Talk:Iyer/Archive3

Added back removed section

I added back the following removed section with citations

Migrations to Sri Lanka;According to a primary source called Mahavamsa, Brahmins in general are known in written Sri Lankan history from the beginings of Indic migrations to the island from about 500 BCE. Currently Tamil Brahmins are an important part of the Sri Lankan Tamil ethnic group in Sri Lanka.[42] Tamil Brahmins played an important historic role in the formation of the Jaffna Kingdom circa thirteenth century.[43] (See Aryacakravarti dynasty)[44]

I understand most editors to this article are Indians, so information about non Indian content may not be familiar to them as well as sources that back them up. I have cited all sentences except the first sentence which is a universal truth to any student of Sri Lankan history. It establishes the context of Brahamana presence in the island. Bamunu as they were called in Prakrit have number of epigraphic evidence throughout the country. If challenged, I will add citation for that sentence too. But all the other facts that may be unknown to Indian writers of this article has been cited with three WP:RS citations whose authors are well known and well respected Sri Lankan historians and professors. Taprobanus (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi just noticed the new section you've added. Well, true, Iyers have migrated to Sri Lanka. But I presume they were on a small scale. I feel that the migrations could be mentioned along with migrations to Malaysia,Singapore,Mauritius,Australia,etc., in Other Migrations along with the relevant references. My point of concern is that the section on "Migrations" is growing in size much more than other sections. Thanks -Ravichandar 18:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Tamil Brahmin migration to Sri Lanka is much different than say Malaysia, South Africa. In Sri Lanka they formed a Kingdom that lasted 600 years and gave rise to a Ruling dynasty. Apart from it they are an integral part of the Sri Lankan Tamil ethnic identity for the last 1000 years. I have cited properly the section but then you may create one section on Migrations and include all the information about West Bengal, Kerala & Sri Lanka due to WP:SIZE but Sri Lankan migration does not belong with Malaysia, South Afric aetc. It si qualitatively a different migration. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Aryachakravarthi - Aryacakravarti dynasty was not related to Iyers

Arya Chakravarthi dynasty was founded by Gangas (more related to Gounders, Gowdas ) a dravidian dynasty from Rameshwaram in Tamil Nadu. When the dynasty was founded around 1000 AD iyers were not found in Tamil Nadu.[1] Most Iyers migrated to Jaffna in the Naicker period.

Sonindsoil (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the article Taprobanus (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy questioned

See this quote by Professor Hart You can't blame the Brahmins for this. In fact, the most pernicious example of the caste system was in the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka, where there are virtually no Brahmins and never have been. He is a linguist not a historian or an anthropologits. He is totally wrong on many aspects of this statement, I would say he is 100% totally wrong. Sri Lankan Tamil caste system is not worst or better than any caste system and to claim that Brahmins have been non exitant in this cultute is to deny that Jaffna kingdom created and ruled by the Tamil Brahmin Aryacakravarti dynasty is a hoax. This inflamatory statement has to be removed or the section has to be neutralized or the section violates neutrality and accuracy. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, in the case of Sri Lanka it needs to considered that the caste-system in Sri Lanka is flexible and people from Vellalar clans who had administered in temples have been accepted within the Brahmin fold. The statement is just a quote attributed to Prof. Hart, nothing else. The statement has not been made by me. I have only reproduced a statement made by George Hart. Hence, the section does not violate NPOV in any way.-Ravichandar 05:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Well, the section has been analyzing the condition of Iyers and their relations with other Tamils from a neutral point of view. I've evaluated casteism and caste-based discrimination carried out by Iyers and neutralized the statement with the quote by Dravidologist Hart. The accusations made by leaders of the anti-Brahmin movement have been mentioned and neutralized with counter-theories and refutations by pro-Brahmin journalists and historians. The article does not endorse Hart's view in particular. It is only described as a counter-view and hence is nothing more than the quote of an important personality. The neutrality and accuracy issues concerns the quote made by Hart and not the article in general.-Ravichandar 06:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the section does not violate POV as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.-Ravichandar 06:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There are three issues here, one is neutrality and the other is factual accuracy then using a linguist to make a historical and anthropological statement. On the third point, it is like asking George Bush to comment on Born again Christians because he is religious. His expert status only applies to American politics not to religion. Hence Hart is no authority to rely on an encyclopedic article to say historical facts about Sri Lankan Tamils. I have number of books written by experts on this field which contradict what he says 100%. What is being quoted from him is factually false and libelous and an opinion of a person who has no standing on that subject. I am a person who believes in compromises, so I am open for suggestions. But we cannot agree to let a 100% factually wrong libelous statement about an entire community to stand just because some tom, dick or harry said it.Taprobanus (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, firstly, Sri Lankan Tamils are completely unrelated to the subject of the article. This being the case, I dont understand the hue and cry related to neutrality here. Besides, I am only reproducing a quote by Professor Hart; the article only expresses his opinions with all required attributions and does not endorse his views. So, reproduction of a quote made by him could not be regarded "libelious". This being the case, we could pursue any of the following courses:

• I could remove the quote by Professor Hart. But in that case, I may have to tag the article for POV as explanation of the anti-Brahman POV would outweigh the defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravichandar84 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

* I could relinquish my responsibility with regard to the article. In that case, you may have to look after the article.

Well, personally speaking, it is easier to comment upon the quality or neutrality of an article. Thank you for your views. :-) -Ravichandar 14:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already suggested a way out by [my edi]t. As I said it is about compromising and going forward. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, I was about to suggest an alternative. You could allow the comments to remain and added a footnote near that particular statement objecting to his claim. :-) I am sorry if I had been too harsh, I did not mean it. -Ravichandar 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew that your reaction is due to your newness to wikipedia. That is besides the point, Jimbo is very adamant in saying that he would rather have no information than incorrect information. Professor Hart’s quote with respect Sri Lankan Tamils ( I am not commenting on the rest of the content or its applicability in this article) is factually wrong. There is no need to put factually wrong information and then explain that it is wrong. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To Anonymous Vandal

To the anonymous vandal who has been frequently introducing unsourced libelious nonsense, I wish to inform that Ramanuja who lived long before the rise of Vijayanagar was, by birth, a Vadama Brahmin thereby posing a serious threat to his claims. -Ravichandar 15:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism from multiple IPs

Someone has been vandalising this article from multiple IPs.

• 122.163.56.48(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyer&diff=prev&oldid=199592895)
• 122.164.171.221(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyer&diff=200514789&oldid=199888661)
• 122.164.166.7(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyer&diff=201036090&oldid=200786739)
• 59.99.64.113(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyer&diff=201294037&oldid=201293872)
• 122.163.149.227

All these vandalisms could be attributed to one and the same person who is behaving in such a manner to avoid edit blocks. -Ravichandar 13:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Iyers and the "Aryan Invasion Theory"

The whole section is synthesis of certain cited material. The sources that cite Iyers to be lighter skinned and have affinities to Central Asia does not have to directly correlate with the invasion of "non Aryan" Tamil Nadu by "Aryan" Brahmans. The fact that Iyers have lighter skin on average could very likely be due to occupational reasons and many communities in Tamil Nadu and south India such as the Chenchus and the Badagas have affinities to Central Asia, but they aren't suggested as "Aryan invaders". This also heavily refers to the now outdated theory of an "invasion", rather than the undetermined amount of IE speaking migration currently postulated. These sources should not be under a ridiculous "Iyer and Aryan Invasion" heading, as it could not be further unlikely that this was actually the case i.e vegetarian pacifist defenseless Brahmins somehow overpowering "pre-Iyer" kings and their standing armies and the pre-Iyer populace. I suggest the cited material in this section should be transferred to a broad "Theories of origin" section where Iyers can be suggested as being more recent immigrants from the north (or east or central or west) India, though recent in this case is still a fair while back. Trips (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me tell something. I am not expressing my views or giving any new theory of mine. It is a popular belief that Iyers are of Aryan descent because of the significant differences in complexion between the Brahmins and other Tamils. I have never claimed that anthropologists have claimed an Aryan origin for Iyers due to their color. The theories formulated by anthropologists are more due to genetic makeup of the DNA but lay Tamils hold the popular view that Iyers are of Aryan descent mainly due to their color and highly-Sanskritized Brahmin Tamil.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 13:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That may be but you seem to miss the point. Iyers are not "invaders", and Hindus and Arya existed in Tamil Nadu independent and previous to the known presence of the Iyer community in Tamil Nadu. You mean non-Tamil Indo-Aryan external origins which is likely and better worded than "Iyers and the Aryan Invasion Theory". I will attempt to rework the section and you can tell me what disputes you have with it if any. Trips (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I've already stated, it is a well-known fact that P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar in his 1929-book History of the Tamils from Ancient Times to 600 AD had explored the numerous theories regarding the ancient history of Tamils and made scholarly observations of them despite the fact that most of these theories are actually postulations and P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar does not arrive at any conclusion. The Aryan Invasion Theory is a postulation which has generated much controversy. And Iyers and Iyengars are the ones directly in the line of fire. Well, Iyers MAY NOT BE ARYANS. They MIGHT NOT BE DRAVIDIANS either until some conclusive evidence is found. From a larger perspective, the same can be said of all Tamils; and from an even larger perspective, of all Indians. However, the section has been aptly named "Iyers and the Aryan Invasion Theory". Today, we have a host of "Dravidian" political parties as DMK, ADMK, MDMK, DMDK, etc. These parties have all originated from the "Dravida Kazhagam" whose ideology is Anti-Brahminism. Members of the Dravida Kazhagam (almost without any exception) believe that Tamil Brahmins are "Aryans". Also, I don't find any OR or POV in the particular section. It is only named "Iyers and the Aryan Invasion Theory" and not as "Aryan origins of Iyers" or anything like that. It isn't in the right spirit that you should persistently indulge in the removal of neutral, referenced stuff. By doing so, you have also reverted to an old vandalized version of the article. Please examine the section "Relations with other castes" and you will realize the amount of vandalism extant in the version to which you reverted. Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 17:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ravichandar here that the section is a ney=utral study of the ideologies associated with such theories. Taprobanus (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the text passage and i can't see any kind of connection between Iyers and the "Aryan Invasion Theory". Some studies say, that Iyers share similar genetic marks with some of central asian people. But there is no single connection on the Aryan Invasion Theory. Still today people come from Central Asia to South India. Do they also have something to do with that Aryan Invasion? I will rename the block in "Speculations on origin of the Iyers" --Kalarimaster (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)