Talk:Paravar/Archive 1

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.

Lathead 12:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Table
Please feel free to modify the table I have added. I have used the colour blue to signify sea Doctor Bruno 15:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issues
This article obviously has very serious copyright issues, as much (perhaps all?) is copied from other sources. We'll have to figure out whether we should just delete it all or if anything is original and salvagable.--Pharos 09:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The article will get refined in due course. Any article written by volunteers, is bound to have some "inspirations". Portions which are violating copyright has to be removed. But to delete an article jusst because a few points are copied may be painful for other contributors Doctor Bruno 19:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There are serious bias attached to the article, it reads like a mild-toned Christian hagiography. NPOV is seriously violated

Livingstone
Can some one clarify the confusion associated with this actor being added and removed in the listDoctor Bruno 00:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Seperate Article for Conversion
Can we have a seperate article for the Conversion section Doctor Bruno 15:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The page lacks consistency
Could someone with knowledge in this area please make a decision as to whether the group of people should be referred to as 'Paravas' or 'Paravars'. I do not know which is the predominent spelling. Pheasantplucker 23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Paravars is the correct spelling Doctor Bruno 15:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Move to Paravars
Can this page be moved to Paravars and a redirect placed at this page Doctor Bruno 01:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Style Editing
This page reads as being fairly awkward and unclear to me right now. I am going to try to fix it up as best as I can over some time but I will have to take it in chunks. I've started with and cleaned up the introduction today. One question though, from my admittedly limited knowledge of Romance languages La Pescaria would have to do with fish and not pearls. Someone who knows Portuguese might be so kind as to answer? Dalassa 04:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've tagged this article for cleanup to address the issues I've brought up earlier and because I currently do not have enough time to do the job properly. Right now it needs major editing to make it read like an encyclopedia.Dalassa 13:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Added category
Added category indian christians.--71.30.177.228 06:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Paravar and maravars
The paravars and maravars were the two royal kshathriya clans of Pandya kingdom,who controlled sea and lands of ancient tamilnadu.Now both these communities got alienated from each other due to political reasons.One of reasons is the conversion of sea faring parava caste to christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.78.179 (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Paravar's claim is relevant
This is not for any kind of false propaganda.Pandyan flag itself signifies they are meenavar.Also,loads of tamil texts call pandian as Meenavan.Ref.Tamil dictionaries too.Coining of the term Meenavan itself is so obvious that Paravars are Pandyas.Pandian Nedunchezian,the greatest among pandias was called as Parathava Thalaivan,Then parathavar Pore yeru and also Maravar Maan. Till before the conversion of paravars to christianity,Paravars and Maravars were collectively called as pandyas,right before the muslim invasion only Paravar and Maravar kings had the title of "Pandian" as their surname.No other communities claiming pandyan lineage had those titles of pandyas.Mutharayars,who are a separate caste now,were before a sub caste of ancient Parathavar.They too got alienated soon after the conversion of paravars to christianity. Inscriptions and reliable notes on the Pandiapathy palaces provide evidences for their last war against moors and vadugas.Aapa nadu Maravars and Korkai Parathavars combined forces fought against vadugas to resist them. Also,pandian means the oldestie)Palayor in tamil.The name palayor was given to parathavars in many old tamil texts.Mohenjadaro inscriptions say about the fishing background of the people of Indus valley. "முன்னீர் விழவின் நெடியோன்

நன்னீர் மணலினும் பலவே"

Oldest tholkappiam text saying that pandians after losing their first capital "Then Madurai" ,started to rule back by worshiping the sea goddess. "மறப்போர் பாண்டியர் அறத்திற் காக்கும்

கொற்கையம் பெருந்துறை முத்து"

"பாண்டியன் - புகழ்மலி சிறப்பில் கொற்கை முன்துறை

அவர்கதிர் முத்தமொடு வலம்புரி சொரிந்து" Korkai Pearl fishery was directly under the control of pandyan heirs.Pandyas done the pearl fishery and ruled the land of korkai.Lot of inscriptions and tamil text provide information that Paravars ruled korkai (even the article in hindu mentions the same).Obviously,Paravars should be the pandyas. Pandyan was called,Parathava thalaivan,Mutharayan,Kurukulatharayan,Kadalan Vazhuthi,Chandra Varman etc..Which were the surnames of Paravas.Only after Paravars got converted to christianity,they lost all their fame and fortunes.Also,that alienated us from our akins Maravars and Mutharayars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.98.20 (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The big question Linguisticgeek is asking is: where are you getting your information? The policies of Wikipedia state that sources are required and original research is disallowed. If you can show us where you got your information, we'd be happy to help you properly cite it so that you can effectively contribute. Ishdarian&#124; lol wut 08:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

From sangam literatures...i have mentioned a lot of times.In Mathurai Kanchi,Patinapalai,Silapathikaram,thiruvilayadal puranam,kallithogai.I have added those sources in references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.75.231 (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Protection
The Paravar article is tagged for original research or unverified claim.You have mentioned that proof for paravars claim for pandyan lineage is not precise.The precise proof will be submitted for reference with Page no and ISBN no details soon.But,Other History and claims of cheiftainship are given ample proof.only the pandyan lineage bothers.But the total artcle has bee tagged as unverifiable claim.So,kindly change the line,"Paravars are the prideful heirs of Pandyas"into "Paravars claim to be the prideful heirs of Pandyas" and remove the tag.Soon the truth will be revealed with ample proofs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharani Maran (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Herewith I have attached a link of scholarly reference you were asking. History of the Tamils: from the earliest times to 600 A.D. By P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar http://books.google.com/books?id=ERq-OCn2cloC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

ndian Hist (Opt)

By Reddy

http://books.google.com/books?id=CeEmpfmbxKEC&pg=SL1-PA247&dq=paradavar&hl=en&ei=T1SLTLneCoTUvQOzpekX&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=paradavar&f=false

Śaṅgam polity:the administration and social life of the Śaṅgam Tamils

N. Subrahmanian Paravars are said to be ferocious warriors here.

http://books.google.com/books?id=GO21AAAAIAAJ&q=paradavar&dq=paradavar&hl=en&ei=0lSLTLz6NYSEvgPk85H5BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAzgo

Sooner,more and more proofs for The Pandyan Lineage of Paravars will be given.Pandyan Parathavan than. Caste, race and religion in India Sarat Chandra Roy (Rai Bahadur) http://books.google.com/books?id=trM8AAAAMAAJ&q=paradavar&dq=paradavar&hl=en&ei=_1SLTMWKGIOyvgPV_OUX&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEYQ6AEwCTgy

South Indian studies

Harōgadde Mānappa Nāyaka, Balakrishnan Raja Gopal, T. V. Mahalingam http://books.google.com/books?id=eOUgAAAAIAAJ&q=paradavar&dq=paradavar&hl=en&ei=71mLTMTMK4XuvQOG8MwX&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEQQ6AEwCDg8

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharani Maran (talk • contribs) 10:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sooner,more and more proofs for The Pandyan Lineage of Paravars will be given.Pandyan Parathavan than. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharani Maran (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am able to give many references concerning the low caste status of the Paravar; here is one:, "Many of the Paravar are today tappers.". Stop your POV, vandalism, falsifications else i will provide more & more refs to show low caste status of the Paravar.83.202.182.67 (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok..come with the proof of Paravar as toddy tappers.Any author of some other caste can write any thing bad about other caste.Stop saying that paravar as low caste.Come and say this at Tuthukudy to any paravar,if you are bold enough.We have sangam literatures,Scholarly researches(neutral researchers like P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar,N.Subhramanian and Hugh Nevil) and other stone and copper plate inscriptions to prove our regality.Ask about Paravars to Kondayam kottai Maravars,who were the protectors of Pandya kingdom.Thevars respect only the Paravars equalent to them.Dont speak rubbish of Paravars,with out knowing anything.Come and speak (argue) with your real name and caste name.Dont be cowardice as a bitch to make sound with out expressing your identity.Come with your F**king proofs.


 * Ok, no pb:


 * Portuguese discoveries dependencies and missions in Asia and Africa Par Alexander James Donald D'Orsey "He first visited the Paravars, a low Caste, chiefly fishermen..."


 * The history of Christianity in India: from the commencement of the ..., Volume 1 Par :James Hough "These were the Paravars, a very low caste,..."


 * Encyclopaedia of backward castes, Volume 2 Par M. L. Mathur


 * Christian pluralism in the United States: the Indian immigrant experience Par Raymond Brady Williams


 * India, the perfidies of power: a social critique Par P. Radhakrishnan p 137


 * Is it enough or do you want more ? 83.202.182.67 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

hello Mr.unknown... As I said earlier,anyone can say ill of other castes easier.Those authors came after the british colonialisation.Those people just took the plight and condition of paravars at their time of living.But our sources are from sangam literatures(sangam age),the age at which pandyas and real inhabitants of the tamil country were at the zenith.Poetry and literatures of such glorious age says Parathavar were esteemed noble people.Some hybrid castes and corrupted castes later started calling the initial inhabitants as low caste.your evidences are kiddish and you seem to be school boy.Dont argue once again.If u dare enough,tell your name and your caste name.Go and consult any tamil scholars or neutral researchers.Come to thuthukudy,(korkai) and see,who paravar are.Dont argue with this kind of half baked researches and so called,proofs in ur language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharani Maran (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Tags
since the article is being cleaned i think problem templates should stay.the clean up done until now is not sufficient. Linguistic ''' Geek 03:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC) hey geek.the tag seems irrelevant.the proofs are provides,books by P.T.srinivasa Iyengar are quite reliable and precise saying paraavar are pandias,I ve come across the research work of hugh nevil also,he says Maravar and parawar were one and the same tribes before.History of Ramnad confirms it.Both the tribes were believed to be the initial tribes,unlike other castes like nadars(shanars) and pallars,they have got lots of historical proofs since sangam ages.so,it may not be original research.But the claim kshatriya seems confusing,there was no such term of kshatriya in tamil society.remove the kshatriya term and tags07:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthropologic Geek (talk • contribs)

The pandian claim is supported by sangam sources stating that Pandian Nedunchezian as Parathavar Warlord and his victory celebrated by parathavars,by the source from Mathurai Kanji .Hope you will understand things.Sangam age was the age when Pandians were at their zenith.Sources from that point of time are quite reliable and precise than any ones research.Even more proofs from anciant tamil literatures are to be provided.So removing the original research tag,since the claim is not my own research or any paravar research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharani Maran (talk • contribs) 10:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
I was asked to look into this article and while I do not know enough to arbitrate the issues it is clear that there are at least some neutrality issues. These may just be to do with wording, (for example I can't tell if the description "prideful" is meant to be a positive or a negative thing but it certainly isn't neutral and neither is describing Muslims as "arrogant") or there may also be a much deeper POV which I am too unfamiliar with the subject to be sure about. I do know that whenever I see a subsection called "Conclusions" that this should ring alarm bells. It indicates that an argument is being advanced.

I don't know much in detail about Indian castes but I do have a vague idea of what goes on. Each caste has a set of legends designed to boost their position in the caste hierarchy at the expense of the others. Of course, each caste disputes the others claims of noble birth. These legends themselves may well be well documented and notable but they are not to be reported as historical facts. Petty bickering over the nobility of each caste is generally not notable and has no place in Wikipedia. Quite apart from anything else it gives a very poor impression.

Editors of all backgrounds must respect each other and work together to document the castes in a genuinely neutral way, reporting their claims when they are notable but neither endorsing them nor repudiating them. I see some very uncivil language in the discussions above. This has to stop now. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC) @ Mr.Daniel Rigal, We promise to maintain neutrality by removing self glorifying terms like 'prideful' etc.But the glorification given by poets of sangam age (approved at the royal sangam of pandyas) are not to be removed.Too many castes may claim noble status and regal claims.But we provide ample proofs supporting our claims by neutral authors and sangam literatures.May i know What confuses you.Kindly write to me in the talk page.I am ready to explain and cooperate.Dharani Maran (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Kindly add up paravar notables,let us not forget the leaders of past.Kindly do consider this appeal.Thanks Dharani Maran (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hossy1992, 3 February 2011
edit semi-protected

Hi. I'd like to edit some paragraphs and contribute constructively here. There are so many faults and myths that I'm appalled at how all these fairy tales have been permitted.

Hossy1992 (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome! This article currently restricts new users from editing the article due to excessive vandalism. You are welcome to make edit suggestions on this page for specific things you wish to change. Once your account it 4 days old and you accumulate 10 edits you will automatically be able to edit the article yourself. Cheers. -Atmoz (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Serious Revamp
Hi there. I came by this page while searching for "Paravas". I have a Parava heritage myself. But what I have seen has shocked me beyond measure. The whole page is a hodge-podge of myths and fables that does not seem to have an iota of truth in it. I feel morally obliged to clean this mess up. The written prose is pathetic. While I know something about the our history I don't know enough to write about it. However I plan to spend an hour every day to really study our history. I have deleted (well, actually commented) many paragraphs which are way off the mark. Introducing changes is a slow and painful process -getting facts right, proper citations... . But please bear with me. I've just started. I need time. Maybe even a year or two. I beg all of you to co-operate and add to the article only what is sensible, and which adds to history. Not old wives' tails. Hossy1992 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr.Hossey.. The claims are real and what harms and hurts you man.Those claims have strong roots.Paravars were mightier at sangam ages..why cant you read silapathikaram,mathurai kanji and other reference documents attached.I am damn sure that you are not a paravar if u edit and put down our glory to feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.165.111.226 (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC) @ Mr.hossey While you refer to study about Paravars kindly get into the subject to the core and study.This is not a tale or bedtime story.Just go through the reference books which we have added to..At the end of your learning,You will surely realize,you are a Pandian Heir.If you have a surname as fernando,just think what might be your surname if the Portuguese advent has not come,just search and research..It will be some Pandian or Arayar (now called rayer) ex.Poobalarayer,Villavarayer.. Rayer came from Arayar-which in tamil mean Arasar.Kindly add which books you are referring to.One request,Kindly avoid few books written by christian missionaries,they just say they rescued the poor fishermen community.Actually they exploited us.Please dont do the mistake of reading researches done by missionaries or religious people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharani Maran (talk • contribs) 13:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits
Hi Mr.Hossy and all, The aristocratic claim and the claim for pandian lineages are having ample proofs.The editing of such references and the facts will not prove the fact as a false statement.The references given are from sangam literatures and researches done by scholars.Paravars are fishers,Pandian kingdom was also fishermen kingdom,pandian was called meenavan,kadalan valuthi.His earlier capitals were Then Madurai and kappadapuram are in vicinity to the sea.only during the third sangam age it is shifted to a sea less madurai.Moreover "Pandinadu Muthudaithu " is a famous quote.The greatest among pandiyas,thalayalanganathu seru ventra pandian Nedunchelian is called as "Then Parathavar Pore yeri".The verses of silapathikaram like "Arasa kumararum paratha kumararum" clearly says the noble position of parathavar in sangam polity. Moreover the research articles mentioned are not written by Paravars.So,Other caste friends,there is no use of creating a feud and falsification in wikipedia.Truth Prevails forever.parathavar are indigenous rulers of pandian kingdom.Kindly dont edit and try to create false mirages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharani Maran (talk • contribs) 12:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Kindly avoid distorting history. Lay down facts. Let the others decide for themselves. You don't need to tell them how great the Paravas are. Neither does being a descendant of some hapless Pandyan heir interest me. It's history I'm interested in. And it need not be entirely flattering. The swagger with which you write is absolutely nauseating. Most sources you site are spurious. Have fun. And don't be too eager to delete.
 * Hossy1992 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have made a few edits, and am planning to make more, in order to help clean up the article. I don't have much knowledge of Indian history in particular, but I am interested in world history. The advantage of having someone who is not an expert working on the article is that it makes it easier to bear in mind the needs of readers all around the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr.Hoosey..Kindly be out of your interests.Dont try to create a impact like you only know about Paravars.Dont ever pronounce Paravars as Paravas in your ,so called english accent.To deal with history,it is essential that there should be some rational and relative thinking to match between the chaotic facts.It is not just a kind of flattering,read almost all literature of tamil,they say the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.165.111.226 (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Carry on as you like. And since Wikipedia allows intellectual dwarfs like you to do the editing I suppose there's nothing much to be done. I've got better things to attend to than undo the changes. I hope someone of good sense intervenes and puts an end to this emotional rant.  Hossy1992 (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I shall try end the rant if I can. Does this IP know something about your accent? You could complain about the implied nationalistic slur, but the best thing is probably to ignore it completely. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's probably for the best to let things be. I wonder why no one else seems to be annoyed at this kind of writing. Maybe the fellow insists on having his way. Hossy1992 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * People who try and turn Wikipedia into a battleground usually get banned sooner or later. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pentadale, 22 February 2011
J. Ephraim Fernandez became the 10th Mayor of Trivandrum (Kerala) and served two consecutive terms. In 1951 & 1953 Source : http://www.corporationoftrivandrum.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=184&Itemid=43 Pentadale (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pentadale (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Being a mayor does not, in my opinion, make someone notable enough for inclusion. Also, we would need a reliable source that verifies that Fernandez is/was a Paravar. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Subdivision origin
Another reason for groupism came from the profession followed by the differnt groups. As people changed professions, they also had to change names to reflect those professions. However they needed to differentiate themselves from people who were already using those professional names. So as people took up farming they had to call themselves Vellala. However since other groups were using Vellala as title, different groups with additional names were created. Thus were created the various groups of Vellala.

Lathead 09:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Removals of copyright violations and OR
We 'cannot directly copy blocks of text from other places. Short quotes are acceptable, when full citations are provided. But using whole paragraphs of other texts instead of our own words is a copyright violation. Second, we also may not draw conclusions from sources, especially primary sources. I'll keep looking at the article, but please, everyone should be careful not to insert information that violates these policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Major copyvio - conversion to Christianity
I have removed the entire content from the "conversion to Christianity" section. It has been lifted from, where it is clearly stated that the info is quoted verbatim from a 1964 book by George Mark Moraes, A History of Christianity in India. Please do not reinsert this section without first reading WP:Copyright. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Vidya Prakash Tyagi
The above author is used as a source for some pretty contentious statements in this article. I've been reading the preview version of the book cited on and off over the last 24 hours and I've got quite a few issues with it. Principally, though:
 * there are loads of misprints, including sentences that are not completed & could therefore cause confusion/ambiguity etc (I do not include typos/grammar in this description as it is "Indian English")
 * aside from a lot of bookshops selling the thing, and the usual publicity blurbs etc, I can find nothing to indicate that the author is notable, that the work has been peer-reviewed etc. Anyone can get a book published.

Are we sure about the reliability of this as a source? Is the author an academic or what? Is the publisher known for producing books of a worthy standard? For those unfamiliar with the issue of reliable sources etc, please read WP:RS. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Assuming it's the same guy, according to University of Mumbai Department of History webpage, "Dr. G. M. Moraes was the first Professor and Head of the Department. He had the distinction of being the General President of the Indian History Congress in a premier body of historians in the country." That does seem to indicate that he is a serious academic; however, it doesn't necessarily make everything he ever wrote a reliable source.  Have you been able to figure out who printed the book?  Self-publishing was far less common in 1964 than today, so it's likely that someone made a decision to print the book, but it would help to know if it was an academic publisher or some other publisher.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with Moraes as a RS, even if there may be other RSs that contradict him. The author I was referring to is the one named in the section heading to this - Vidya Prakesh Tyagi. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, my apologies. Here is a comment from a new editor on the issue:

I moved this up from the bottom, because it appears to be about the same thing sir remove the term padyatcchi from the article.the book here  is pseudohistory not based on anthropology.der are no evidences in this book to prove dey are royal race(inscriptions etc.dey may have been subordinates under pandya rulers but not pandyans themselves.This is my proof here.also according to wiki  pandyas article dey are non tamil naga tribes.i hope u find my info useful.dis all i can do.remove padayatchi sir  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herosince2011 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have some explanation for why it's not a reliable source? If both it and the other you mention are reliable, then policy says we should include both theories and properly attribute them. I will say, though, that your suggested other book is over 100 years old, meaning it may not have up to date information. Again, I'm not saying certainly either way, only that it seems difficult to determine whether one or both meet the reliable sources guidelines.Qwyrxian (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed my response...I'm not so sure the source is reliable...do we know anything more about Gyan Publishing? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd already decided that some of the comments in the article regarding status were misquoting the cited sources - "bigging things up", if you like. But Tyagi is used for other assertions also. Given the hotchpotch nature of the book, with its numerous printing errors, I don't think that the edition can be relied on at all. I have doubts about the author, including for the reasons in the refactored comment above + main at the top of this section, but the edition is definitely useless in my opinion. When there are printing mistakes, including a cut-off sentence on one of the pages being cited here, who can possibly be sure that important phrases/sentences etc have not been omitted which would completely turn the picture round? - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * also these proofs  say dat the identity of pandyans is unknown. also refer the wiki pandyan article  to get more proofs.the wiki pandyan article look fine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herosince2011 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please sign your contributions - type 4 tildes (~) at the end of your post. Also, you cannot use another wikipedia article to "prove" that this article (or any other) is wrong, although I agree that there is a contradiction. I'd already seen these issues that you raise but thanks for bringing them to a wider audience. I'm working on things now and, being of European ethnicity, hope to bring some neutrality to this situation. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * please remove the line dey founded pandyan empire.its highly idiotic..refer edgar thurston please.also not a single line says dat dey were fishermen caste and poor.see all these books — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herosince2011 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fishermen is there and it stays - I cannot understand why you should think that this is incorrect as it is used by multiple sources which appear to me to be reliable. Your own search reveals multiple hits, so I think I must be misreading your comment.
 * Founders stays for now but I've got it in my sights as being a possible exaggeration. All this stuff about them being warriors is seeming to be a little dodgy based on what I've seen so far but I'm not prepared to remove it without doing some more reading around the subject. Have patience please.
 * I've not read Thurston yet because I'm not sure which of the 7 volumes I'm supposed to be reading (although I think vol. 1 & have added that to the citation as an aide-memoire) Do you know which one it is? - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

if u do some reading u wil understand it urself.u wont even need my help to figure out something simple if you do reading.i never said dey were not fishermen. do reading and find out your self — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herosince2011 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

much better, much beter.the article looks better. do some more readinfg.u ll understand the status of the paravas. dey were once a important race.but were reduced to petty fishermen bcoz of caste hindus.u ll surely understand wat i mean if u read more books.

St Francis Xavier
Large chunks of the St Francis Xavier section in this article read suspiciously like a copyright violation, principally the area under the bolded heading about catechists. I've already proved some of it to be lifted almost word for word from The Odyssey of Francis Xavier (Theodore Maynard, 1936) but if I remove that then the section becomes disjointed & frankly nonsensical.

However, the WP policy is that violations be removed immediately and since I cannot rephrase it, I'm going to delete pretty much the entire section. It will be in the history & so can be worked on if anyone wants to reintroduce it in a non-violation form. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maynard might be out of copyright though. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends on the country, as you'll know. But in any event a straight copy & paste is not A Good Thing as there is also plagiarism to be considered. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was also concerned when I did my first pass on sourcing and copyvios prior to you (Sitush). I found lots of other online "copies" of the text, but they all seemed to post-date ours . But it still seemed like a likely copyvio. Until we are sure about the legality of the document (I'll do some research, and, if I can't find it, ask one of our copyright experts), Sitush was right to pull it. It's no big loss if it's out of the article for a few days even if it's valid content. I also agree w/Sitush's last comment--even if it is legal to include, we really should put it into our own words.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh. So, as far as my first initial search shows, for works published between 1923 and 1963 in the US, it is likely that the work is not copyrighted but possible if the copyright was renewed. The problem is that determining whether or not it is copyrighted involves some very extensive research (see note 3 on the policy page). Unless there is some really pressing reason to use the material verbatim, it sure seems to me that it's both better and easier to just summarize and properly cite the copyrighted material rather than copy it entirely. If really necessary, we can pull out a key quotation. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. The verbatim went on for far longer than would normally be allowed on WP, from my limited experience. I'm reworking the entire History/Religion etc stuff at the moment so perhaps let me have free rein for a couple of days and see if we can do without? There will be a lot of "citation needed" tags when I'm done, but hopefully it will make a bit more sense and those tags will only be for existing material, not stuff I have ormay introduce. Obviously, I'm not claiming ownership here - anyone is free to jump in and bugger things up adjust while I'm doing my stuff. - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All sounds good. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

kshatriyas?feudal lords/vanniyar
The title kshatriya was only used by the north indian caste.no south indian caste r kshatriyas.d title feudal lord is also no suitable.the paravars r today considered a poor caste.please dont forget des pointsHerosince2011 (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to find myself at a loss how to respond to your messages. Why do you not edit the article yourself instead of telling others what to do? However, since you make the point above I would argue that the sources I have used and cited indicate that title (meaning a "warrior"). Wikipedia's policies and guidelines say that statements made in articles must be verifiable from reliable sources - they specifically do not say that any statement made has to be true. Since it is impossible to prove a negative (that is, that the title was not used), I feel that the statements must stand. The only way round this would be if you could locate a reliable source which discusses this specific issue and the paradox contained in it. Does this make sense? - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

@ sitush:you are trying to improve the article with neutral stance.We welcome the deed. From the European point of view you are editing the article,kindly do with a Tamil touch too.A user with the name Dharani maran has given some valid reason for their claim.kindly go through his writings also. Also,most of the paravars are catholic and they are listed in Most backward caste,a very few are remaining as Hindus,who are SC,so it would be better,if it is noted as MBC.Also kshatriya refers to warriors also.please do take into consideration of the proofs mentioned under thr header"literal evidence for royal ancestry".that seems to be taken from primary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.132.16 (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Who the Paravas are
The Paravas are a community. Trying to fit them into the Vedic caste system, subtly or otherwise, is quite repulsive. True, they were a very poor people. But that does not make them a 'low' caste. The Paravas don't generally identify themselves with any caste hierarchy. Their zeal and devotion is to the Catholic church and they are not the least bothered of what happens outside their community.

I propose the following changes:

Introduction:
 * 1. Remove the first para. It's blasphemy.
 * 2. Remove the Scheduled Caste tag. They were Most Backward Classes. And one does not need to be ruthlessly negative when dealing with the history of the community. Highlight the good points, first. Don't spoil the fun.
 * 3. They were not "ferocious warriors". That is shit. They were fishermen, have been only that and still are.
 * 4. On further thoughts, rewrite the introduction. It doesn't talk about the Paravas at all. It talks about a Tuticorin in which I'm not interested at all and how it was a 'major' city from 1580.
 * 5. They were not Kshatriyas. Paravas are entirely a Christian community. There are no Muslims or Hindus amidst them.
 * 6. There are no inland Parava settlements. Maybe a pocket or two. Nothing major.

Origin
 * 1.Don't try filling the section with citations. That's what the space at the bottom is for.
 * 2.'descendants of Varuna, the god of the sea'. They didn't jump out of the sea alright? I can attest to that. It doesn't take someone as educated as Thurston to guess that.

History: The history of the Paravas cannot be defined in terms of the three Tamil dynasties that ruled them. Of course one can always alter history to make them fit into the general scenario. But the Paravas were a very reclusive people in terms of their relations with other castes. They paid their taxes and minded their business. The section History ought to have the following subsections instead of the current ones:
 * Sangam Era
 * The Middle Ages
 * Conversion
 * Colonial Period
 * Post-colonial Period

The framework is better suited to expound the history of the Paravas in a logical and sensible manner. Pandyan History:
 * 1.History does not begin with the Pandyas.
 * 2.The Sangam poetry was not written to 'pander' to the likes of the ruling kings. It was just a poetic assembly.
 * 3.The section does not talk about the history about the Paravas at all!!! Rather it's about about circumstances that surround their history casting doubts as to their validity and the like. If you have do have doubts don't put them up at all.
 * 4. The Sangam poets give a very authentic account of the rural lifestyle. They do not need pander to the taste of the kings simply because they do not sing the praises of kings. We take their word if only because we have none other depicting the same. At least their poems are not useless anthems of praises to idols and devils - and that instils enough confidence in me to believe them
 * 5. The word-of-mouth poetry is the authentic source of history for all civilisations. Take the English for example. Beowulf? Do you throw it away 'cause it is by 'word-of-mouth'.
 * 6. Hints of truth have been interspersed in a whole sea of lies.
 * 7. Whoever has written about the Pandyan empire section has tried to be objective, but has just succeeded in showing that either
 * a.He is against the community
 * b.Or, he cannot retain a disinterested coolness - swings from one extreme of perfect paranoia of all that has been written to a blind belief in all myths.
 * c.Is poorly informed but prefers to show off the little he knows, thus distorting history in terms of the little he knows and casting 'educated' doubts on all the rest.
 * 8.'Spiritually bolstered Saivites in Paravar Community'. Nonsense! Don't give me that!
 * 9.There were no Nayanmars from the Paravas. That again is hogwash.
 * 10.Don't fall in love with Edgar Thurston. He depended on hearsay to write his book. However, his description of the economy during those times is very dependable and is probably the only thing he was good at doing. He seems to have taken a rather harsh view against the Muslims. It is probable that he was not aware that it was the Paravas who provoked the war in the first place.

Influx of Arabs:
 * This section is okay(Surprise!)

Arrival of the Portuguese
 * 1. The first para is irrelevant. It talks about the physique of the Paravas and their low scale in the ladder of social hierarchy. Put that under a different heading if anyone so wishes to gloat on it. Have all the fun you want with it but under one & only one section. Please!
 * 2. Apart from that I commend the author of this section. It is a very valiant effort at bringing to ground what seemed, personally to me, a very daunting task.

Occupation
 * 1. This is gross.
 * 2. In every community there are janitors, peons etc. It does not become the profession of the community.
 * 3. Thurston sometimes seizes upon a fancy of his, blows it out of proportion and calls it history. A visit to a Parava village will tell you that several other castes (the washermen, the barbers, the palanquin bearers) live there, but are marginalised. These people were mistaken to be a part of the Paravas, I think.
 * 4. There is no Parathar padai. Wild.
 * 5. Marakkars speak Malayalam. Kayalars, Tamil. Both are Muslims.

Family Names:
 * 1. No one knows if they were endogamous. Am I contradicting myself?

I have a Parava ancestory. While I try to be as objective as I can, it really hurts to see one's history twisted, distorted to the wild fancies of half-informed fools. One retard goes out and the next comes in. I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to Parava history but I do try to take things in the right spirit and try to make them interesting. It is very sad that a people cannot write its own history and the representatives it sends are crooks and retards who go around claiming all sorts of stuff. But I deeply appreciate the work that has been done here, though I may have differences in views. I have come to believe that it is not my lot to keep fighting with a dozen people to show them that pride and authenticity are completely unrelated and that it does take a certain bit of grit and self-effacement(wow, talk about that!) to write real history. I wish all the luck for the contributors of this page. Hossy1992 (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding your proposals - verify them. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Paravar history does not start with Muslim influx and paravars are not born out of catholic ancestors.they had a history before Muslim invasion.They were also Hindus and there are Hindu paravars now too..do a perfect study and comment on things.Even though no one is gonna give the entire pandian kingdom kingdom to us and make us rule again,history should never be forgotten nor falsified.kindly make a clear study with broad views,don't confine yourself only to present day catholic paravars thinking...I myself a catholic fernando,with paravar spirit and knowledge about history.sooner,valid points regarding paravars and their history will be revealed.give me some time,meantime you peopla also do some honest,neutral study and improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.132.16 (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If contributors to this talk page spent less time arguing & dictating, and more time providing evidence then things would move much more quickly and smoothly. I am at present working towards what will hopefully be a big improvement in the quality of this article & I welcome input, including to queries which I have raised inthe sections above. What I do not care for is people passing judgement on what is, at present, a fairly rapidly moving target. I am doing the best I can with the time that I have available - some things would be quicker if I had a bit of help with sources etc, if not the text itself, but instead of that it seems to me that this is just degenerating into point-scoring. I do not "own" this article and I do need assistance; what I do not need is to keep coming to this page and finding it to be merely a distraction. So, please, if you make a statement here then back it up with a source. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec--this was directed at the original poster) I'm with Sitush on this. I understand that it is very difficult to verify lots of claims, and that a lot of knowledge about groups/tribes/castes in India is often in the basis of oral history or local documents. Unfortunately, Wikipedia requires all claims to be backed up by reliable sources. To show what I mean, your comment about "Origins", says, "Don't try filling the section with citations. That's what the space at the bottom is for." couldn't be more wrong. In fact, most (although not all) Wikipedia editors consider a very high number of inline citations to be ideal. It's the only way that other readers and editors can easily verify all of the information in the text. So, if you can provide reliable sources that verify your claims, we can certainly consider revising the article.
 * To Sitush--I really do appreciate your work on this. I think you're doing a great job with what you have.  There is no doubt that our articles on India are currently some of the weakest on the site, lacking in citations, including an excess of promotional material or personal opinions, etc. I think what you're doing on this article is quite helpful.  Don't worry too much about the comments--don't forget that most of the commenters don't understand the Wikipedia culture which requires reliable sources, and I think that most of them sincerely believe that they are saying "The Truth". Over time, we'll bring some of them into the fold, and we'll get there, in a few decades or so.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

for your kind information, kshatriya(meaning warrior) is a title used by only north indian HINDUS.dey had to perform hindu rituals and other customs.refer the article Rajput the real kshatriyas.the paravas didnt have that rights as hindus.my proof is here [] [] [] [].the vanniyars r not paravas o anything related paravas.dis is my proof for dat.[]Herosince2011 (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If the term in the article is followed by a "citation needed" then you can safely assume that I have not yet agreed with it/proven it. These things take time. On the other hand, it is is cited then I've found a source for it, end of. All but one of your "proofs" do not mention the term - like I said, it is hard to prove a negative. There is one point where the 1901 census is discussed and the possible controversy is made apparent - the use of the word "claim" is perhaps significant. The last of your "proofs" does mention the term but I have not yet read the work in full & am unwilling to take one page out of context. Looks like a useful source, though, so I will dig into it, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Parathavar are presently a middle class people,but historically they were rich at ancient times. One more proof from Tamil Literature By M. S. Purnalingam Pillai, Maravars,Eyiners and Parathavar belong to naga,which means a defence tribe Again,Edgar Thurston describe the plight of paravars,Paravars were armed with bows and their hordes terrified their enemies, ,one more text supporting the claim ,Census of India,1971 Proof stating the greatest among Pandyas,NedunchezianIII has his army with majority of Paravars,hence there was a Parathavar Padai. Journal of the Sri Venkatesvara Oriental Institute,Volumes 14-15 Proof stating Parathavar as seafarers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.165.111.226 (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * wealth - I am aware that some Paravars became wealthy - this issue is currently being expanded towards the end of the Christianity section. However, your statement that this was in "ancient times" in not supported by the snippet which I can see. I've got a feeling that it was always the case that the headmen were wealthy relative to the rest of them, but that does not make the entire caste (or even the majority of it) wealthy.
 * Tamil literature - this does not support your thesis of wealth
 * defence tribe - so what? The article already says that they had armies for defence
 * Thurston - please can you use this version for your evidence - it is the full copy from 1909 rather than a snippet view reprint from 1987. This will enable me to put things into context. Bear in mind that Thurston is mostly quoting what other people say & then adding his notes to it, so you need to read the entire section + notes, not just one or two sentences
 * You second source uses Kuppuram and appears to be quoting exactly the same thing as Thurston - it adds nothing
 * 1971 census - I can only see this in snippet view, it does not seem to support your comments and in any case there is no context
 * Krishna - seems to support what you say but I have no idea whether it is a reliable source & whether or not it goes on to discuss the issue
 * Devi actually seems to say that Paravars were sometimes enlisted into the army, whereas others always were. The word "ferocious" in this book also works against you (presumed) POV, because it refers to those other groups, not the Paravars. I'm also not convinced about the publisher. Is the author reliable, eg: an academic at a university?
 * the Oriental Institute source may be useful but I can only see a snippet & so there is no context. Can anyone find the entire article please.
 * seafarers - the article already says that they were seafarers. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Paravars are not low caste people.They are fishermen,now after Brahmanism the occupations involving killing of other lives were seen as low jobs and look down by other people.previously,the civilization was hunting and fishing based one.The ancient Dravidian were Villavar and Meenavar,now called Chera and Pandya.No king had a compulsion or need to emphasis his caste name deliberately at that point of time and only few poets and scholars while praising the kings in their verses used the caste names of kings.Regarding Pandyas,Pandyas were praised with Parathavar names,especially the sea faring names like Parathavar Pore Yerei,Kadalan Valuthi etc...No OTHER caste name is directly refering pandian as Parathavar does.Also,Principal symbol Fish,and the fisher deity Meenakshi,are also supporting paravar claim.Also,Initial capitals of Then mathurai and Kappadapuram are vicinal to sea,(Neithal land),which was undoubtedly ruled by paravars.Later during third sangam age the capital is shifted to present day madurai.Also,Arratipatti inscriptin says about "Ilanji Vel",Ilanji is a place near courtallam,not a coastal land,it is an inland area,which obviously says Parathavar rule was not only on the coastal area also along the interior regions.Well,all these support paravars as subordinate velir and not pandyan. Let us come with the appraisal as "Then parathavar por yerei","Warlord of Southern Parathavar Clan,It was given to NEDUNCHEZIAN III,who was the greatest among pandya kings.Also,Chola king who was ruling the chola kingdom north to pandyan empire,called Ilanseth chenni after defeating Vaduagar of north and Parathavar of south,which means the paravars were the rulers of south (ie the pandyan empire) and he defeated them(Then Parathavar Midal saya Vadavadugar Vaal otiya).No other caste who claim for pandyan ancestry could provide such solid evidences. Regarding Athipatthar,a saivaite,one among 63 nayanmar is a parathavar dwelt at nagapattinam. Removed schedule caste tag,because 95 percent of Paravars are catholics,among them Paravars in Kanyakumari District are in Backward caste,other districts it is Mostbackward caste and only few hindu paravars in kanyakumari district along with kerala paravars are in schedule caste. removed some ocupation like palanquine bearers and peons like that,that is most common in every caste,so removing the occupations.Kindly add only occupations common and unique to this particular caste. Regarding the title Padayatchi,it is the most common title used among hindu paravars of Tirunelveli and Nagercoil region,They are titles and cannot be recorded in govt gazzette since it is used by some others also.No caste can provide proofs for their title names and surnames. Kindly ask references for which ever claim in this article seem irrelevant.One more kind request @sitush:Kindly do the same kind of neutral edits in all caste articles of South India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharani Maran (talk • contribs) 08:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Kindly add the following,these are from primary sources of tamil literatures


 * I am ignoring the above comntribtuion. There is no cited evidence, primary sources are not usually permitted on Wikipedia and non-English sources are deprecated. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Paravar, Parathavar, Parathar,paruvatharajakulam,Bharathar's, Literal Evidence for Pandyan Royal lineage
The famous Pandya king Thalayalanganathu seru vendra Pandiyan Nedunchezian was given an appraisal as Then Parathavar Pore Yerei ( தென் பரதவர் போரேறே ),which means,the royal war lion of southern Parathavar clan and calls him  Parathava thalaivan பரதவ தலைவன் .Also,Cholan Ilansetchenni after defeating the pandyas and vadugas was praised as  தென் பரதவர் மிடல் சாய, Also,the chilapathikaram verses say,Arasar murayo Bharathar murayo ( அரசர் முறையோ பரதர் முறையோ),also the verses like

"மேவிய கொள்கை வீதியில் செறிந்துஆங்கு/On the aisle of the castle

ஐம்பெருங் குழுவும் எண்பேர் ஆயமும்/the Distinguished Five members crew and Eight major wings

அரச குமரரும் பரத குமரரும்/Along with Kings men and Bharathar men

கவர்ப்பரிப் புரவியர் களிற்றின் தொகுதியர்/The knights and Elite War Elephant force

இவர்ப்பரித் தேரினர் இயைந்துஒருங்கு ஈண்டி"/And the Chariots were marching to celebrate the "Indira Vila"

இந்திர விழவு ஊர் எடுத்த காதை -160 , these verses of Chilapathikaram says the glory of Bharathar" and the glorification of Kovalan as  பரதவ குமரன்  gives a clear cut evidence that bharathar were in a highly esteemed noble position. Tamil dictionaries provide the same meaning for the word Parathavar பரதவர்-தென்திசைகள் குறுநில மன்னர் ie) Parathavar-Kings and Chieftains of South. Also evidences say that a sub clan of Paravars,called Chavalakarars were the spearmen of the Pandyan army and "Kazhakath tamil Agarathi" confirms the same (சவளக்காரர்-ஈட்டி ஏந்தி போர் புரியும் வீரர் ) ie)Chavalakarar-Spearmen of the army.

Arattipatti Inscription
 * MADURAI SEPT.14. A rare 3rd century B.C. Tamil Brahmi inscription found near Madurai recently has brought to light the fact that not only Pandyas and Cheras but the chiefs of the coastal region in the State also patronised Jainism in the early period. The discovery by a team of epigraphists, who undertook a survey at Arittapatti in Melur taluk, is a remarkable evidence of history of early Tamil politics, culture and language, State Archaeology department sources said here recently.

The inscription was found engraved in a cave of a hillock, where early Jain monks stayed and preached their faith. It is just four feet away from another Brahmi inscription discovered by some scholars in 1971. "Since this new inscription is carved with very thin strokes and illegible, it had not attracted the attention of the scholars so far in spite of their frequent visits to this cave," say the sources.

The inscription, engraved as a single line with 33 letters and running for 3.10 metres, reads as follows: ilanjiy vel mapparavan makan emayavan nalmuzhaukai kotupithavan. It means, "Emayavan, son of Mapparavan, cheif of Ilanji, has caused the carving of this auspicious cave." It has been written in the Bhattiprolu (Andhra Pradesh) casket inscription method and so all short consonants have long strokes. As the orthography of this inscription resembles that of Mangulam inscriptions (also in Madurai district), its date may be assigned to 3rd century B.C., say the sources.

`Ilanji' denotes the name of a place, while `Vel' means cheiftain. Ilanji Vel might have been a ruler of a small territory around Ilanji. There is also a village near Courtallam with the same name. Emayavan, cheif of Ilanji, was the son of Mapparavan. `Paravar' denotes the people of coastal region settled in southern districts of Tamil Nadu. `Muzhaukai' means the cave in which the inscription is found and the prefix, `nal' auspiciousness.

The same word, `Nalmuzhaukai' occurs in Varichiyur Brahmi inscription also. The previous inscription found at Arittapatti also bears the word `Muzhagai', which also means cave. One of the Sangam works, `Madurai Kanchi' refers to the battle among Paravars for the supremacy of Pandiyan Kingdom,where other Paravars and their Chera,Chola allies were defeated by Pandyan Nedunchezhian. Even the Velvikudi copper plate speaks of the defeat suffered by Tenparavar at the hands of a Pandya king, the sources point out.

All this evidence makes clear that the Paravars were the cheifs of the coastal region and they ruled their areas as subordinates of the Pandyas of the Sangam age. The previously discovered Brahmi inscription at Arittapatti also mentions about a chief from Nelveli (now Tirunelveli region). The inscription throws light on the proximity the chiefs of Nelveli to the Pandyas of Madurai in the Sangam age.

As many as 60 Tamil Brahmi inscriptions were found during the past over 100 years from 15 villages including, Mangualm, Anaimalai, Azhagarmalai, Tiruvadavur, Keezhavalavu, Tirupparankundram and Varichiyur.

The epigraphists, comprising P. Rajendran, V. Vedachalam, C. Santhalingam and R. Jayaraman, as per directions of the Commissioner of Archaeology, R. Kannan, undertook the survey.

Source:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharani Maran (talk • contribs) 08:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * First, just to clarify, all of the sources you have at the beginning (the carvings, the poetry) are not good sources, because they are what Wikipedia calls primary sources. That is, they may only be used for very simple factual statements, with zero interpretation.  The Hindu article that discusses these, on the other hand, is more useful.  However, even that is of questionable youth--the problem is, we generally consider newspapers to be good sources for historical analysis.  If the researchers who uncovered and examined the carvings/writings had written entries in reliable academic journals, that would be better.  However, it's likely that some of that info can go in; I think that's the stuff you just added that I copy-edited; I'll try to take a look in more detail at another time. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Qwyrxian. I've been through your edits and removed a lot of them. Not all - there were a couple of useful citations in there. Basically, what you seemed to have done was revert to statements which I had previously edited out as being unreliable, original research, primary sources, clearly demonstrating undue weight etc. You should not do this without good cause: reinstating demonstrably poor material merely creates more work.


 * One specific area of concern to me was the way you clearly were trying to push a POV in the Occupations section. Please, do not do this - Wikipedia requires its articles to be neutral. Also, in the Etymology section it is no good citing sources for the stories (for example, we know they made salt and we know of the sea legend): what is needed here are citations showing that there is a connection, demonstrated by a reliable source, that the name originates from something. You cannot presume that connection yourself because that is WP:OR:original research. Just because there is a legend about being born of the sea does not in itself mean that a caste name originates from the legend. Etymology is tough - really tough if you are not a historico-linguist - and I often wonder whether it would be easier just to leave these sections out of most articles. Even more so when we also have to deal with issues of transliteration. It is a highly specialised area of research and, frankly, these sections rarely add much to the content.


 * Thanks for your work, though. Some of it has survived and adds to the veracity of the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)