Talk:Paraiyar/Archive 1

Haplogroup
There is no scientific reference researches NO SOURCE about haplogroup G2a found within the paraiyar community     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.159.167.41 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC) - Second comment on the topic: Please provide reference that ALL Parayars belong to G2a3b1. If this is true, this would provide a significant contribution to the Haplogroup G project. As of now, not one Parayar individual is listed in it. - Third comment. The references added do not indicate the haplogroup of Paraiyars. Infact, the second cited reference is contradictory to the conclusion in the wikipedia entry. All paraiyars may be "caucasian", but nowhere in the references are their haplogroup confirmed to be G2a3b1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.183.228.72 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
The article violates the NPOV in a big way, seems like a vitriolic rant against this particular caste. Calling Aryan beliefs 'idiotic' is not constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calanen (talk • contribs) 13:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Groupism i.e., Caste origin
The origin of groupism i.e., caste seems to have started with people trying to refer to themselves as one group. There was no divisions and sub divisions until different people started competing for the same resources and had to organize themselves into groups to improve their chances in competing.

News:Even if you are highly educated ,you wont get a lecturer job at Dr.M.G.R Educational and research institute,run by A.C.Shanmugam ,if the candidate belongs to SC caste.Its cruel to see such a person he doesnt deserve to be a human being.Lathead 12:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This article..
Goes into TOO MUCH DEPTH! It is not formatted properly, and it doesn't sound like soumething in an encyclopedia. It sounds like someone copied and pasted this from something. It is far too long, as well. 164.113.13.229 14:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The paraiyer community in tamilnadu is one of the worst affected society in whole india due to caste based politics ,discrimination,and police atrocities.Even it has nearly 30 percentage population their reprentation in council of ministers, higher posts of government services is minimum.The paraiyer alias Adi dravidar community has been exploited by the sucessive politicians for their political advantage and they adopted paraiyer to be barred from getting political awareness by splitting the dalith leaders or swallowing by giving free bies.The politicians in Tamilnadu will not allow the paraiyer to realise their power of being sizeable voters in all the 234 consitituency  or get to know their discrimination in every political party.

What is the reason for their defeat,discrimination,supression and attrocities against them? Is the reason, as they are eaters of beef? NO,they are suppressed in society due to lack of awareness in politics. The reason is their inability to identify their leader.The reason is their innocency The other beef eaters like muslims, keralites are not discriminated ,supressed like paraiyers. This is the right time to identify the correct leader for not only daliths but for the entire tamil community eradicate the castism.The problem among the daliths is their inability to identify their leader.Nowadays the easiest work in tamilnadu is starting a dalith party and once again confuse and mislead the daliths in identifing their leader and becoming unity in politics. HENCE I REQUEST DALITHS IN TAMILNADU TO IDENTIFY OUR CORRECT AND SUITABLE LEADER. The search will continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kattaan (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Provide proper citation
The editors may provide proper citations for the notable people belonging to this social group. Thanks --Sureshmaran (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not necessary to provide citations for lists; rather, a statement that they belong to this caste could be made in the article for the individual. So, it is better that each individual in the list has an article of his/her own- Ravichandar My coffee shop 12:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:LIST / WP:PEOPLE Yes, citations are required for lists. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Business leaders in need of proper sourcing
Our guidelines require that lists of people be notable and properly sourced. I have moved the following non-compliant subsection to the talk page until proper sourcing can be provided. -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Buisness

 * Ramesh, Supertech Engineering
 * Arunachalam, Director of Alstom
 * Srinivasan, G.M OF Larsen and toubro
 * Karthi, Chairman of Chennai electrical pvt ltd
 * Ragavan, director of subhiksha

Valluvar
Please can someone provide me with a couple of decent sources that specifically connect the Paraiyars to the Valluvars. This article is a mess & I'll be trying to tidy it up before too long. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, If you have read the sources,
 * Castes and Tribes of Southern India. VI & VII,
 * Paraiyan and Legend of Nandan, by REV. A. C. Clayton, Madras Government Museum Bulletin, Volume V, NO.2
 * Volume V20, Page 802 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911.Pariah - Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 ,Volume V20,Page 802

It clearly states that Paraiyars have more than 300 subdivisions, like other castes in Southindia they are endogamous, do not intermarry with other subdivisions, some subdivisions are treated very low by paraiyars themselves, british colonial Researchers/ethnographers have done deep research found that valluvars are subdivision of Paraiyars, Interestingly among Valluvars there are many subdivisions, in which some who acts as Priests for temples and marriages only among Paraiyar subdivisons which are considered equal to them, among valluvars there are lower subdivisions who have relationship with lower subdivision paraiyars only, this relationship varies place to place, So in order avoid this confusion and contradictions, researchers/ethnographers have clearely summarised/concluded that The facts, taken together, seem to show that the Paraiyan priests (Valluvans), and therefore the Paraiyans as a race.......[Castes and Tribes of Southern India. Vol. VI. Edgar Thurston and Rangachari, K. 1909.(Page.89.)] valluvans are pariah priests and also as a subdivision of paraiyars.Pariah - Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 ,Volume V20,Page 802 1) why do you need other than these sources? everything is succinctly mentioned/summarised/concluded? by eminent authors/researchers/ethnographers 2) have you completely read these above quoted sources in article ? 3) why do you consider them not decent? 4) why do you consider this article(paraiyar) a mess & not tidy in this context?

A clear reply from you will enlighten me for futher contributions like Inscriptions with tamil translations mentioned about paraiyars.

regards --Thistorian (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, the link to EB 1911 that you provide seems not to mention the Valluvars at all and is a tertiary source. Thurston and Clayton are both very old and pretty unreliable (I pretty much wrote the Edgar Thurston article, as well as those for similar people such as H. H. Risley, H. A. Rose, Denzil Ibbetson etc.). It would be much, much better if we could find a modern source that explicitly says that V = P, since otherwise we are relying on dubious sources and, possibly, synthesis.
 * With regard to your thought of possibly using inscriptions, well, there is a problem with that. You need to be aware that inscriptions, which almost certainly will be ancient and are often fragmentary, are primary sources. We should not use them. If you can find a modern, secondary source that discusses the things then they may have their place but, for example, quoting the Archaeological Survey of India from over 100 years ago is unlikely to meet the Wikipedia standard. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Genetics
Please will someone explain the Genetics section. It is nonsense, it is overly technical, and it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Autosomal DNA
This section promotes, 'Conflict of interest', 'Declaring an interest', 'Defending interests', 'Synthesis of published material that advances a position', 'novel syntheses of disparate material', promotes editor's agenda', 'no neutral point of view', added comments in article, very dubious statements, This section is irrelevant and violates Wikipedia guidelines, This section therefore reomved. --59.99.10.48 (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is rather what I thought when I asked the question in the section immediately above. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite
This entire article needs to be rewritten. In particular, it comprises substantially of copy/pastes of Egdar Thurston's 1909 work, even when statements are attributed to someone else. This is simply not acceptable & I am half-minded to stub the thing. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Quoting
To follow on from my comment in the above section, does anyone know how to encapsulate what sources say without actually quoting them at length? This article is a ludicrous assembly of quotations, often from people who really do not deserve to be quoted to any great extent (Thurston etc). I have dipped in and out of it for months now but, believe me, unless someone else is willing to take on the task of cleaning it up, I will. The net result of me doing it is likely to be a halving of its length. I can hear the squeals of complaint now, so perhaps someone would like to get their attempt in first. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding further details
Found an interesting article one of these days. Would like to know your thoughts as well. Would like to improve the page based on the details. If the details mentioned is true, its a great miss in wiki. Almithra (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I have just reverted again. Please read WP:RS for information regarding what constitutes a reliable source, and also note that Wikipedia is neither censored nor bound by the laws of India. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Request
Please add information regarding the cast based marginalization that the paraiyar community had to endure. I am of the view that without that information, the article is handicapped. The opening statement about the Paraiyars is incorrect and politically biased. They were by caste or hereditary occupation drummers and thus, by virtue of their handling of animal skins, unclean and polluters of the higher castes. By the end of the 19th century the term 'Pariah', as adopted by the British, had become so loaded and offensive that another term had to be found for them. These two references below might help. Bishop Robert Caldwell in his pamphlet The Tinnevelly Shanars, 1849, habitually refers to the Paraiyars as 'slaves', as in the following ‘The castes to which the greater number of the members of our native congregation belong, form the bulk of the population in the south of Tinnevelly. Of the Christians the most numerous class is composed of Shanars, inclusive of the various sub-divisions and off-shoots of the caste. The next consist of Pariars and Pullers, the hereditary slaves of the wealthier classes; and last in the order of number follow the Maravers, with a still smaller proportion of Vellalers, Naicks, Retties, and other high castes.. . The caste of Shanars occupies a middle position between the Vellalers and their Pariar slaves.' See HOBSON-JOBSON, A glossary of colloquial Anglo-Indian words and phrases, and kindred terms, Col. Henry Yule and A. C. Burnell, 1886: PARIAH s. The name of a low caste of Hindus in Southern India, constitutionally one of the most numerous castes, if not the most numerous, in the Tamil country. The word in its present shape means properly ‘a drummer’. Tamil parai is the large drum, beaten at certain festivals, and the hereditary beaters of it called (sing.) paraiyan, (pl.) paraiyar. In the city of Madras this caste forms one fifth of the whole population, and from it come (unfortunately) most of the domestics in European service in that part of India. From their coming into contact with and under observation of Europeans, more habitually than any other caste, the name Pariah has come to be applicable to the whole body of the lowest castes, or even to denote out-castes or people without any caste. . . The mistaken use of Pariah, as synonymous with out-caste, has spread in English parlance over all India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.180.167 (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

English
( anglicised by Europeans as Pariah)? Not every European speaks english so anglicised by English-speakers or idk but not by europeans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.196.145.2 (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good catch! I've amended the wording. Thanks very much for spotting it. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the Proof that formerly anglicised as Pariah; translated as "slave"? I have read Edger Thurston Books, as well as 1891 Census in both mentioned Parayar, Parayan. So why i should not delete above line? Karthikeyan Raju 08:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Because it is sourced to the Irschick work, which is far more reliable than the Raj "ethnographies". I'm pretty sure there are other reliable sources that make the same point. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Discrimination against particular section of people
Hereby I acknowledge that the article about "Paraiyar", a community of South india is a sensitive information.Some Users are potraying the community as slaves.Mentioning of "Slave" or Using any defamatory words against any community or particular section is an punishable offence.There may be a chance for particular section of people were treated as slaves,but mentioning a community as slaves is unconstituional since slavery is abolished by the constitution of India.Degrading a community status is a punishable offence under India law (Promoting enmity between different classes and endangering Integrity of India.Some times some truths cannot be exposed in public.(India was once a slave nation to british,for this single reason India cannot be introduced as former slave of british).I Hope all the admins can understand well.I welcome more research and discussions about the article.I am not against removing unreliable information(without sources).But I am against discrimination in the name of religion,caste,culture,language.I Hope wikipedia will protect the true spirit of knowledge and human freedom. is promoting discrimination. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajaRajan Tamilian (talk • contribs)
 * I agree. I very much doubt that "Paraiyar" means slave. None of the three sources cited say that. This source says that it was used interchangeably with words meaning slave. That wouldn't be the case if the word itself meant slave. I think this was WP:OR. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there are four sources say "Paraiyar" means slave. All information should be in here as per WP:CENSOR. --Ant a n O 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide quotes that establish what you are claiming. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the OED, the literal translation - from Tamil and Malayalam - is '(hereditary) drummer'.  --regentspark (comment) 21:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks RP. I think I saw this meaning in an earlier version of the article. It seems to have been removed inexplicably.
 * This source says that only the Pariyars of Malabar were enslaved, those in other districts weren't. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Translation" seems wrong. "Synonym" might be appropriate in context, eg: Raj era. I'm not in a fit state to review the sources at the moment, which I guess includes determining population densities if we may have to debate about where X was called Y. I doubt that where something actually happens defines much at all - generally speaking, it doesn't when it comes to name-calling etc - but there probably is something to investigate here. It will probably get complicated because there is also the definition of "slave", eg: indentured vs. reality of the situation. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, user (RajaRajan Tamilian) should not accuse other editor since I am not this particular community or against the community. By saying AntanO is promoting discrimination is not going to give anything, but deal with the subject. See User talk:RajaRajan Tamilian to understand what I was did.

I have found that pariah means a person who is hated and rejected by other people, an outcast, etc. So, work on the right area rather than removing the content and restore. It is not a good way of editing. --Ant a n O 19:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let us not worry about the meanings of the English word "pariah." Things are complicated enough already. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Slave
I'm removing the translation slave part from the lead. The OED clearly states in its etymology of Pariah that Paraiyar means 'hereditary drummer' in Tamil and Malayalam. Our article has three sources attached to 'translation slave' and neither the first nor the third support the translation. The second is off line and cannot be verified. As long as there is no clear reference in support of the translation, it shouldn't be in the article. --regentspark (comment) 00:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Nandanar
[Moved from Talk:Pariyar]

I admit that ambiguity exists about the caste identity of Nandanar. The idea that he was a Pulaiyar is apparently from the Periya Puranam, which is evidently a Brahmanical rendering. The description of his background as leather worker fits the identity of Paraiyar. Eleanor Zellot herself admits this, and this source is much more explicit about it. I think it is best to include him here and note the uncertainty around the caste in a footnote. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you meant to drop a note at Talk:Paraiyar. Sure, feel free to add it with a reference. I removed the earlier bit, because that particular part of the Moffatt book talked about untouchables in general, not specifically Paraiyars. Just keep this in mind -- the connection of Nandanar, Tiruvalluvar etc. to the Paraiyar caste is a modern reconstruction -- no sources contemporary to those people mention them as Paraiyars. So, that content would belong in the "British colonial era" section. 17:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have now read through George L. Hart's papers. It appears that Pariayan appears only once in the Sangam literature (in Puram 335). But Hart thinks the parai drum is probably the same as kinai, and kinaiyans appear quite frequently. The generic term for the low-status groups appears to be pulaiyan, and Hart says this is the same as how paraiyan is the generic term now. Are you happy for me to cover these matters?
 * Secondly, according to Burton Stein, paraiyan became generic term for low-status groups during the Chola period, when all the new forest-dwelling groups were integrated into that group. So it doesn't appear to be a modern reconstruction. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks OK. Go ahead and update the article. utcursch &#124; talk 00:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Done updating. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've not really been following the recent changes but "acclaimed saints" seems like peacockery to me. And the use of "scholars" is weaseling. I have no firm opinion about Hart: linguists come and linguists go, and etymologies change according to which ever linguist happens to be de rigeuer. I certainly would be wary of overstating a case. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, changed "acclaimed" to "venerated" (the same description on the Nandanar page). Note that there was some process of "canonisation" here. I added the mention a couple of scholars re Bhakti, but I think there are a lot of them that question the Bhakti rhetoric. As for Hart, I don't believe we are overstating the case. Rather we seem to be overstating the case that there was no mention of Paraiyar before the Rajaraja Chola's time. My point is that the nomenclature might have changed, but the idea of `low caste' corresponding to leather workers goes back a very long time. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Lets state the facts. Paraiyar is always used to mean slave castes
In traditional tamil society paraiyar is used interchangeably with the word slave.By not mentioning the paraiyar as slave caste of ancient India a grave in-justice is being done to the community. SOcial justice can be given only if every one is well aware of facts so that the same mistake is not repeated.My request to mention the "Paraiyar as slave caste" so that facts are not suppressed.

Proof provided.

Dialogue and History: Constructing South India, 1795-1895 By Eugene F. Irschick Page 169 

The Pariah Problem: Caste, Religion, and the Social in Modern India By Rupa Viswanath Page 3 

Global Capital and Peripheral Labour: The History and Political Economy of ... By Ravi Raman Page 67 

The Pariah Problem: Caste, Religion, and the Social in Modern India By Rupa Viswanath Page 594 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veera pandyan (talk • contribs) 22:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming that these sources are reliable, I don't think we can say 'slave caste' up front in the lead because the word 'slave' needs to be contextualized and the term 'slave caste' would .need to be defined. (Also, presumably, members of the caste today are not slaves?). Bottom line, Paraiyar is a caste which may have had characteristics of agricultural slavery. If the latter is true, then that can be explained in the body but, in the lead sentence, no. --regentspark (comment) 01:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the slavery issues need to be covered, and I have been researching them. We can revisit the lead after the content is developed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Kathir1992 edits
There are several problems with your edits today which reverted here:
 * Your edit makes it appear as if sambavar and valluvar are synonyms of pariayar. But you haven't provided any reliable sources for this claim, and those terms have their own pages currently.
 * You have added content within sourced segments. You can't do so unless the source mentions your new content. You haven't said whether it does.
 * You have also modified sourced content without explanation.
 * You have deleted a key sentence sourced to Basu 2011. Even after reverted it, you deleted it again.
 * You have added various personalities, not all of whom appear to be notable. You need to provide evidence of notability, unless these personalities are already described in separate pages.

Your habit of labeling all edits as "fixing typos" is irritating. You need to make an effort to accurately describe the edit made, and when it needs explanation and/or justification, provide it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)