the Pallava dynasty, the Pallis became agricultural servants under the Vellālas, and it is only since the advent of British rule that they have begun to assert their claims to a higher position.” Source : https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42996/42996-h/42996-h.htm

My comments : After the fall of pallava dynasty , pallis became agricultural servants? So what was their status during pallava dynasty ? were they originally pallavas?? . These kind of informations need to be found from reliable scholarly articles and inscriptions and to be included in historical status of vanniyars.

My edit suggestion : Please remove the edit about "Vanniyar being servants of Vellalar which was added by @C1MM since the statement solely relies on Thurston's source which is a British Colonial era resource. Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pudhuvalluvan I was editing that statement out of the article while you were posting the above request. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Modern historians like Dhanapal and D.Kumar have mentioned the same that Pallis were low caste and treated as such. They were usually found working in the fields of Vellalars and Brahmins. Please refer to the sources provided by Kautilyalundit. As far as the source for Pallis status before Pallavas, there is little reliable documentation on it. Most of the time, the claim of royal lineage of Pallis are based upon the myth that Pallis which is totally nonsense and unscientific. It is a myth and has been already cited enough in article that Pallis propagate such myth to justify their self-proclamation of being Kshatriya 103.158.244.134 (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@103.158.244.134 the article already says they were low & that they have a myth of origin. I'm not sure what you are getting at here - we don't need a bazillion sources, just a few reliable ones & they're already present. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush The main article says " The Vanniyars were historically considered a lower caste. They have been trying to gain a higher socio-religious standing since the 19th century "

Do we have historical source (before 19th century ,i.e before 1800 A.D ) mentioning them as lower caste?, can you post the source link here.

The vanniyar article have cite error for the above line

Cite error: The named reference Vijaya Ramaswamy was invoked but never defined Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pudhuvalluvan the cite error will be fixed by a bot, given time.

You are being a little specious about pre-19th century. Since we have plenty of sources that say they began to Sanskritise from then, it is plain as day that they were of low status & those sources say it.

I do hope you're not now going to claim they were Kings or glorious warriors etc at some distant past point. If that is in your mind, I think you should consider walking away from the article - I've seen more than enough caste glorifiers (and their sockpuppets etc) bite the dust on Wikipedia in the last 20 years or so and very much doubt this would be different. Myth of origin and Sanskritisation are your background reading. - Sitush (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush Kindly note, as a contributor to wikipedia. i respect wikipedia's neutral point of view.

I didnt make single claim with my personal opinion.I just questioned the source validity for edits made and edits suggested.

I think you should add an admin into this talk discussion who can read and write Tamil.Because this particular caste have reliable sources(recorded in tamil wikipedia) which mentions them as higher castes even in 11th Century with the same name "Vanniya"

Please read through this link and come to conclusion on the vanniyar's historical status.

https://ta.wikipedia.org/s/bl7 Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pudhuvalluvan an admin who engages in content creation/editing pretty much ceases to be an admin for the purposes of the article in question - they become another editor, like you or me.

The Tamil WP reliability guidelines are, if I recall correctly, far less stringent than those on English WP. There is usually less scrutiny of articles there, too (or certainly that used to be the case).

There is nothing to stop you raising here sources etc deployed in articles there. You'll probably have to translate the relevant bits, though.

And after all that, I am willing to bet nothing will change here because it is myth based mostly on guesswork & fragments of archaeology etc that have a multitude of interpretations. But feel free to have a go. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you noticed the quote from Hiltebeitel? That's probably as good as you are likely to get. I have just done a Google Translate of the ta-WP article and, while acknowledging the imperfections of Google, I can't spot anything there that really adds to what we say. In fact, the good bits there have clearly been taken from this article, while there is a lot of apparent nonsense otherwise (eg: according to the translated version, ta-WP says Vanniyars are the only Indian caste with a myth of origin - I have to assume it is a translation issue because that is a ridiculous statement if not). - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The translation is accurate . Wikipedia Tamil is notoriously inaccurate and have been infested with caste warriors, at least , ever since I have been familiar with. I hope any source that Pudhuvalluvan is going to cite, is read with rigorous skepticism. 103.158.244.134 (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush and 103.158.244.134 . Thanks for above. Please note Tamil wikipedia includes a literature made about Vanniyar caste in 11th century. That versus are in pure tamil which cannot be translated by google. We will wait for someone to help us.

Thank you all. Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pudhuvalluvan If you mean that the Tamil source is 11th century then we cannot use it. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I am pretty sure you are referring to the Vanniyar Purana cited on ta-WP. Google does in fact translate it and it is in fact useless - a piece of fiction of dubious age and anonymous authorship. See WP:PRIMARY. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush Vanniyar Purana used in Tamil wikipedia is a secondary source. That book was written by a Phd scholar and it is published by centre for cultural studies. The same is hosted in Tamilnadu governments digital library. Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pudhuvalluvan No, it isn't a secondary source. It's part of the myth of origin, like all caste puranas. That some academic (who probably is a caste member or paid by the sangam) provides footnotes to an old story doesn't make it any more reliable. And "cultural studies" centres in India, when related to castes & their literature, are pretty much always vested interests. Please stop: you're just wasting everyone's time with this. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

For example, see here. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush@Kautilyalundit

Kindly find another source by 12th century Tamil Author Kambar who wrote book Silaielubathu on vanniyar.The same is linked to Vanniyar Tamil wikipedia and also in the author's wiki page https://ta.wikipedia.org/s/2j .

I am just pointing out Vanniyars were not historically low caste as it is plain as day(like you said).

I stop my discussion here, leaving conclusion to other audiences and admins. I made a topic in my talk page(to avoid flooding of main talk page) to discuss this further. Please comment there till we get consensus on this article. Thanks Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pudhuvalluvan 12th century? Forget it. We've already mentioned the myths, the Pallava claims, the Kshatriya claims - we're not going to devote an entire section to quotes from a work of fiction as at ta-WP. - Sitush (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Sitush. I think we can still add the fact that low caste Pallis were slaves of Vellalars and Brahmins. I agree witu Kautilyalindit . If Edgar Thurston is the problem, then we can avoid them. But if others modern historians, whom Kautilyalindit has cited, have pretty much said the same thing then we can add them unless they explicitly cautioned in the book to take it with skepticism. After all, they may have done their due diligence on their part and must have been careful of what they are writing given their scholarship in the area. Let's not throw baby out with the bath water. 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@24thHusbandofDraupathi I return to what I said yesterday, ie we can reflect what modern reliable sources say but that reflection involves more than Googling for specific words/phrases & then using the results without reading them in full to understand the context.

For example, I cannot see even the entire chapter for the bit linked above from Land and Caste in South India, which means I cannot make a decision for myself. Of the bits which I can see, I note for example that on p 49 the author writes of how they are inferring their conclusions from poor data and that the census enumerators recorded castes by a pre-determined occupation rather than individuals by what occupation was actually being carried out, eg they assumed all Pallans were agricultural labourers but that wasn't necessarily so. Also, anyone with half a brain can see that the table on p 57 has problems - a whole load of additional caste groups come and go between censuses.

Given this, we're likely to have to jump through a lot of semantic hoops to derive any useful statement from that source, modern and academic although it is. Good luck with that. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you fear for the community sanctions due to the legal threat of the Vanniyar community against us? Many sources claim they were agricultural laborers and lower castes. The article already talks about domestic slavery of them. But to whom they were slaves? Tho we reject Edgar's sources, other modern sources say the same point too. Why do they need to write the same? We can't avoid those sources. Also, most of the modern sources rely on the raj era reports and census data but on some points. Also, some data may not be valid and some authors might be biased.

If you think these sources are not reliable, we have to remove sources that say "they were lower caste" too.

The historical dictionary of Tamils - this book fits your view. Because it mainly relies on raj guys' sources such as Edgar Thurston. I find that author of the book didn't even check the etymology of caste names in the lexicon. She wrote the book based on Raj ethnographer's point of view. This source is being used for certain caste articles' title and main summary.

Many questions arise in your answer regarding the topic. Because you're ready to add "they were farm laborers and lower caste". But not ready to add "To whom they were laborers?". It twists the logic.

You will get an idea about their past and present still if you read the article. Because you're the major contributor to many castes articles including this one. But the vanniyar community threatens @Nittawinoda instead of you. He was making positive contributions only. The reason for the threat is degrading castes in a certain manner in the name of revealing their history. They say the major contributor of this article relies on his preferred sources only such as Alf Hiltebeitel. We can't take only one source to define the whole article's context.

Read the article Chamar. They mentioned "to whom" in the discrimination-related info.

Also I'd like to bring more experienced editors in castes related things to maintain NPOV. @Pudhuvalluvan@24thHusbandofDraupathi You can invite other known editors to join the consensus.

@C1MM I'm waiting to hear your words regarding the consensus. Kautilyalundit (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilyalundit I fear nothing here & won't change my mind because you or anyone else tries to bully or shame me. You clearly know very little about my Wikipedia experience, which includes police-verified death threats and support offered to me by the WMF, regarding which it would be best I do not further elaborate.

I merely state my understanding of how things should be done, based on my experience on Wikipedia and in an academic context. Do you disagree with my concerns about adequately paraphrasing what the source I referred to actually says, in context? Please do propose wording which addresses them, and please confirm that you have at least read the entire chapter in question, including any pages not presented by Google Books - it is obvious that the author presents many provisos. Alternatively, you might want to consider not using that particular source. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilyalundit Please visit my talk page. I gave enough explanation to oppose your edit suggestion. Additionally as you said, If we think these sources are not reliable, we have to remove sources that say "they were lower caste" too.

example: 1. https://books.google.com/books?id=ALUvDwAAQBAJ&dq=vanniyars+labors&pg=PA385 The author Vijaya Ramasamy used Pallar's occupation in Vanniyar topic. The author didnt cite source for her personal claim " While historically they seem to have had a low status"

2.The author Rudolph used Edgar's source to define them as Lower caste.

https://books.google.com/books?id=7guY1ut-0lwC&pg=PA49 Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pudhuvalluvan Please stop trying to split the discussion between here and your own talk page.

It has already been explained to you that the article covers the mythic claims, the tentative higher status many centuries ago, and the clearly perceived low status of more recent times which caused the Sanskritisation approach to be used as a counter. We cannot just wipe out mentions of that perceived status, and of the Vanniyar/Palli community's attempts to deny it - the two go hand-in-hand. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pudhuvalluvan Rudolph is entitled to use Thurston and we are entitled to use Rudolph. If Rudolph has any provisos regarding Thurston's words relating to the status of the community then we need to consider whether those provisos should be reflected in our own words.

We aren't using Ramaswamy now for the point to which you refer. Further, we say that they were historically considered to be of low status, which is not the same as saying they were of low status. Semantics matter. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush Noted your points. Further, on what source basis we are considering them to be of low status in distant past .? Historically means , are we considering their status before 1800 AD ? .

Expect their claim of marital race from Tamil literature Silaiyezhupathu(A separate english WP article is incomplete) written by this renowned author https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kambar_(poet) . We dont have any historical source to consider them as lower caste.Kindly clarify. Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pudhuvalluvan Please read WP:TE. Your question has been asked and answered here in various forms on several occasions in the last day or so alone. Tendentious editing, even on talk pages, can lead to sanctions being imposed. It has been explained that we don't use ancient sources; it has been explained that we are reflecting what modern sources say of the history; it has been explained that the article does refer to claims of historic standing in, say, the Pallava period (particularly the quote from Hiltebeitel). You should probably drop it before an admin reviews goings-on here. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll say all native south indians have been classified as Shudras in varna system. It means No varna system in South India. The lower status means based on the data that prev records historians had. Kshatriya claim is purely myth not based on inscriptional and historical sources.

I have read Vanniyars were soldiers in some empires from Noboru karashima sources. Try to find that, it might be helpful for you. Kautilyalundit (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Understood that Rudolph is entitled to use Thurston . Thurston,in his book mentioned his own provisos and also cited many informations from others. It contains views implying pallis as both higher caste(many places) and perceived as lower caste(few places) and counter claims. But modern authors after Thurston picked up only the lower caste line from Thurston's book and that only made its way to vanniyar article. Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pudhuvalluvan No, you clearly are not understanding. It doesn't matter what Thurston said: what matters is what use of Thurston is made by modern academics etc - those are the people deemed on Wikipedia to have the expertise. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I was talking about the threat from these community members because of your negative contribution. They threatened Nittawinoda and certain communities. Note it, our actions affect outside the environment too. I know you since the beginning. No pbs.

My point was the article already talks about slavery and forced labor of them. But to whom they were? You're not even answering to that.

Read this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2754563?read-now=1&seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents it says the ancestors have tied laborers to high castes such as Nair, Naidu, and Vellalars. The author is Gough.

And I don't agree with that you ignore modern sources which do not rely on Edgar Thurston. You have experience, But it's not that everyone should agree with only one person's view in the consensus. You know that too. We should hear other opinions.

Mate, you did a lot of good work in Indian castes subject. But I rarely see your positive contributions. It affects many things which you don't know and care for.

What do you think about the usage of the book Historical Dictionary of Tamils in the title and main summary of the castes article? Kautilyalundit (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush And if you have free time, edit some Tamil caste articles. Kautilyalundit (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilyalundit You need to research my contribution history before making unhelpful suggestions of what I should or should not do. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Lmao, I was requesting you to edit. Because these Tamil caste articles need your involvement.

Yeah yeah your contributions not even suggested you to become an admin. I bet you're not interested in that. Why do you behave frustrated with your old friend? I didn't forget your helps to this day. Kautilyalundit (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilyalundit The mentioned source by you https://www.jstor.org/stable/2754563?read-now=1&seq=4#page_scan_tab_contents contains this sentence " Nadar or relatively low ranking subcastes of kallar or vanniyar) . Please do not suggest edits without reading it fully. Do you have sources for subcastes of vanniyar? . If there is no proper source better not to write anything about it.. Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilyalundit It is precisely the things I "don't know and care for" which qualify me as a neutral editor. My only familial connection to India is a gt-gt-grandparent born to her British parents while they were temporarily living in Bangalore, and who left the country as an infant. I am of no religious persuasion. I have never voted in any government election in any country. I have never visited India. I am unaffected by goings-on there at a personal level. I have a couple of university degrees and often a lot of time on my hands.This all means that my knowledge comes from a position of researched neutrality.

Consensus here is not a vote. Opinions are always welcome but they need usually to be grounded in policy. Mine as stated on this page most certainly are.

I removed the Ramaswamy citation from the lead an hour or so ago. It was unnecessary per WP:LEAD. I have no memory of reading the book myself and certainly not for this article.

I don't have access to JSTOR right now but may be able to regain it.

While clarity about the slavery claims would be good (and I suspect they're actually mostly claims of serfdom), we can only paraphrase what reliable sources say. I'm not even sure that we're doing that at the moment in relation to those claims. - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Lol, it's not a neutral editor it is an editor who doesn't even care about society even if they fight each other and die. But it's okay even if they die in conflicts. for you. lol...

Consensus is not about the vote but it is about solving the questions. Like you're not even answering to "To whom they were laborers and domestic slaves". I can't stand with anyone here. But Most sources say Vanniyars were low caste and farm laborers. You know that too, but to whom??????

Anyways I'm glad that you have a link with Indian ancestors.

If you have time, I request you change the title summary of Isai Vellalar, Devendrakula Velalar, and Vellalar.

The isai vellalar (formerly Melakarar) and Devendrakula Velalar (Devendrakulathar formerly pallan) - Recently renamed their caste name by using political power to claim a high status. These articles are full of poor-quality sources. Have a look at it.

Vellalar - The title summary is based on Ramaswamy while others such as Peterson, Andre, and many prominent others claim "Vellalar name used in the diffuse sense. It might denote the group of castes but shares similar tradition while having different origins". So have look at it too.

Mate, I don't know what is reliable to you. But you have to consider why other sources say they are involved in forced laboring activity and domestic slavery. But don't forget to answer my question "To whom they were forced laborers and slaves". Because I'm not a pro like you, to twist the logic.

But still, I have read some sources to say pallis were soldiers in Tamil kingdoms to give positive contributions. Lemme find them. Kautilyalundit (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilyalundit Spot on: from a Wikipedia perspective of what neutrality means, I really don't care if people fight each other & are killed. I care only that articles here comply with policies and guidance based on the consensus of the en-WP community. So should you, if you profess neutrality.

I don't have Indian ancestors. I have an ancestor who happened to be born there; I have another who was born above international waters while on a flight - what would that make them? It seems ridiculous to be "pleased" that someone is this or that nationality or ethnicity or whatever.

This page is for discussion of matters relating to improvement of the Vanniyar article. If you want to discuss improvement of other articles, please use the talk pages for those.

I have already explained my approach to sources & that I can neither access JSTOR right now nor read the entirety of a chapter you put forward on Google Books. My issue is not the reliability of the sources you mention but rather my doubts as to whether you (a) have read them in full and (b) are adequately paraphrasing what they say rather than cherry-picking. My doubts may be ill-founded but the more you reply here deflecting them, the more they seem likely to be well-founded. So, I ask again: have you read all of the chapter in the Land book and, if so, can you come up with a statement that can be used in the article and which reasonably deals with the author's apparent provisos? - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Obviously. This is what neutrality means. But making positive contributions will create a positive environment.

I have read this jstor paper https://www.jstor.org/stable/177526?read-now=1&seq=22 that reflects same on the google books.

I didn't read the all chapters of the Land book. Even if the sources say they should be excluded from the labor class, there are many sources that say they were in forced labor activity such as Noboru Karashima. We don't need to read entire book to know about a few topics. Tho, sometimes we need to consider the conclusion of a book or paper.

What do you think about the sources of Noboru Karashima? Kautilyalundit (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilyalundit Karashima is fine but not the easiest person to read/understand. I have found a couple of much more recent takes on the 1965 source which we use but have yet to read them thoroughly. We probably also should mention that many left India in the hope of better prospects elsewhere - Burma seems to have been a favoured destination but also the Philippines etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

What's your source name? and I don't agree with that you remove Karashima's source. His sources have been well-researched and peer-reviewed by other Epigraphists and scholars in South Asian research. We can say him Kathleen Gough of Asia.

It's not a good idea to remove a reliable source which has been edited by a prominent scholar who has lived in Tamil Nadu for the research.

Since when they migrated to Burma and Philippines? Kautilyapundit (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilyapundit I removed an unnecessary citation from the lead section. It was nothing to do with reliability - yet again, please read WP:LEAD. I am beginning to get fed up if repeating myself here and it feels suspiciously like people are trying to push this article into some form which suits their opinions rather than just keeping it straight & as simple as it can be made. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

So, you made lead from the existing content of the article as short summary of the entire article.

Am I right?

People know who pushes their articles into the form which suits their own views and opinion.

Look, the community is making a legal threat and forcing their community members to file a case against us (who are involved in the article) on Social media. You're happily sitting in the UK, but others are not even in the toilet. Kautilyapundit (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush I appreciate your clarity in approaching an article edit suggestions. Thanks. I read the same sources provided by @Kautilyalundit. I oppose his edit request because he used selective text without understanding the author's context as a whole on that topic. Pudhuvalluvan (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pudhuvalluvan No: article talk pages are intended as a central point for discussion of matters relating to the article. Your talk page is intended for matters relating mainly to you and a lot of people interested in, say, the Vanniyar subject will never look at it. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pudhuvalluvan Tamil wikipedia is full of incorrect things and unreliable sources. The silaielupathu and Vanniyar purana is a myth. Find literature and its secondary evidences which says "Pallis were not lower caste and they were princes." I mean lits that describes the incidents and real history. Not myth (purana). As per the acknowledgment of @Sitush and the book sources, Vanniyar is a recent name of pallis. Before 19th century, they were "Pallis" only. So yeah if you find pallis were ruling class, we shall add it if it reliable and meets WP:RS criteria. Kautilyalundit (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@SitushObviously, Edgar was relying on Brahmins only. Kautilyalundit (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Why the claim of Pallis being Shudra removed?

User: Sitush, Pallis are Shudras. While it is mentioned they are low caste, it is unclear what Varna they belonged do. Pallis were Shudras and it was mentioned earlier in the lede. Not sure why that piece of info was removed. 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@24thHusbandofDraupathi The article does say that, eg Hiltebeitel's view is such. I am not aware of removing any mention of it, although I am aware that traditionally in S India, the four-fold varna system didn't exist - people were Brahmin, Shudra or outside it completely. - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I know Abraham Rogerius described them as Shudra in the 1600s, too, but we really don't need such old sources. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and as a general rule we try to avoid mention of varna in both the lead & infoboxes. This has been discussed in the past at WT:INB and, I think, elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

As you are aware of that, is it necessary to mention Varna in all SI caste articles when they are already classified as sat-shudra in Brahmanical POV? Except for Sanskrit castes, Others don't need to have Varna classification topics. Because N number of accounts are desperate to claim Kshatriya in the articles despite they are shudra in the 4 fold varna system. Better we should create an article on this topic. The total Brahmins population is 6% only in SI. The remaining 94% have been classified as Shudra and Dalits. It's like 6% population imposed their view and ideology on the rest of the population. Kautilyapundit (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"You are right in your observations. It is usually the Kshatriya/Vaishya like castes that have varna disputes. I will try to explain this is plain words. The Brahmins were the ones originally who affixed varnas. There are many dominant/successful communities in India that fall under this Kshatriya/Vaishya grey area. The Brahmins in an obvious attempt to undermine these really established and powerful groups' credentials viewed them as Sat-Shudra instead of placing them in boxes of Kshatriya or Vaishya. Because Brahmins thought "well these guys will behave like bigshots (which they already are for all practical purposes) if they ritually become dvijas Kshatriyas or Vaishyas, so lets create a new ridiculous class Sat-shudra and give it to them". Mostly Jats, Kayasths, Patels in the north and Reddys, Vellalars, Nairs, Kammas of south fall into this Sat-shudra category. I mean sat-shudra category is so ridiculous it is oxymoronic. Sat-shudra literally means a clean servant. Does it really matter if a servant is clean? His clothes will be disheveled 5 minutes into his day job. LOL. This sat-shudra is one of the wily inventions of the Brahmins. Well a few more pointers about varna related issue. If a group is OBC and historically Shudra and a caste editor is claiming otherwise, 99% chance are that he is wrong. OBC + historically shudra = most likely unequivocally shudra. Now if a caste is Forward(FC). FC + historically sat-shudra = chances are most definetely a varna dispute candidate and most definetely has kshatriya/vaishya functions but viewed as shudra as you can infer from above." - User:Foodie 377

He nailed it. Kautilyapundit (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilyapundit It needs to be mentioned. It doesn't need to be in the lead (and isn't). - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned in the castes which have been involved in Sanskritization. But I'm not sure how it is supposed to be applicable to other dravidian castes. Think about it. Kautilyapundit (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@24thHusbandofDraupathi Apologies for not being able to link directly to the section but one past discussion of the varna in lead issue is at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 47. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Vanniyars are not sudras. They were the ruling caste and had the greatest kingdom I. E chola kingdom in India. The interview of the living prince of chola kingdom is still on YouTube. Make proper research before posting anything. 2402:3A80:47F:92BD:0:38:D45:4801 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@2402:3A80:47F:92BD:0:38:D45:4801 WP:YT and WP:RS. Either be sensible or be quiet, please. You're entitled to an opinion but that one is never going to get into the article - we have already covered their claims vs reality as stated by numerous independent academics. The words of some whacko on YouTube won't change anything. - Sitush (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't expect the savage reply from you, lol. His comment "They were the ruling caste and had the greatest kingdom" made me die in the laughing pool. No offense. Kautilyapundit (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush Lemme laugh again... Bahahahaha... You made my day.

"The interview of the living prince of Chola kingdom is still on Youtube" - The ip must be a standup comedian. Kautilyapundit (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Migration

There is an entire chapter in Indentured Labour in the British Empire 1834-1920 (1984) which refers to Pallis working in Malaya. And there is stuff about them migrating to Burma in The Burma Delta: Economic Development and Social Change on an Asian Rice Frontier, 1852–1941 (2011). I am trying to get copies of these books because the Google Books versions aren't great. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait for Amazon's buy 1 get 1 free offer so that we can get them for half of the price.

Interesting that some migrated to other Asian parts. What are the countries? is Srilanka included? Kautilyapundit (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilyapundit I think I saw a mention of Sri Lanka, yes, but it was snippet-y. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I heard they were not living in SL and they (Pallis) were claiming Srilanka's Vanniar (Chieftain) was their ancestor. This book Aspects of Caste in South India and Ceylon didn't even mention Palli on the caste list of Jaffna. Migration might be a very few if it was the case. This book flipped my usual view of caste system. Because Srilanka's caste system is beyond our thinking. Kautilyapundit (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Tribes like Vedda is known to use title Vanniyars.Veddas don't believe in fire myth either 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Vedda is similar caste to Vedar of Tamilnadu. Did you note that? Tamils have similar castes to Sinhalese castes. (E.g. Karaiyar = Karava) Kautilyapundit (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Auto Shankar from Notable people

User: Sitush, you removed Auto Shankar from the notable people list . Please restore it back.

User: Kautilyalundit, adding you to the convo since you have the access to edit. The article linked below supports the claim : https://m.timesofindia.com/india/veerappans-widow-pleads-against-telecast-of-serial/articleshow/2442757.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk • contribs) 12:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@ User:Sitush ,please act on this request. 116.212.183.81 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@116.212.183.81 Why? - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC

User : Sitush , Why? Because you removed Auto Shankar from the notable list . Not sure why it was removed. I have added the citation link. User : Kautilyalundit , User : C1MM, I am adding you guys to the discussion.

Who is Kshatriyas caste in india

Vanniyar and (rajput) are same as they are agni vashas they historically kshatriyas in india Agni boys (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Agni boys Nonsense. - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Cholas caste in tamilnadu

Vanniya kula kshatriyas proofs : other names of vanniyar is cholas, varmas, rajput, etc... Agni boys (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Agni boys nope - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Cholas in tamil nadu

Vanniyar kula kshatriyas are historicaly considering as cholas tamil nadu inscriptions(கல்வெட்டுகள்) says vanniyar are cholas wikipedia and others caste must know the history. Read history and give information about vanniyar Agni boys (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Agni boys More nonsense. See WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Titles of vanniyar

— Vanniyar, Vanniya, Vannia Gounder, Gounder or Kander, Padayachi, Palli, cholas, pallavas,cheras, varmas, Rajputs, agni vashas, and Agnikula Kshatriya — under the broad of vanniyar Agni boys (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Agni boys Those look like alternate names rather than titles. There are often dozens. We will need quite a lot of reliable sources for each one to ensure they are commonly used (and I don't mean newspapers). - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush Here are the references - HuSS: International Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol 4(1), 22–25, January–June 2017 ISSN (Online): 2349-8900 Dhwarak14 (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2023

Agni boys (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lizthegrey (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

"They have been trying to gain a higher socio-religious standing since the 19th century, using the Sanskritisation process to promote a myth of origin that they are related to the ancient Agnikula deity, born from the flames of a fire sacrifice."

Are you sure, Vanniyar are taking higher social stand from 19th century. can you justify this.

I can give more evidence from purananuru, Chola period Stone scripts, Kalladam, Silaielubathu etc. Even "Edgar Thurston" taking referencing from "Vaidīswara temple" stone script which referring Vanniars ancestor birth. The same has been referred by "Mr. H. A. Stuart writes" and "Mr. F. R. Hemingway"

Even Vanniyars having court order, which states Vanniya kula kshatriyas are the only kshatriya community in South India especially Tamilnadu.

Don't spreed your personal vengeance to the public place. The authors like you are making wikipedia untrustable.

Please remove the fake content and write based on historical evidence. or else delete this page, which helps the societies from false information. Cholanatan (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Members of this community threatens the major contributor

Some members from this community were threatening the major contributor @Nittawinoda of this article. They posted 2 Youtube videos to make their caste members to file a case against the editors. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=264&v=Fh7K26R-YkA&feature=youtu.be 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbU6jBVJ_c0

Be safe and don't share personal details. Kautilyalundit (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

soon @Nittawinoda gets what he deserves fo

r the filthy thing he did 2402:3A80:468:4166:3876:49FF:FE1E:1A82 (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand what I am being accused of. I am NOT the major contributor to this article. You can view the stats by going to Page History->Page statistics [2]. You can also view all my edits to this page by clicking on the Top Edits against my name [3]. As you can see I have made only positive edits to the article and supported the Vanniyar page. If you think otherwise please post the link to my edit and explain instead of simply making false accusations. Seems like the anonymous editor/ip is a troll who is only interested in maligning my name. Nittawinoda (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Very first line you mentioned as "The Vanniyars were historically considered a lower caste." can you justify how and where vanniyars are mentioned lower cast?

I hope this article mainly play off with "Edgar Thurston". He clearly derived that, Vanniyars Or Pallis are Kshatriyas, and vanniyars claim that they are higher than Bramanas. then how you mentioned vanniyars are lower cast. 135.245.190.5 (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't threaten Wikipedia editors. They're doing contributions without getting paid. Kautilyalundit (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

So what? Meanwhile i am asking proof. is that Threatening?

this theory written with personal vengeance. This is brutal thought. Editor should apologies and should write the facts else delete the page. Cholanatan (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Editor should respond the below comments with proofs

"They have been trying to gain a higher socio-religious standing since the 19th century, using the Sanskritisation process to promote a myth of origin that they are related to the ancient Agnikula deity, born from the flames of a fire sacrifice." Are you sure, Vanniyar are taking higher social stand from 19th century. can you justify this. I can give more evidence from purananuru, Chola period Stone scripts, Kalladam, Silaielubathu etc. Even "Edgar Thurston" taking referencing from "Vaidīswara temple" stone script which referring Vanniars ancestor birth. The same has been referred by "Mr. H. A. Stuart writes" and "Mr. F. R. Hemingway" Even Vanniyars having court order, which states Vanniya kula kshatriyas are the only kshatriya community in South India especially Tamilnadu. Don't spreed your personal vengeance to the public place. The authors like you are making wikipedia untrustable. Please remove the fake content and write based on historical evidence. or else delete this page, which helps the societies from false information. Cholanatan (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Santhanam

I guess Santhanam is a vanniyar he isn't in the notable people list 2406:3003:2002:1291:3417:8851:E982:C30A (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, even Auto Shankar has been removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk • contribs) 12:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2023

Sambuvarayar kings who belong to this community should be mentioned in this article Kaadavan raja (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

source for the above statement is "Balasubrahmanyam, S.R. (1979). Later Chola Temples. Mudgala trust. pp. 280, 281." Kaadavan raja (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Not done: When creating edit requests you are required to present what you want a reviewing editor to do specifically. That is to say, you should phrase your request to sound something like "Please change X to Y" or "Please remove/add Y" with X and Y being quoted prose. If adding content, you must also specify where specifically in the article you wish to insert it. —Sirdog (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

in the historical status section at the starting point the following statement should be added "Vanniyars were once Kings as they Sambuvarayar kings who ruled thondai mandalam in 14th century belong to vanniyar community". Kaadavan raja (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources for any content you wish to add. RegentsPark (comment) 17:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Later Chola Temples. Mudgala trust. pp. 280, 281.It is a reliable source Kaadavan raja (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

Add Puducherry Chief Minister N. Rangaswamy RCSRICE (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Where? Lightoil (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Sambuvaraya kings are vanniyars

In the historical status section at the starting point the following statement should be added "Vanniyars were once Kings as the Sambuvarayar kings who ruled thondai mandalam in 14th century belong to vanniyar community".The source or reference is mentioned below.(Later Chola Temples. Mudgala trust. pp. 280, 281.) Kaadavan raja (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Sambuvarayar kings are vanniyars

I request the editors.In the historical status section at the starting point the following statement should be added "Vanniyars were once Kings as the Sambuvarayar kings who ruled thondai mandalam in 14th century belong to vanniyar community".The source or reference is mentioned below.(Later Chola Temples. Mudgala trust. pp. 280, 281.) Kaadavan raja (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Add Auto Shankar in Notable list

Please add Auto Shankar in the notable list.Auto Shankar was a high profile criminal and one of the few convict in India who got executed.He is a notable criminal and has a wikipedia page too. Here is the proof that he belongs to Vanniyar community: https://m.timesofindia.com/india/veerappans-widow-pleads-against-telecast-of-serial/articleshow/2442757.cms 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

User :Reo kwon, I am tagging you 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have checked the archives. It seems he was previously mentioned but later removed. Some people say he is from the Senguntha Mudaliyar community. Better not to add unless we are sure that he is a Vanniyar. Reo kwon (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@ User:Reo kwon, those who claimed he is from Mudhaliar caste, never provided any link or proof. I would request you to add him to the list. In casez if someone provides a counter evidence we can remove him from the list. 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

He was removed from the list because there was no citation. Now there is a citation, it is safe to add him. 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

In the case of Veerappan, we have multiple reliable sources mentioning his community. And also, the Vanniyar caste associations and party (PMK) also spoke in support of him. So that makes his inclusion in the list justifiable.

Similarly, we need additional citations in Auto Shankar's case too. And if there is any support from his caste associations that would also be grounds for inclusion. Without such evidence, it might result in maligning the community if we are unsure about his caste identity. Reo kwon (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

What proof does the article have that Muruguavel Janakriraman belongs to Vanniyar caste? I see his name on the list with no proof

Someone can add a "citation needed" tag there or straightaway remove it. Reo kwon (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I am new to Wiki, so I can't speak authoritatively without knowing the policies fully. But I would expect they are consistent. Either you expect multiple citations for every notable person or you add people names whimsically unless challenged by some random users. We can't do it both ways, can we?

Not sure why it is derogatory tl include Auto Shankar. Is it because he is criminal? But so is Veerappan whose name is up there.It is actually kind of wierd. Reo kwon (talk) . Can you add some other person to the discussion, whom you know here? Let's reach to a consensus . Just a humble request. 24thHusbandofDraupathi

That's exactly the point I was making. For Veerappan, we have multiple citations which confirm his caste identity and also that the caste associations supported him to some extent. For Auto Shankar, as I said earlier, there was some ambiguity regarding his caste. And hence, I was asking for additional citations.

But you can go ahead and add it along with the citation. If you don't have the access you can convince someone else to do so. Reo kwon (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay but what is the citation you have for Muruguavel Janakriraman ,[[User : Rae kwon]]. You added it without any credible citation , yet claiming multiple citation is necessary.I am trying to understand your rationale here. 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

User:C1MM (talk), adding you here to the discussion, since you have the access 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

(talk) 15:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC) User: Bishonen, what do you think? 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@[[User : Sitush]], add Auto Shankar. 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@24thHusbandofDraupathi Why? See WP:CASTEID. Pretty much the entire list should be binned. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

From what I have read on the discussion you linked, it looks like the contention and opposition was against the inclusion of caste in biography articles ,and not on the inclusion of the person in the notable list in the article on caste. They both are not same thing?m to 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)