Talk:Paravar/Archive 2

Archiving
I've turned on auto-archiving. Once a day, threads on this talk page with no replies after 31 days will be automatically moved to an archive page by a bot. This makes the talk page easier to navigate and helps ensure that people don't reply to very old conversations that no one is watching anymore. If anyone objects, let me know and I can stop/adjust it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-post
There has been some useful activity here over the last 24 hours so I thought I'd refer everyone back to a query that has not been resolved - I'm sure that more than a couple of the recent contributors will have an answer. With any luck, they may even agree . So, take a look at Talk:Paravar. Thoughts would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Kayal - settlement ambiguity
Thurston refers to Kayalars from the town of Kayal. I tried to create a wikilink for this but had to use Chayal. No problem with that but the Kayalpattnam/Chayal article refers to the place as also being known as Korkai. Korkai has its own wiki article here and is referred to near the start of this Paravar article.

I've asked the question on the Chayal talkpage but because of the ambiguity I'm asking it here also: are the Chayal and Korkai wikipedia articles talking about the same place? If they are then not only should they be merged but I need to adjust slightly the content which I have recently added here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, but just would remark that Thurston may count as a primary source since it is so old. I have encountered its use before on Indian society articles. Do we need it? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We need it, at least for now, primarily because it is accessible and seems to be pretty neutral. I'd argue that Thurston is not a primary source because his entire output is based on other sources (at least it is for Paravars, as I have only dipped into other bits) . Age doesn't come into it as far as I can see, and I've seen much more "primary" sources used in GAs. He has been widely quoted over the years. However, if you know of a generalised discussion about this source then I'd be pleased to read it - I'm not a specialist on Indian history or indeed anything Indian (apart from curry eating ). Reliable, secondary sources for Indian history etc seem to be very hard to come by, especially for caste-related subjects: in particular, the native writers seem intent often on pursuing some sort of vendetta. I'm generalising, obviously, but have been digging around a lot these last few days. It is an interesting subject but the transliteration issues make for hard work. - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: I can find nothing at the noticeboards for original or reliable sources re: Thurston. Presumably if the debate has cropped up before then it is on another article's talk page? - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I argued it in relation to many old fashioned sources in Kambojas and related cruft pages. I'll see what else I can look out. I just find it a bit weird to see people these days saying "our group is ancient/high status/a warrior caste - Edgar Thurston said so in the 19th century". Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, got you now. Tense is all-important, eg: they were warriors, were high status etc. The significance of Thurston is that he was a British Raj government official compiling a report for the then government and, I think, this became a standard textbook for those taking examinations for work in the Indian Civil Service. The book (7 volumes) was printed by the government, so taken all round it has quite an official seal of approval. I think the real issue in the attitudes you describe is not Thurston but a level of allegiance to the caste which is beyond the comprehension of people not born into them - it's like been an absolutely fanatical supporter of a sports team, with all the fault that come with such support (including always wanting to denigrate the opposition). I do mention other sources, though, and will be introducing more which were printed much later than 1909 - but they'll say pretty much the same thing as the guy was not far off the mark. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Going back to the original question, there's some definitely conflicting information here. Kayalpatnam sure seems to imply that they are the same town. However, looking at the maps (not the maps in the article, but the maps you can pull up by following the external link provided by the coordinates) seem to indicate locations at least 10 kilometers apart. But it gets stranger; if you drill down on the supposed satellite map for Korkai, you'll see an area that doesn't even appear to be a village (it's more like a road between two other villages). That map doesn't label "Korkai" at all. Further confusing the issue is that the map for Kayalpatnam does show a village named "Kayalpatnam", which is itself a bit surprising given that the article (outside of the infobox) only talks about the historical town from 750+ years ago. Unfortunately, as far as I understand about India (which is not very far), there isn't even a reliable government agency that we can contact, given that local names don't always match larger names, and that what residents may call a village may legally be defined as part of some other, larger entity. I'm not really sure how to go forward with this. Perhaps asking at WikiProject Indian cities? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've sorted it now & details are in the article. Found a decent source that explained it all & then did the exercise you mention above, using maps. Neat trick, that. Did you wear a deerstalker while sifting through the evidence? - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sangam sources
The section "Pandyan History" uses a reference to Thurston's "Castes and Tribes of Southern India" to vindicate its claim that much of South India's past is obscured in myth. Thurston uses Mahabharata and the Puranas to expound upon his version of history. Nowhere does he cite the Sangam literature to establish any of his claims. See. The article then goes on to cite a single source, namely,"History of the Tamils: from the earliest times to 600 A.D." by Srinivasa Iyengar, to establish its claim that the Sangam literature is flawed. This is subject to dispute as Iyengar has not proved this definitely. He is just hazarding a guess.

The author of this section has confused the legends of Mahabharata and the Puranas - two books that are not even remotely connected with South Indian history - with the poetry of the Sangam literature. He does not possess enough knowledge to categorically rubbish any reference to the Sangam sources. I have deleted this paragraph as I find it does not do justice to either the Paravan history or the Sangam literature itself. If anyone finds themselves disagreeing with this, let me know. Hossy1992 (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, not good enough. We've been through this. There are ancient writings which have been deemed to be unreliable. If you want me to list more sources then I will in due course (I have seen them but thought that enough were already listed). Although it is pointless because the things are contrary to policy & the purpose of the paragraph has been explained to you. I'm starting to get a little fed up with your cavalier approach to this - find me the evidence to support your claims please, or leave well alone. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Addition - nowhere does the article say that Thurston was referring to the Sangam literature. You have made that interpretation and then "disproved" it, - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Another - page 16, note 13 of The trading world of the Tamil merchant. And this historian is actually using the sources to bolster his thesis, yet has doubts regarding their veracity. I rest my case. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Look. Let me get this straight. You have improved this article a lot, in ways I never could have. You should be legitimately proud of yourself. But then, you don't own it.
 * You say that certain commentaries explain how South Indian history are shrouded in myth and cite Thurston as a source. Thurston uses two books in his discussion - Mahabharata and Puranas - both of which have nothing to do with South Indian history. We know little of ancient Tamils. But what we know we know for sure. We don't need to depend on myth. That is for the dreamers.
 * Then you add some spurious example from a book by Iyengar, to support your earlier statement. The example as such may not be spurious. But the way you relate them both is and very subtly implies that no ancient Tamil source is to be trusted.
 * Was Iyengar quoting about the Sun and Moon dynasty specifically from the Sangam literature? I want to know this. If he argues against the Sangam literature being untrustworthy does he provide a concrete example where established history goes against what is said in the Sangam era?
 * This book by Kamil Zvelibil finds the Sangam literature accurate. A chapter is exclusively devoted to the discussion of integrity and authenticity in Tamil literature. It doesn't seem to be available.
 * It's simple. For every source you cite against the veracity of the Sangam literature, I can find another in favour of it. But we don't want that, do we?
 * Don't keep harping upon the primary source rule. I quite understand that.


 * The source you cite just says Sangam poetry was idealised. It does not say that the Sangam sources were outright false, does it? Is this the way you cite everything? Taking one single line and then using it to support your view that it is not trustworthy? And squeamish as you are, it's the portrayal of merchants and not the geography that is idealised. I'm tired of this. Have your way. But take a course of logic before that. You'll be needing a lot of it, trust me.

Hossy1992 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you have again misinterpreted the article. Nowhere does it say that Sangam literature is outright false, merely that it cannot be relied upon. Nor did I add the Iyengar source - it has been in the article for ages. I'm also quite happy for you to find proofs but you had not done so and kept reiterating the same original research. Now that you have done so, you have found a book which uses archaelogical evidence to confirm a point that was not in denied. You will never be able to prove their reliability and there are sufficient people who have said in print that they cannot be relied upon, or require large chunks of interpretation and guesswork, that from a Wikipedia perspective they are a non-starter for anything but the most basic things (eg: that one ruler succeeded another). People cannot even agree when these things were written (again, you can have proof of this if you want it).
 * Some of your comments are bordering on a breach of WP:CIVIL now, in being a personal attack on my logic etc, so you are perhaps correct to withdraw. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

''Sangam is a primary source and should not be used per Wikipedia policy. It is also non-English, which is discouraged on English Wikipedia. Since this also appears to be the source of, for example, statements regarding the Lunar Dynasty I would argue that it is also an unreliable source.''

This is exactly what I'm arguing against. I am not reiterating. I'm just trying to make myself understood. The author of this statement is ill-informed. The Sangam literature nowhere has any reference to a Lunar Dynasty. And since the author considers this and many other factors to prove the Sangam texts unreliable, I don't quite agree with him. On the contrary what the Sangam literature does talk about is this: Coastlands "In the moon-white sands of the alleys With thatched palmyra huts and the distinct odour of fish, A village, yet too small for one..." –Ulochanaar, Akanaṉūṟu-200

Coastlands "The Paravas of the low-roofed huts they who kill to live, With precision spear the exulting shark That adorns the sea, as the rainbow the cloudy sky Which wounded, reddens the deep blue sea And the foamy and raging waves embroils, with decreasing strength Draws near the waiting catamarans, each with a man to steady the gaff..." –Ulochanaar, Akanaṉūṟu-210

Coastlands The Paravas of humble dwellings who swiftly sail Their curved crafts amidst the raging sea –Ulochanaar, Akanaṉūṟu-330

The Sangam texts are not word-of-mouth poetry. They are reputed works, by established authors who formed academies or sangams to discuss their writings. Hence the name Sangam. Hossy1992 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I give up. It doesn't matter what you think but what "reliable sources" think. I could quote you the whole of Shakespeare & it wouldn't alter a thing. FYI, the academies are also disputed & by other sources than those mentioned in the article. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole world is under dispute. I'm sick of this. Just do me a favour. If unreliable sources aren't supposed to be in Wikipedia remove all the fancy stuff okay? So long.Hossy1992 (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now re-read this entire thread. It is true that I made the connection here between the Lunar Dynasty and Sangam - that is a brainfart. It is also true that in the article I do not make that connection, nor does Iyengar. The article is what matters. For my error in the quoted sentence above, I apologise, but it makes no odds to the article. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have just reverted recent edits by Hossy1992 which I consider to be disruptive as they remove the points discussed above. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As an example of the disruption, Hossy1992 replaced with "nonspecific" a citation from Thurston saying that the early literature is founded on "mythological fable". - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, yes, I have made changes. Don't make me repeat. You've said
 * Commentators have explained that much of the early history of southern India cannot be substantiated as it is derived from myth using Thurston as source.


 * Commentators? 'A commentator'
 * There is no talk of 'early literature'. As for the literature, it's Sanskrit. It's not Tamil. See:Mahabharata,Puranas.This is as absurd as using a book of French history written in French to prove that English history is shrouded in myth.
 * It's Paravas' history that is founded on mythological fable, if you want it so directly from the text. It does not say much of Tamil history is founded on mythological fable.
 * I will not be replying to further posts, unless other contributors voice their opinion. I rest my case.
 * Hossy1992 (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I refer to numerous commentators, including Iyengar, Thurston and Donkin. "Early literature" means what it says - nothing to do with language. The article is about the Paravas, who were of the area, and you yourself have quoted bits mentioning their name in some early literature. Thurston was talking of Paravars, so was Iyengar; Donkin speaks more generally of the entire corpus. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I note that you have amended your last comment after I had replied - sneaky. But in any case, referring to another WP article to bolster your argument is as good as a circular referece. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to hit a moving target here because you keep editing your earlier comment. There is nothing absurd, per se, in using anything written in any language to make any point about any subject. The issues in selection for use etc are the usual culprits of reliability etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. I amended my last comment. I added the following: This is as absurd as using a book of French history written in French to prove that English history is shrouded in myth. This does not alter the content of my arguments. They merely make them clearer. I note that you have amended your last comment after I had replied - sneaky. This is an ill-considered accusation of impropriety in violation of WP:CIVIL
 * Hossy1992 (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That was not all which you have altered - see . And that is why I think you are being sneaky: you fail to mention the other changes even now. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I still await your evidence for the reliability of the early literature, bearing in mind that Kamil Zvelibil does not cut the mustard because he seems to be saying that he is thrilled to find that anything has been co-related to archaeological evidence. Without such cited proofs, your position is, I am afraid, a non-starter. We've been talking here for ages and you still have not provided an iota of evidence to support your opinion. Please bear in mind, I have not said that the early literature is wrong - it is merely not reliable, and as such fails one of the major principles of Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And can I also enquire why you are seme to be using both a named and an IP account? It may be legit but it is unusual and confusing. See - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is true that that is not all that I have deleted. I have removed the following also:
 * What I want the contributors to do is take a look at all that has gone through. If 50+ % find the current version of the first paragraph alright then that's final. Otherwise, I'll be given a fair chance to write what I think would be a more balanced version of it.
 * The reason for my deleting this is:
 * I had already struck it out. It doesn't matter. No one seemed to be interested in this.
 * I have struck out some of my rude comments. I want them to stand out. If there are too many strike-outs the whole purport and intention is lost.
 * At least I am not an unapologetic moron, as some people seem to be.
 * This, again, does not alter the content much at all.
 * I still maintain that you have breached the rules of WP:CIVIL.


 * As for my alternating user and IP account, it is none of your business. You don't need to fear my not being disqualified for a violation of 3RR. Still, for the sake of letting others know, I forget to login sometimes.


 * I don't believe the Sangam source to be reliable either. You have convinced me so far and I have done some digging around. The sources and examples you site to prove that the Sangam literature is not reliable are not convincing. In fact you are right in most points except one. You refer to a,
 * Tamil belief that three supposedly royal lines - the Cholas, Cheras and Pandyas - ruled the area from the very beginning of the world and were descended from the Sun and the Moon 
 * I will never be able to convince that this is not a Tamil belief. The book by Iyengar states in pg 139 that:
 * In much later times the Brahmanas induced the kings to claim descent from the Sun and Moon who originated the various dynasties of Aryan kings.
 * The tribal names are Sera, Sola and Pandya. These have nothing to do with the Sun and Moon as you claim.
 * Let this be the end of it. If you think it best to remove this line, do. If not, I wish you good luck. You are an excellent editor but also a very stubborn one. I'm stopping because I find this eats too much into my time. True, I have not cited many sources. This was because I was not aware of the importance played by them in Wikipedia. I was convinced that I was right. But I believe that as Sitush points out, I have been rather flippant when it comes to citing sources. All that I have done, I have done in the best of intentions. I've never been emotionally charged, though I may appear to be a little. I was a little vexed only because I couldn't find proper sources in English backing my claims. Thank you all. I have had such an excellent time with you.
 * Hossy1992 (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You changed a timestamp etc also, which can be really confusing. Matters relating to reliability, veracity etc have been mentioned to you on numerous occasions, not just in the last couple of hours. You need to give people time to respond - not everyone who has an interest is looking at Wikipedia everyday, let alone over the few hours before your original striking out of your comment. However, your comment is in any case an integral part of Wikipedia and therefore was probably not necessary - the project works on consensus, as has been pointed out to you on your talk page. I do not claim anything but if I have misinterpreted something then it will be fixed. I do have a sense of integrity but find it difficult to address points raised in a vague manner as I cannot work out what the issue may be. I will revisit Iyengar based on your last comment - you may or may not have a point but at least on this occasion there is a concrete expression that can be investigated - thanks for that. Sitush (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

OK< I've now reviewed Iyengar and can find nothing wrong with what has been said in the article. The article does not say that the Paravars thought this, and the transliteration of the tribal names has been done for consistency with the relevant linked WP articles (where the alternatives used by Iyengar are noted). The article also does not say that this is a current Tamil belief, merely that it was. I'm open to correction, of course. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nadar standings
The line which says tat the paravas thought they were higher than the nadars doesnt make any sense at all.It makes it seem as if the paravars were actually higher than the nadars. refer page 26 of this book. Read 22-23 also of the hardgrave book here .These evidences clearly suggest that the nadars were higher than other low castes.A section among the Nadars called Nelamakarrars had the autohority to command even the brahmins.The paravars lived very remote from other castes and never even allowed to enter Agraharam(Brahmin territory) unlike the nadars.Please make a suitable alteration thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.31.102 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that you have both misread the article and your own quoted source (well, the one I can see at any rate - pp. 23-23 of Hardgrave are not available to me).


 * The articles says that the Paravars thought they were better than the Nadars, which is nothing to do with traditional caste notions. In fact, one of the points is how the Paravar's own internal caste system was disintegrating.


 * The pages you refer to in your source are for the pre-Christianity era, whereas the relevant bit of the article deals with the post-Xavier period. If you look at pp. 30-33 or thereabouts of your own source you will see that the Nadars really believed themselves to be oppressed and of very low status at the time, and then that they subsequently experienced a re-emergence of their fortunes and status.


 * Sorry, but I'm not changing this without better support. Someone else might but if they do so on the grounds of your comments above then they will be doing the article no favours.. May I stress once more on this page that this article is not going to be swayed by modern-day sniping between the various castes etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * well the 'thought sentence' should be acommpanied by sentences like 'However the Nadars were considered a little higher according to the tradional hierarchy' or something. Or else the article would just contains peacock words and lack accurate details. The hierarchy will never change in Tuticorin. The Paravas were not allowed enter Brahmin territories whether they were Christians or not... That line needs additional explanations.I ll quote the lines from the Hardgrave book then (Pg 22-23). The Nadars were neither considered as caste hindus nor lowcaastes. They were considered as the highest of the low castes and lowest of the middle castes. That clearly means that they were higher than the kammalars(vishwakarma) and paravars. All these caste were considered low.The nadars were low too.I am not denyin that. How low is the real question.The Nadars(climbers) were oppressed in regions where they numbered very few for your very kind information. Not in Tuticorin. You are not trying to discuss here. You are just rapidly jumping to conclusions and completely neglecting my opinion regarding this issue. The paravars were not oppressed or discriminated because they were never in a location which had other castes. They lived in a very,very seperate region, faraway from other castes. Please do note this point..The above link I ve provided is hardgrave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.125.156 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem here is that you two are talking about 2 different things, as far as I can see. Sitush is talking about what the sources you provided say.  You (the IP), however, are talking about your opinion drawn from those sources and presumably other places.  However, as far as Wikipdia is concerned, only Sitush's way of speaking here is relevant.  Everything we say must be based only on what reliable sources say.  I'm very concerned about Sitush's analysis of those sources--it looks like 70... either misunderstood or intentionally misrepresented the sources by pulling something from one time period and ascribing it to another.  We need to be very careful to 1) assess the quality of the sources an 2) make sure we represent exactly what they say. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you dont have access to hardgrave,you dont have the rights to write sentences about the nadars.Hardgrave is the first and only anthropologist to study the nadars in detail. Hardgrave is a valid wiki source.Period. Even we can write blunt sentences like the nadars thought they were only inferior to the brahmins because they thought they were kshatriyas. BUt the last line is completely different from the truth.The Nadars were actually considered lower than other middle castes. Someone is pointlessly trying to elevate the paravars' status and conceal the truth. The first paravar para states that they were ferocious warriors. The paravars were mostly fisherman and poor. They are still considered a most backward community and in some regions around kaniyakumari they are a schedule caste. All tis is really idiotic. The line which says they ' thought' is another way of saying they were 'actually' if there are no sentences near it explaining the actual position held by the Nadars. The highest among the paravars i think was known as thalaivan and the highest among the nadars were nelammakarars. The Nelammaikarrars had the power and authority to control the socially upper caste brahmins, whereas the Thalaivan, paravar elites, just had the authorityto control other paravars. Outside the paravar world they were nothing more than mere fishermaen. I am tired of this wiki user superiority crap. You want proofs.What dont you try to prove that I am wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.234.90 (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The article must be rewritten or altered. The Paravars are a tiny caste.Thats y there r not many books about the caste.People should understand this fact b4 editing carelessly. Referin 1 book is not enough write a 'CASTE' article because caste is a very complicated concept. If the paravars were ferocious warriors which army did they belong to?? If they thought that they were superior to the Nadars, why are they considered a most back ward caste(the nadars were always considered a Backward caste not most backward) and even as a schedule caste in some regions. If they are really superior,y did they always live so faraway from Nadar settlements and not with the Nadars.Think before you write.This is a major mess up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.123.39 (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please give reliable sources to support your claims. All info in the article must be verified.  Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing the quote from Hardgrave. Unfortunately, I have no idea of the context for it and, as my analysis of the previously suggested source showed, context is quite important. Saying that I should not contribute to the article if I have not read Hardgrave (because H is the only detailed study of the Nadars) is an odd statement: this article is about Paravars, not Nadars, and it should be evident that I have read a lot and massively improved this article over the last few weeks by using reliable sources. Some of whom mention Hardgrave in their own bibliographies/footnotes etc. It is also evident that I have introduced the differences in the sources where applicable.


 * I do not have to prove any person wrong; I merely have to prove my contributions are verifiable using reliable sources, do not give undue weight to any issue, and so on as per WP policies. This article was a complete mess prior to my involvement, as you can see if you check the history. It is probably not far off Good Article status now, the problem being that some would say it is too long/not focussed enough + there are still a few citations needed for the really old statements made before my involvement. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * well good job.if its a article about the paravars why r using the name of the Nadars.To make it look derogatory without any reason? You could have jus mentioned other low caste christians and got on with it.Why write about things you have no idea about. MOreever that line jus has one ref along with it(the bayle book is not exclusively about the paravars but is more about religion). But I have already provided you with 2 refs regardin why that sentence is incomplete.You dont have to read the book by hardgrave o anythin.I am jus asking you to stop writin about things you cant fully comprehend.I can very well see that you re irritated and tryin to prove you are right. I have given you a detailed explanation why that sentence is not right. You are not discussing here. You are just blindly concealing a fact by explaning to me the rules of wiki.What i am trying to provide is also not against wikipedia rules!! I am just askin you to include a line regarding the position held by the Nadars in the caste heirarchy.Or JUs remove the term Nadar frm tat sentence as it is an article abt the paravars. The above anon user is also right. THE paravars are a poor caste and the only christian caste to be considered as a most backward by the government(even christian parayars and pallars are regarded as backward caste).This is a universal truth. As I said there are not many books about the paravars. You should edit this article patiently. Remove that sentence or go through the hardgrave book and write accordingly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.123.39 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. As I have already explained, I cannot see the relevant pages of the Hardgrave book and therefore cannot use it. If at some point I find a copy in a library then I'll read it and, yes, if it turns out to be as you say then maybe something needs changing. Although I doubt this will be necessary because you are not understanding either the article or the other source that you cited to support your point.

This is Wikipedia. The rules of Wikipedia therefore apply. I resent the suggestion that I know nothing about this: the citations in the article tend to prove otherwise, and I would note that many points made by Bayly (a recognised expert in the field) are supported by other academics and some of these areas of support are mentioned in the article. The article uses many sources, so your comment about there not being many books about the Paravars is a nonsense really: whether books or other writings, the information is out there. You have provided nothing that I can see to support your statements, which seem to be based as much on your own anecdotal evidence as anything that is verifiable. I do not need to state the Nadar position: it is already stated in relation to the Paravars and your own suggested citation (not Hardgrave, the other one) confirmed that they were oppressed. Neither am I diluting the statement by removing the reference to the Nadars, because the source specifically mentions them. Obviously, we can add to the article any information you have to support your statements about the Indian government's view of the Paravars but this will not affect the historic position, which is already well cited with regard to the Portuguese, Dutch and British rulers of yesteryear. I am aware of the scheduled castes etc but have little information to back up any statement along the lines that you have made.

Finally, there is no such thing as universal truth: although that is one for an article on philosophy, perhaps take a read of Thomas S. Kuhn's A history of scientific revolution.  - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

so are u tryin to tell me that the paravars were warriors and the nadars were oppressed by the paravars. What you are talking is nonsense.S hardgrave states that the nadars were surely above other low castes,duh!!That means they were above the paravars.Period..As per the above link they were below the Nadars for sure !!! The Nadars were oppressed in regions where they were numbered very few(Hardgrave page no 24).Are you blind dude?? Why the hell are you repeating that sentence?? That there is the historic status of the paravars and it can never be changed no matter what!!! THEY WERE LOWER THAN THE NADARS!!! Even this article states that they lived in seperate regions,duh which means they were never in a society which had other castes and were not oppressed like the nadar climbers who lived as minorities in a society which had other castes. In regions where the nadar poplation was predominant they exercised authority over other castes like in Sivakasi(nadars hired maravars to lift their palanquins in sivakasi,the nadar nelammakkarrars of tiruchendur were respected by other communities who lived in a real society unlike the paravars who lived as tribals in a seperate region). This is the current status of the paravars.Nadars lived in a society and they lived like tribals. They were respected portuguese not by caste hindus.Stop saying that you know everything.As per page 112 of this book here they adopted portuguese noble titles to hide their low status..As per Edgar they never lived in a society which had other castes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.23.244 (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but yet again you have misread things:
 * The article does not say that the Paravars were warriors; rather, it says that some have claimed to be and the government thought it dubious.
 * The article does not say the Nadars were oppressed by the Paravars
 * No, I am not blind - I simply do not have the book. How many more times must I tell you this. Stop being abusive.
 * The article does not say they were respected by Hindus
 * I have not claimed to know everything
 * The article already points out the use of title granted by Portuguese
 * I shall not be replying to any more abuse from you. Your failure to understand what the article says means that I cannot accept in good faith your statements of what Hardgrave says without seeing the book myself - you clearly have some problems with reading/interpretation. Someone else may do, but I will not. - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No comment about the content, but 59..., please read WP:CIVIL. If you are unable to discuss this issue civilly, you need to go somewhere else.  Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.  When you accuse other editors of "being blind" and "claiming that they know everything" (when they haven't), and you yourself are misunderstanding, misreading, or misrepresenting what the article says, you make it impossible for people to work together.  Please stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For the sake of clarity here, I have added the bit about the current Most Backward Classes designation because the IP user provided a verifiable, reliable source. It makes no difference to the historic situation already described in the article (ie: the standing of the caste 200 years ago or whatever) because the designation happened in 2009, but thanks for providing it. It does help to round off the article. - Sitush (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

1.Yes you are blind! The first para and the classification box states very clearly that they were warriors and chiefs. 2.If you dont have access to the Hardgrave,why write sentences which are not understandable to you.(Finding one link which associates the nadars and paravars is no big deal). 3. Are you trying to say that the Nadar Nelamaikkarars south of Tamirabharani, who were obviously one of the most influential castes of the region, were below the status of the paravars, a tribal community? 4. The sentence which claims that the paravars thought they were superior to the Nadars is a incomplete sentence without any doubt. We can very well understand that you are trying to play the role of God here by speaking about the rules of wikipedia. 5.We are not eagerly waiting for the reply of a blind person such as yourself.We are waiting for other admins who have access to a simple google book to intervene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.12.165 (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do any IP users here sign their posts?
 * Yes, I missed the infobox - I've had next to nothing to do with it - please do not think I wrote every word of this article. Now fixed as it is contradictory to what I did write. However, the blindness issue related to something else I think (inability to read Hardgrave).
 * The sentence makes sense. Hardgrave is primarily about the Nadars, apparently; the article is primarily about the Paravars
 * I'm not trying to say anything but I await your proof as presumably if it is so self-evident then there are other sources than Hardgrave
 * In what way do you think it is incomplete? And why do you think I am playing god?
 * I'm not an admin. I have access to Google books but not the pages referred to. You clearly do not understand how Google books works around the world.
 * Thanks - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr.sitush go ahead with your editing.Paravars were not tribals,they lived as socity.The caste hierarc&y of present day india is just for the sake of reservation,it has n nothing to do with history.more over proofs and reliable sources are cited as references for the claims of cheiftainship,warrior race,their close connection with pandyas.kindly ignore half baked caste slur.tat so called nellaimaikarar constitute mere 10 pecent of stock,rest of them are toddy tapping shanar.tat nelaimaikarar were just tax collectors under pandyas,where as paravars were vvelirs,cheiftains and  warriors.Is this not enough to claim paravars are superior to nadars.Also one who knows Tamil history won't say paravars were tribal and lived at remote places,tuticorin is not a remote place from ancient pandian capital korkai.also abt present day hierarchy,even thevars,who celebrate paravars as their kins are also MBC,so for this...are the shanars going to say tat they are higher than thevars..if they say so,it will be some kind of paranoia or immaturity to accept reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.130.217 (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: I have now managed to locate a copy of Hardgrave and have read the chapter containing the pages cited by the IP users above. As far as I can see, there is no mention anywhere in the book of the Paravars, which is not unduly surprising since - as I've said before - it is a book about the Nadars/Shanars. Furthermore, the pages cited above do not impact upon what is said in this article unless you adopt a position of extreme synthesis. As such, I'm afraid that in my opinion the source, however good as it is for an article on the Nadar caste, is useless for this article, sorry. Feel free to cite other pages/chapters if you feel strongly about this but please read about synthesis before you do so. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I asked you to read page 22-23 of hardgrave to prove that the nadars were clearly above other lowcastes.I didnt properly go through the para b4 that sentence(the paravars thought blah,blah).And the word 'thought' confirms that the claims of the paravas were just assumptions.ok fine..the article still needs a lotta improvement. The padayatchi from the classification category must also be removed.Its baseless and doesnt have refs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.136.80 (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok - I'm rather careful with my choice of words in articles & sometimes maybe people don't appreciate the subtleties. As far as the classification box goes, I've said before that I've had little involvement with it and rather more significant things to fix/change/add etc. As far as I am concerned, the entire box could go and I wouldn't be bothered. However, I doubt that would be appreciated by everyone else & so at some point I will go through it and either remove the uncited content or, more likely, add a request for citations. HTH. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (Or someone else could do it - take some of the strain etc!) - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Caste warring
Please, both sides of these arguments, stop warring about your various castes here. If it continues then I'll seriously think about asking an admin whether or not this talk page can be protected as well as the article itself. It is absolutely ridiculous. Take your battles somewhere off Wikipedia please. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Statements such as Paravars were lower to nadars and paravars are tribals should be taken back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.130.217 (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest all parties just let any carry-over from previous discussions drop. The talk page is for improvement of the article. If the discussion does not relate to the article—a suggested addition, deletion, or modification of text in the article—then take it somewhere else. —C.Fred (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * first, i wanna thank Sitush for improving the article. this, unfortunately, is the status of all caste articles in India. Dear anonymous users, as far as i can tell, Sitush is not even from India and he has nothing to gain or lose by hyping up any caste. he is simply following wikipedia policies. i support protecting this talk page. --CarTick (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And just to add my voice to the above--Sitush has done amazing work on this article so far. Sure, it could be improved, but it's obvious that reliable sources on this issue are hard to come by, hard to access, and even hard to identify (in the sense of sifting out the caste-promotional/denigrating material from the material produced by foreigners who had a clear agenda from actual, good scholarly work).  The conversation in the thread above was mostly about the article itself (aside for the incivility--the IP address criticizing Sitush should know that I would have requested blocking if you were on a static username/IP).  But if any editors (new or old) attempt to turn this page into a forum or a soapbox, we'll just start deleting the posts.  If someone wants to suggest a change for the article, please provide a good source; if the source is not accessible online (as most aren't), try to give as much context as possible for the quality of the source and the specific context for the information, and then we can discuss calmly and politely what should go in the article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sitush is doing good work on the article. POV-pushing is rife on all articles related to Indian castes and social groups, and should be dealt with quickly without too much fuss and bother. For example, give vandalism warnings, ask for pages to be semi-protected. Best wishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Backward classes
User:CarTick has just added a paragraph to the lead that explains the Backward classes/Scheduled classes situation of PAravars per this Tamil Nadu govt webpage. Yesterday I added a valid (though terribly presented) seemingly official govt document and link to webpage to the "Post-independence" section.

Now, CarTick's cited page has no date on it & refers to the split in classification by area; the document I added, given to us by one of the IP users, is dated (2009) and says that the area split has been scrapped per a court order. Which is right? This is not the first time I've seen Indian government websites with massive contradictions. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of this. think the document IP provided is more recent, thefore, accurate. apparently, there is a difference between Hindu and Christian Paravars. While the new classification applies to Chrisitians, Hindu Paravars still fall under the old classification. the reason i added this in the lead is that this is a very relevant information in Indian context. though, i dont like the idea of classifying the people as "backward" and "forward class". --CarTick (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it grates with me also, but WP is not censored and those are the official terms. I understand why you put it in the lead. However, I want ultimately to move all citations out of the lead. The lead is supposed to introduce the content of the article and as such should not usually contain cites. I think the solution is to tag a single uncited sentence to the end of the lead & then leave my contribution, with cites, in the body. However, I also think that we need to see if anyone else can square this circle. Would it be ok to remove your recent addition temporarily, leave it a day or so & then make a permanent fix of what ever sort (if everyone is agreed by then)? - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * please feel free to remove it. as you are working extensivley on the article, you might have a picture of how the article is going to look like eventually. we can get back to this later, if we need to. --CarTick (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just commented it out for now. It may well be right & the version I entered wrong.,I reckon that using the dated official source makes it marginally more reliable than an undated official source ... for now, at least. Let's see what other people come up with.
 * As to your aside, well, it's a very blurred picture. I'm just aiming to follow the various guidelines and policies ultimately. I've recently had a GA and a peer review somewhere else, and learned a lot from it. Problem is, I'm involved with two or three other very big articles right now + research for another couple that interlock. There seems to be a pattern developing of articles I contribute to becoming a little on the large side. Any help on this article will always be appreciated - it isn't mine. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)