Talk:Sivakasi

Untitled
The article requires a major revamp as far as formatting goes. The content seems satisfactory, though.

The information on Ragland Memorial Church (CSI church) is irrelevant to the History of Sivakasi.

210.211.196.141 11:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The information on Ragland Memorial Church (CSI church) is irrelevant to the History of Sivakasi.

The previous edit did not have my id.

signed Saravana Kumar K 12:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sivakasi has the second largest number of offset printers in the world after "gutenberg in germany"? The entry for the city that is linked to does not have any information. Citation needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.66.105 (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Junior Chamber International, Zone XVIII, 18th Zone Convention hosted by JCI sattur On 3rd and 4th October 2009 at TNAFAMA hall Sivakasi. -by JC.H.Athithan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.132.55 (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sivakasi to be named as Sivakaasi
If the name spelled in English is the trouble maker, and astrological effects are only for English alphabets, then better avoid that language from official use. Instead of spending money in changing the name, let government and people concentrate on following strict safety norms. Ref: http://www.ptinews.com/news/412728_Campaign-to-change-name-of-town —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.47.165 (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead problem
"The town is known for firecrackers and matches factories" Is it known for firecrackers and for matches factories or for factories that produce both firecrackers and matches? Not sure the best way to phrase that sentence, but it is currently ambiguous. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Philosopher This city is well known for its matches factories and firecrackers industry in large scale and small scale too. But Sivakasi fireworks earned a brand status in south india. In India, these fireworks are well known and are used mainly in festival celebrated with fireworks, i.e., Deepawali. This is the information I can provide without a quick google search. Try phrasing it in a best way. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the "-s" from the quoted sentence, fixing the ambiguity problem. The brand recognition may also deserve a place in the article, but as I am unfamiliar with the subject, I'll leave it to someone else to add. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a caste article
Using the term inferior to describe a community which is regarded as a clean community today(refer:page 36 Northern Nadars by D.Templeman) is really not in the scope of this article and unwanted. The former social status of the nadars is a debated issue as they were regarded as a community who were not fully integrated into the caste system(Pg21-22 D.Templeman) and their former social status varied from place to place(Hardgrave:Many pages). And failing to mention anything at all about their current status in Sivakasi is a bigger mistake. Sivakasi has seen many riots and I dont see why this riot so important to mention. There is a separate article for the nadar community and the sivakasi riots. Briefly mentioning about the riots may not be a bad idea. However, going in depth to describe a specific community's past is very redundant and irrelevant to the scope of this article. It must be removed. The para is also not properly sourced. Sivakasi nadars are mostly hindus and christian nadars usually are predominate in regions around Tirunelveli. And christian nadars are comparatively a much smaller population than the hindu nadars.And most importantly the reason behind the riots, mentioned in the article, is completely wrong. A group of wealthy nadars forcefully entered a temple in Kamudi, not Sivakasi!(refer:Hargrave page no 121)This lead to an incident which became known as the Kamudi case and this happened in 1897, two years before the sivakasi riots. The two incidents are not at all related to each other. I wonder who wrote all this. Hope someone looks into this soon. I also removed these line also from the sivakasi riots article, as they are highly inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.178.206 (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

References: The Northern Nadars by D.Templeman The Nadars of TamilNad by Robert Hardgrave.


 * This is not a caste article for sure, but the alternate reference you have quoted is one - it gives only the rosy picture about them and cannot be taken as the only source. The incident is the first most prominent caste clash in Tamil Nadu and definitely forms the most important part of the history of the region. The presence of Christianity and the active participation of Nadars is clearly indicated by the sources. It would be a tweak if we try to give only the rosy picture about community in clashes.Ssriram mt (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Sriram, please go through the para I have written above again. I didnt remove the entire para. And moreever, how do you know that this is the first ever caste clash in Tamil Nadu. Do you have proofs to support your claims? Which book states that there are more christians than hindus in the community? Many southern nadars converted to christianity. But the community is predominately hindu. I would love to see this book. Yes Nadars did convert. However not Sivakasi nadars. Sivakasi nadars were predominately hindus. And this is an article about sivakasi. No I am not trying paint a lovely picture about the caste.I am merely quoting the lines from a book published by Oxford University. I dont see why their work could be biased. The caste's former status was different from their current status. However I cant find a line which speaks about their current status. They were instrumental in the development of Sivakasi and they are regarded as a clean community today(Once again templeman). Templeman's book is one of the few which sheds light on their curent status. The Nadars are one of the few castes to successfully sankritize. And today they enjoy a high social status. There are many sources which support this fact. Only source? The sources you have attached were copied from the Sivakasi riots article. And I am sorry to be blunt the sources you have attached and the ones I am talking about are the same. There are many sources attached. However they all refer Hardgrave's book. So Hardgrave's book is the original. There is also a very old newspaper article attached.I think that is the source of all the problems. Newspapers cannot be regarded as valid sources as they are not written by experts like Hardgrave.And that is a 1899 newspaper. So before saying anything please go through the referencess I sent you. Sivakasi riots article clearly explains the reasons behind the riots. Also go through that. I am not trying tweak anything here. I am just saying why should we copy and paste the contents of the sivakasi riots article when there is already an article for the topic. If you dont want to censor anything, why not also write about their contribution to Sivakasi? :) Mr. Sriram, I dont want you to write anything about their current status,their glory their former status etc. Because that would make this a caste article! I am just saying that this is all super redundant. The Sivakasi riots article also clearly states that they were below castes other middle castes. Adding links to another article is ok I think. I hope you can understand. Leaving the article as it is now is the best thing to do now. I also removed some POV lines like 'Nadar domination' from the article. Who wrote stuff like that I wonder?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.178.206 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The initial content had different segments - why, whom and how clashes occurred. That their status was "considered" inferior, that they evolved as successful businessmen, that they demanded equal social status, that they were involved in conversion, that the mutual contempt evolved over a period was clearly indicated all through and sources did indicate all of them. It absolutely takes the juice off when we merely say there was a clash and worse the casualty is safely taken off. Newspapers definitely are sources - News as source. I can include contents from Associated Press. Like the way newspapers express their opinion along with news, so do these authors. Also, Hardgrave is already a source in there and no content from his is wrongly represented!Ssriram mt (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the exactly the reason why I quit wikipedia. Editors like you play God all the time by pointing out some rule. Newspaper articles can only be regarded as valid if they are clear. The Kamudi case and sivakasi riots are two different incidents. The newspaper article just vaguely speaks about the two incidents and fails to mention the actual reason behind the riots. The actual reason behind the riots did partially have something to do with temple entry rights. However that was not the major reason.The maravar quarter in Sivakasi was destroyed by the Nadars(Hardgrave:page 115) and the maravars wanted revenge. This incident formed the fundamental cause of the riots. Another major reason was because of their adoption of kshatriya traditions and rapid rise in status. The Nadars forcibly entered the temple in Kamudi, not sivakasi. Now you would know what I am speaking about if you had gone through the references I mentioned above. Apparently you didnt. And you have not answered most of my questions here. Sivakasi has seen worse riots. Why do you think that this one is so important to describe in detail? Do you have any proofs to say that this is a major incident in the history of Sivakasi? This is a major event in the history of the Nadars. However, Sivakasi witnesses things like this very often. You are just so eager to mix the two incidents(Kamudi case and Sivakasi riots) just to prove you are right. And why are you so eager to write about their conversions. What does that have to do with an article about Sivakasi. As I already said, Sivakasi nadars are predominatley hindus, according to many sources. Now if you still dont understand what I am saying, there is no reason to believe that your purpose here is constructive. Please answer all my questions properly and I will add everything about the riots correctly myself(including their former status etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.231.193 (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No one except standard refs are god here. Do not complain about contributors or the forum blindly - it is this forum that respects even anonymous editors and takes their edits and discussion points as well. Also, stop taking things in a personal route, which obviously has taken many of the good contributors to the exit route. There may be hundreds of incidents, but where are they recorded? If so, please include with refs - claims remain things in air unless supported by refs( not involved in conversion, not the worst riots, not the major incident, predominantly Hindus). "Another major reason was because of their adoption of kshatriya traditions and rapid rise in status" - was that the one in the article earlier with diff phrasing? As i stated earlier, when you say there is a clash, the obvious questions are why, when and how - all these were covered with the refs. It was never mentioned that temple entry was sought in Sivakasi alone, while the cases were fought in the Sivakasi district court. Check all the refs or Hardgrave for these points
 * Nadars had base in the town and were successful businessmen.
 * were aligned with European Missionaries and involved in conversion to demand superior social status (p.55,43-44). Please do not mix with current status, which is 115 years off.
 * military intervention to stop riots and proposed imposition of security for 5 years.
 * 21 "known" deaths and recorded losses.Ssriram mt (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have provided refs above and these are not baseless claims! You are again not going through the paras properly. And no I am not taking any of this personally. The Nadars didnt enter the Sivakasi temple by force. Thats for SURE not a fact! Thats what the previous version of the article was stating. THe maravar quarter in Sivakasi was destroyed and thats the primary reason. THis point is not even mentioned in the sivakasi riots article. And most importantly the riots just didnt happen in Sivakasi. Just patiently go through the refs and we ll discuss the details.  Hopefully I ll get the ebook from my cousin soon. Until then use google books.If you cant let me know. You are not still getting my point. I am just stating including all this redundant as this is already in the Nadar article and sivakasi riots article Bye for now  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.231.193 (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference to support my claim that the community is predominately hindu Page 29: Northern Nadars by Dennis Templeman. I hope you can see the snippet view.My cousin has the book.I can ask him to send a snapshot. The page states "While today's Nadar community is overwhelmingly Hindu, it embraces a substantial religious minority; roughly 10% of Nadars are Christians". The Nadar main article uses the mandelbaum reference to state something very similar to this fact. I never said  that there were no conversions. I dont have references to back up my claim that there were worse riots in Sivakasi. But as someone from Sivakasi I am sure no one knows about this riot  other than the Nadars. I know this is not adequate enough for wikipedia.I am also sure you wont be able to any find references either to back up your claim that this is one of the major riots to  happen in Tamilnad. This is all redundant. Thats all I am saying. There are 2 separate articles to shed light on the history of the nadars and the riots. Why should we bother to write everything about these topics in a page about a town? And the Hardgrave references you provided above, speaks nothing about their hindu\christian population. It simply states most converts from Tirunelveli came from the Nadar caste.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.235.168 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * the snippet merely states about Nadars and not about Nadars in Sivakasi and an explicit mention of "today's". I am also of the opinion that locals would have knowledge on missing portions, but that cannot amount to peacocks. You are too confused about modern day being predominantly Hindu and the ones at 1899. I would definitely like to fit back portions on why, how and the casualty part. AP has some more refs. This is indeed the first recorded instance where military imposition was sought for a caste clash, which even if it had been in modern times, is significant. I have other question - why not write about religious population if source is available - it is part of every city article at least in demographics section.Ssriram mt (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * :) I am not confused dude. You are. So far you have provided no references to back up your claim that the nadars of sivakasi were predominately christians.And I am sure you wont ever find any refs because they were predominately Hindu. I have read both Hardgrave and Templeman completely. These two books are the best anthropological works on this topic ever. My cousin has these books. And I have also contributed for some Nadar relevant articles. According to Templeman, Nadars of Sivakasi were always Hindus and this theory is also supported by other anthropologists. I dont have the book with me now. But I can get you the page numbers or snapshots for now. You see Sivakasi was never a Nadar town. The nadars moved to Sivakasi from Southern Tirunelveli in the early 19th century. Sivakasi Nadars or Northern Nadars were predominatlely Hindus right from the beginning and wanted to Sankritise. Some southern nadars(nadars from southern tirunelveli) accepted christianity and a most christians from tirunelveli came from the southern nadar commununity. I am not against christianity or something dude. But this here is the fact. Please provide reference that this was a major riot in TamilNadu and we will add more detail to the topic.As I said I know that wiki wants only proofs. There was also a clash between Konars and Kallars in a place near Madurai in the 19thcentury. These kinda things happen a lot in the Southern district of TamilNadu. You are basing your theory on original research. I want the Sivakasi article to look as best as possible. Writing about this riots is like writing about the mob wars that happen in newyork, in the Newyork city article. AP refs? We can add some detail to the casualtiy and how part. However we already have two article to cover this topic in detail. We can keep it brief. Religious population? Sivakasi people are predominately hindus. Including population details about one specific community and not mentioning anything about other communities. That sounds awkward! Got to go to work. See you in the evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.138.176 (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sivakasi riot paragraph in wiki page
Please remove this paragraph as this les to communal hatred and rude behaviour among youths. 117.222.140.134 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * No. See WP:NOTCENSORED ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)