Jump to content

Talk:Ayyavazhi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

REQUEST

On the festival articles, could you guys also write the Western days of celebration? (its written 19 Masi) but most people are not familiar with the tamil calendar so the western dates would be appreciated.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

delete Ayyavazhi-->move content to Ayyavazhi mythology, then cleanup Stevenwmccrary58 17:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That's correct. I think the title is fine as it stands. The articles on religions are not titled as the essential tenets of Christianity, etc. Unfortunately, I am a native speaker of English and ayya vazhi religion uses Tamil so I am not sure about the spelling. When translating, there's no consistent way to write in English. I have created redirects for both possibilities, ayyavazhi and ayya vazhi.

Thanks for the suggestions. Sam Spade and Mel Ettis have been cleaning the article up.

Raj2004 02:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Your welcome. I am not convinced about the title. I believe that comparing the title "Ayyavazhi" to the titles "Christianity," "Islam," and "Hinduism," assumes the reader is as familiar with Ayyavazhi as with the others. Generally, this would not be the case, i.e., the average reader would be aware that the terms "Christianity," "Islam," and "Hinduism," are religions, but not aware of that for "Ayyavazhi". "Ayyavazhi" could be a man's name, the capital city of some small Asian village (I was going to say a small town in southeast Missouri (USA), but with that name, who would believe SE Missouri :-) ), a book, etc. I still believe the title needs revision. Steven McCrary 13:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Steve, you are probably right. That's good suggestion. I didn't know ayya vazhi either until recently. perhaps it should have a suffix, such as Ayyavazhi Faith. I didn't know about Bahai until I attended college. so perhaps adding the word faith would help and then create redirects for people who are familiar with ayyavazhi. If you type in Bahai, it redirects to Bahai faith.

Let's see what Sam and Mel think.

Raj2004 13:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge

While the proposed merge is being discussed (at Ayyavazhi mythology), could no-one unilaterally remove the notice? My own view is that the merge is probably not a good idea, but tthe issue should be properly discussed before any one person removes the notices and closes the issue. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who removed the notice but again, steve agreed with me that we need a separate article for the religion and the other for mythology. (as explained above.)

Raj2004 12:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agreed with Raj2004 and removed the merge, if that is OK. If not, I can put it back, with apology. Steven McCrary 13:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

So long as you, the person who added it, is happy, I have no objection. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

This is suppose to be a cult or a group of people following the belief, I am from the sourthern part of India, from Tamilnadu and this is the first time I am hearing this name. Let me reiterate, this is not a religion and not followed by all Hindus. Anyone please have a look at it.

Hinduism

The summary states: "It is considered by some to be an offshoot of Hinduism." Is there anyone who doesn't so consider it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yea, I have never heard of this religion and it isn't hard to see why. It seems to me as a sect of Hinduism. They believe in the same Hindu trinity (just different names) and it seems like their beliefs are still pretty much Hindu at the fundemental level.Zachorious 09:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

copy editing

This article seems pretty well cleaned up except for the "It may be concluded" paragraph. That one loses me entirely - what context? LA RoeDoe 14:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

copy editing

Improvements to the English have been made by many contributors. I do not see anything wrong with the English now. Ought not the administrators remove this article from the "need copy-editing" category? PM Poon 08:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

There is still a grave need for improvement to the English. The second paragraph starts with "Ayyavazhi functions autonomously. But since it was not recognised as a separate religion it was considered as an offshoot of Hinduism only officially and not religiously." This is incorrect English and also doesn't make much sense. Considered? By whom? Since it says officially one can guess it is by the state of India, but this needs to be cleared up. Overall the text reads like Indian English, not as English. I personally find it very annoying and hard to read since I am not from India. boxed 15:38, 9 February 2006 (CET)

I couldn't agree more -- and it's not just the English. The summary section at top gives a casual/lay reader VERY little information. (Anyone ever heard of the "inverse pyramid" principle in journalism? Summary/broadest statements at top, narrowing to details? So if you only read the first paragraph, you get the "most meat"?) The whole bit about "official" recognition and all is simply not comprehensible to someone outside whatever the relevant cultural/social/political sphere is. Someone desperately needs to rewrite the intro in its entireity, pretending there's NO more article below, which encapsulates to a NAIVE reader what Ayyavazhi (religion and/or mythology) IS. A Doon 18:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Help on Ayya Vaikundar

Greetings. Could use some help with clarifications and improvements on the page Ayya Vaikundar. This page has some overlap with Ayyavazhi mythology that needs reconciled as well. Thanks, Steven McCrary 13:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi Trinity

Raja has requested that we weigh-in on the topic Ayyavazhi Trinity. Steven McCrary 18:29, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

vaZHi

Hi, The zhi is pronounced as ri, with a retroflex roll of the tongue. I think someone should put that in there, otherwise people might think that it is pronounced vazhi not vari

Clarification of term

Anyone know what an "LMS Report" is? (see Shamanism section of this article).Her Pegship 23:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It indicates The report of the Directors to the General body meeting of 'The Missionary Society' usually called ' The London Missionary Society ' - Vaikunda & Raja


Thanks! I added a link. Her Pegship 15:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No reference

None of the artcles under Category:Ayyavazhi has any references of citation. How do these artcle pass the WP:NOR criteria?

- Parthi 03:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

With due respect to the religious beliefs of the followers, as well as to the religion itself, the whole article has NO citation, NO references to established sources. Personal websites do not count as valid sources. Please add sources to the various claims made in different sections, as well as much of the source text itself. Thanks --Ragib 08:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Ayyavazhi functions autonomously. But since it is not recognised as a separate religion it is officially considered as an offshoot of Hinduism
Ayyavazhi population is counted under Hinduism during census. Is it doubtful?
  • Though it has not received official recognition, it has evolved into a distinctive religious phenomenon, making its presence felt in India's southern districts of Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli and Tuticorin.
The day of incarnation of Vaikundar was announced as a holiday by the govt for these three districts. Leave for Kanyakumari was announced some ten years back and for Thoothukudi and Tirunelveli from this year. the announcement
Who "felt" this? what source supports this claim? Your source only supports the claim for Tirunevlveli. --Ragib 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • As one of the fastest growing religions of southern India, its rapid growth had been noted in the Christian missionary reports of the mid-19th century.
For this we've started a seperate article with citations. See :Ayyavazhi in reports by Christian missionaries
When you have a claim in *any* article, you need to provide a reference to it. How are the others supposed to know that there is another article referring to the sourceS? Provide them here. --Ragib 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There are more than 7,000 worship centers throughout South India.
This is the claim from from the headquarters of Ayyavazhi at Swamithoppe. Also personally, Some five or six years back I found Ayyavazhi told by Valamburi John (வலம்புரி ஜாண்)at Sun TV on the program Intha Naal Iniya naal (இந்த நாள் இனிய நாள்) for 15 minutes. There he told that ayyavazhi covers a population of 0.7 million and 7ooo worship centers.
Provide references. Thanks. --Ragib 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

All others were cited. - Vaikunda Raja


How do you cite a 'mid 19th century missionary report' for its current 'rapid growth'? - Parthi 22:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Also now it's growth is similar to that of earlier days. Saying rightly now it is growing more. But not identified. Because sociologically it was not seen as a seperate religion. Instead seen as other gods in Hinduism. So like other festivals like kumb mela in Kumbakonam and other festival in tiruchendur the festival in Swamithope also seen as a hindu crowd.
Even in the early, mid and later ninteenth century, Ayyavazhi is seen only asa part of Hinduism. But not by the cristian missionaries. Because while in the travancore state Hindus were taken to Christianity in hundreds and thousands Ayyavazhi crowd remain stable and screen the people frm converting to christianity. Till the rise of Ayyavazhi, Christianity recorded an out standing growth in Travancore state and in southern parts of tirunelveli. But after Ayyavazhi was a challenge for them. While Hindus undergoes mass convertion Ayyavazhi stood steady. This is the reason why Christian missionaries viewed Ayyavazhi seperate from Hinduism. No other reports says Ayyavazhi because they see it only as hinduism.
Even the author of the book Religion and Subaltern Agency mentioned it. They for their reserch went in search of solid references about Vaikundar at different places including Directorate of Archives at Nalanda, Thiruvananthapuram and The Central Archives of Kerala. But not able to find even a single.
Finally The archive at United Theological College, Banglore was visited to study of London Missionary Society from 1819 to 1900. There they said that, A rich data was collected, both in quality and quantity on Vaikundacami (Vaikundar) and on the religious penomenon (Ayyavazhi).
So only the christian missionaries study Ayyavazhi as a religion and all other viewed it as a sect as many others not even consider it saying it was part of hinduism. That is the reason for the growth of Ayyavazhi unknown to the outer world. Still some developements otherside; The leave for Vaikunda Avataram. Do the govt announce leave for three districts to a festival celebrated by a few hundred people ? No, so the growth is felt. But not as a seperate religion instead as a festival inside Hinduism. - Vaikunda Raja 00:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
My question was 'How do you cite a 19th century document for its rapid growth now'. You haven't answered my question. If the citation does not support your statement, you should remove it. - Parthi 00:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Now the statement matches the citation I think. - Vaikunda Raja 01:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Right from the beginning, Ayyavazhi's rapid growth had been felt as it is mentioned in the Christian missionary reports of the mid-19th century - does not mean there is continuous rapid growth. Do you have any contemporary stats for its followers? Where did you get the 1 mil figure you mention in one of the other pages [1] ? - Parthi 01:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bala Prajapathi adikalar present considered leader of Ayyavazhi meet the chief minister of Tamil Nadu (before the assembly election) and mentioned about 20% of the followers in the three districts of Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli and Thoothukkudi. This news form the head line of the evening news papers of Kanyakumari like(அய்யாவழி மக்கள் ஓட்டு யாருக்கு). So as per this the collective population of three dists were more than 50 lakhs and 20 per cent of this cross over a million

And out side this Virudunagar dist also covers a nearly good number thoug not as in these three dists. Also Chennai had a good number of population, (not less than 70 Thangals). More over Kerala had a few number. Some ten Thangals in Mumbai city. As per these accounts the population sould be more than a million. But I dont't place it. I stated as a million because the leader claim to the state's chief minister. I place it insideHinduism there because in the censes matter the official recognition to Ayyvazhi is yet to come and so it falls officially under Hinduism - Vaikunda Raja 01:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What you have here is hearsay, not valid source. Where does bala Prajapathi get his figures? Your assumptions and deductions are not valid evidence . See WP:NOR. We should only report what is already available out there. - Parthi 02:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you claim, whatever numbers you cite, please mention the established, valid sources. That's all I ask. Thanks. --Ragib 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and Bala Prajapathi Adikalar, the present considered leader and with him one may be able to collect Ayyavazhi related sources. We use to do so. He had laid foundation stones for more than a thousand Nizal Thangals so far. To highlight once on a single day he laid foundation stones for five Thangals. He may be a good resource. And in the matter of Wiki as you said 'a needed solid reference' that not presently with me. And tommarrow the Kodiyetru Thirunal, a festival begins in Swamithoppe and during I will try to approach Bala Prajapathi Adikalar in need of the reference to the source. Let him say if there is any. So please wait for a day or two. I shall also seek for any other source. Thank You. - Vaikunda Raja.
I know nothing about Ayyavazhi. I learned about this discussion from a message posted by User:Punanimal on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources.
According to WP:RS, sources should be a published source. It could be a newspaper published by the Ayyavazhi but it has to be something that someone could get a copy of and say "Yup, that's what they claim". It's OK to provide estimates of numbers but they should be documented as estimates rather than census counts. Clearly, saying 20% of three provinces is a wild, hand-waving estimate. But, if it can be documented via a reliable source, that the Ayyavazhi believe and claim that their adherents number 20% of the population of those provinces, then you can say that. You should not say that 20% of the population ARE the adherents of Ayyavazhi but you should say instead that the Ayyavazhi leader believes and claims that this is the number.
Talking to the leader of Ayyavazhi and asking him is not a verifiable source because it cannot be easily verified independently. The best explanation of this is: If the leader were to unfortunately pass away, we would have no basis to prove your claim that he said 20% instead of 10% except for your word. However, if you could provide a paper document showing that a reporter had written that he said 20%, then the claim that he said 20% is considered to be more reliable. Yes, admittedly, the reporter could have gotten it wrong but we assume that there is some editorial check on the reporter. Plus, the fact that the newspaper has some distribution argues that the facts published there cannot be too egregiously false. (Caveat: Some newspapers do write egregiously false statements but, at least if we know the name of the newspaper, we can evaluate the credibility of the statement based on the credibility of the newspaper.)
Hope this helps.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs).


I have no claims to be any kind of expert on comparative theology, but armed with nothing more than a preliminary reading of the articles and a good understanding of Hinduism, here's my 0.02
  1. Is Ayyavazhi a religion - Firstly, it does seem that the underlying philosophy has a strong underlying theme of good vs evil, which seems quite distinct from the pantheistic foundations of Hinduism (where everything has a place within an attributeless whole). Secondly, it is important to remember that Tamil culture is documented to be very ancient and there is evidence that Hinduism in Tamil Nadu state exhibits a different chart of progress, when compared with the rest of India. Indigenous faith symbols like Ayyanar, Mariamman etc. are speculated to predate the advent of Vedic Hinduism. It would be incorrect to dismiss these symbols as "hero stones" or aberrant one-off streams of Hinduism, as the rituals and folklore underlying these symbols are intricately woven, rich as concepts, and widely known. These deities are thought to have become syncretized initially with Vedic Hinduism, and later with Shaivism and Vaishnavism. In fact the worship of the deities Muruga and Meenakshi, are also unique to Tamil Nadu. Though, they are today identified with Subramanya and Parvati (deities from a common Hindu stream) the mythology surrounding the two seem localized to Tamil culture (with frequent references to places and customs in Tamil Nadu). Ayyavazhi seems to have evolved from a similar development of ideas. In fact, Sikhism and Jainism are recognized as syncretizations of Hinduism (the ideas of Vishnu and Hari are prevalent in both these faiths), but are recognized as distinct religions. So, it would seem logical to accept Ayyavazhi as a religion in its own right.
  2. Is it a "major religion" - Quite simply no. The only way to classify a system as a major religion would be to base it on the numbers. With no documentary evidence or a credible popualr estimate, one cannot do that.
  3. Citations - This is a frequent problem in India-related articles. There is a wealth of information to be documented with very few citations, simply because there is very little acceptable source as yet available. There is a very low penetration of the internet into rural India, and academically rigorous research materials into localized cultural beliefs are in short supply. No doubt, it is important that Wikipedia strive to be rigorous, but not at the cost of ruthlessly putting down every bit of information, for lack of supporting evidence.
I strongly feel it is better to be "inclusionistic" when dealing with such articles. Deletion of content painstakingly provided by a few users who have the knowledge will only discourage them from participation and only help to maintain the persistent "Ameri/Euro-centrism" in Wikipedia. Chancemill 12:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
My dispute with these articles is not religious or demographic. I too accept the fact that we need to be inclusionist, however I am of the personal view that this set of articles is a good example of how to make an obscure subject widely available on the net. As there is no systematic review process in WP, with little effort anything becomes acceptable. Vaikunda Raja has single handedly created these dozens of articles and stubs on other wiki namespaces and language wikis including Latin and Afrikaans. There has not been a single query as to the source of the material. One wonders how many such articles are lurking in WP... - Parthi 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If Ayyavazhi is not a 'major' religion, then we should ask the question whether it is notable. According to the articles, even the followers don't consider it as a separate religion, rather as part of the Hindu faith. If it is not known beyond the immediate group of followers, then by definition it is not notable. Vaikunda Raja has single-handedly made it widely available on the net and elsewhere and I congratulate him on his effort and pass on my Kudos too. However, my concern is the reliability of WP as a source. We are not asking for these articles to be deleted. They must most definitely be cleaned of POV copy and unsourced claims.
I don't agree with your comments on citation. The 'citation needed' templates are inserted only for claims that can and should be cited, such as the birth date of the founder and his exploits. There is no requirement to provide citations for faith based claims, as long as they are coached in NPOV language (such as 'when Ayya was bodily present', etc). Why don't you spend a bit of time copyediting these pages? - Parthi 23:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Parthi that the question is not the significance of the religion, rather the massive amount of original research. Wikipedia's most important principle is Verifiability, and that triumphs everything else. Information MUST be cited from a different source. It may be true that information about the religious beliefs are not widely publicized, but still, citations are vital because wikipedia is NOT the place to do original research (see WP:NOR). When almost all the articles and sources of information come from a single user, and no citations are provided, the verifiability of these articles MUST be questioned. Any unreferenced information cannot be included in an encyclopedia. Whether you are an inclusionist or deletionist doesn't really matter. Otherwise, WP will be filled with articles people claim to know, but which can't be found outside wikipedia. So, I'd request the author of these pages to provide references as soon as he can, otherwise the unreferenced material will be removed soon. Thanks. --Ragib 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Adding my two cents worth...
I would think a "major religion" needs at least 100 million adherents but that's just an arbitrary number that I picked. I'm not sure how many Jews there are in the world. Maybe not as much as 100 million. Perhaps 10 million is a better number. The influence of Jews is disproportionate to their number (please, no POV attacks).
Although not a major religion, I think a Hindu sect of 1 million adherents is probably "notable" but I agree that all assertions about the sect need to be based on citations from verifiable, reliable sources.
Are you telling me that a Hindu sect with 1 million adherents has no publications of its own? Everything is communicated orally rather than in written form? There are no magazine or newspaper articles about this sect? Perhaps I have something to learn about India. (and maybe Wikipedia does too)
--Richard 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday I met Mr.Bala Prajapathi Adikalar at his residence in Swamithope and asked about the source for listing. He told that it was announced according to the list of members given by Nizhal Thangals of all Districts. And for me the estimation may not be so accurate, but approximately it may be right. But as told earlier Wiki need citation and so it may not be a right source. So I shall search for some other source. And till then we shall remove Ayyavazhi from the Major world Religion List. Thank You. - Vaikunda Raja

I dont know earlier that published works are not considered important in Wikipedia. As far as I've read there are some not less than 50 books published in Ayyavazhi and not less than 100 historical books refer Ayyavazhi either as a religion or as a reform movement. But with me there are only a few. Any way I am glad to know that published works could be used for citation. And here I've done. And still Iam under my work. Thank You. - Vaikunda Raja

Raja, can you please log in when you edit. Tintin (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, When ever I connect to the net I don't bother about the sign in and all. Some times do and otherwise not. Sorry and I shall try to do.
And in the matter of Religious accredition The Indian Constitution, I think acts 25 and 26 (Right to Freedom of Religion under 'The fundamental rights') accepts every one to create a religion. So that is not the matter here. But the govt recognised list of number of followers, that is the only problem. As told earlier by User:ChancemillIn the matter of Ayyavazhi is

Autonomous, undoubtfully. There are numerous reasons religiously, philosophicaly, ideologically, etc. - Vaikunda Raja 18:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sect vs. religion

I am not convinced that this is a useful debate. If the adherents of Ayyavazhi want to call themselves a religion instead of a Hindu sect, the article should document that. If someone feels that it is important to argue that Ayyavazhi is not an "official" religion by Indian government standards, then they should document that. If someone wants to comment that much of Ayyavazhi is based on Hinduism, then they should document that. Hopefully, this article focuses on the differences between Hinduism and Ayyavazhi. The reader should come away understanding the ways in which the two are alike and the ways in which the two are different.

--Richard 20:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to do this in the latest edits. Please take a look and comment. - Parthi 01:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
You have noted that "Ayyavazhi borrows". It shows that Ayyavazhi was outside Hinduism. And the matter of official recognition is noted down. So on opening the article it is good and right to place the view of Ayyavazhi about itself. - Vaikunda Raja 09:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No Ayyavazhi followers claim Ayyavzahi as an offshoot of Hinduism. But it is noted in the sub-heading 'Phenomenology' that Many Ayyavazhi followers think them as Hindu and unaware of their deviated ideology from Hinduism. - Vaikunda Raja 10:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I, Vaikunda Raja is removing the Npov template. - 61.1.210.128 00:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


The website you cited elsewhere [2] says Ayya-Vazhi is another religion in Hinduism to worship God in a simple way as taught by Ayya Vikuntar... !! If your own religion does not claim to be different from Hinduism then how can you claim it. On what logic did you remove the NPOV template? - Parthi 21:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This website is not Ayyavazhi. As told in Ayyavazhi phenomenology, this webmaster was a follower of Ayyavazhi and Hinduism. That is this site had tried to mingle Ayyavazhi and Hinduism.

See this Click on "Ayya's Later Years", scroll down to Kalenemi and click on Kalenemi.

As per the Ayyavazhi there are eight yugas but this site say that they were 4 yugas. This is completely different from Ayyavazhi beleif. This was provided as external link only because it say something about Life of Vaikundar. - Vaikunda Raja

Does anyone know what Ayyavazhi really is? It seems to me that user:Vaikunda Raja is some kind of a lone ranger pushing the barrow of Ayyavazhi. Is there anyone out there who has a similar view of this religion/sect? If there are then is is notable enough to remain WP? Vaikunda Raja has the habit to unilaterally removing the POV tags and edits by other users. Mate, this is WP. Every one of us have a right to edit any article. Don't go about reverting valid edits.
- Parthi 02:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Original Research

The section titled 'New religious phenomenon is a blatant attempt to insert original research. I have removed it. I have given the paragraph below:

It may be concluded that Ayyavazhi emerged as a 'new and singular' religious phenomenon. Amidst the various traditions — the sanskritic Hinduism, the newly-introduced Christianity, the not-so-prominent Islam, and the ubiquitous folk forms of worship — Ayyavazhi was developing as a distinctively alternative religio-cultural form in South India, its place of origin. This fact had been recognized by the followers of Ayyavazhi.

They addressed their religion with a new nomenclature, "Ayya Vazhi" ("the path or way of Ayya") and thereby confirmed its new identity. They considered it, on the one hand, as ghee churned out of the existing religious traditions and, on the other, as a new phenomenon that had come to replace the old traditions. They believed, on the one hand, that Vaikundar had 'unified' all the existing deities unto himself and, on the other, that the essence of the old traditions had gone awry with the advent of Vaikundar. They placed their religion within the existing traditions and yet perceived it to be different from them. The distinguishing aspect of Ayyavazhi needs to be seen against the background of the sanskritic tradition whose pre-eminence was upheld by the State. That Ayyavazhi had emerged differently against this religious tradition is a pointer to its distinct singularity. The emergence of Ayyavazhi needs to be seen also against the presence of the British in India [70]. From a sociological perspective, reform movements in general were patronised by the British in the nineteenth century Thiruvithankur. But Ayyavazhi was never patronized by the British; it arose and stabilized without their support. In one sense, it was anti-establishment, presenting itself to be new, both in terms of a difference and in terms of a synthetic character. It called itself new, as well as a medley of the extant traditions [71].


Can someone tell me why this should be included in the article?

Parthi 07:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am ready to cite each and every line of this particular section from the book Religion and Subaltern Agency. Earlier I place the site where this book is mentioned. More over this book is a publication of an university. Then what more I can do? Iam adding this to the article. I've so far never removed any thing her without answering in talk page or in the edit summary. - Vaikunda Raja.

Do you mean you have copied the passages directly from the book? if so do you have permission to do so? Normally published books are copyrighted. You cannot insert passages without permission. My question was what does this passage mean and why should it be in a encyclopaedic article? - Parthi 22:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversy on Ayyavazhi Controversies

The content from the article

Although some followers of Ayyavazhi assert that this is an independent religion, it has not received official recognition as a separate religion in India. Even its followers are of the opinion that this is but a Hindu sect rather than an autonomous religion.[72] The worship practises and mythology borrows heavily from Hinduism and the founder of the religion is considered by its followers as an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu. They believe in the Hindu gods Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. They also indulge in the mystic practices of pocessions and devinations similar to the tribal religions of Tamil Nadu. The rampent illiteracy and supersitions in the followers of the faith prevented them from attempting to understand the Ayyavazhi philosophy and as a result it has degenerated into yet another Hindu sect.
The penetration of Ayyavazhi in Tamil Nadu is confined to a few territories traditionally associated with the Nadar community. There are no official figures for the number of followers of Ayyavazhi. Apart from Akilattirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool, the two religious texts associated with Ayyavazhi, we have no other source of information on its philosophy. There is no independent analysis of the contemporary status available on this sect. Although some of the followers have attempted at defining an independent philosophy to this sect, the underlying philosophy, mythology and worship practices are identical to the Hindu philosophy of Advaita and Smartism and Hindusim in general.

I repectfully disagree with whole of the contents of this Sub-heading and reject it line by line. Let me define.

"Although some followers of Ayyavazhi assert that this is an independent religion, it has not received official recognition as a separate religion in India. Even its followers are of the opinion that this is but a Hindu sect rather than an autonomous religion.[72]"
How do you say that some followers, consider it a seperate religion (and) Even its followers are of the opinion that this is but a Hindu sect rather than an autonomous religion? On the basis of the website cited as foot note 72? That is the view of a single webmaster. But the view of the researcher of the book Religion and Subaltern Agency, is not of a single person. Look the content from the book defining, how the details given in the book collected.
"The researcher could interview thirty-three persons altogether. Duration of interviews varied from a minimum of one hour to eight hours, depending on the time taken by the interviewee. Each interview was audio-recorded. The age composition of interviewees was above forty-five to eighty-two, except two persons below this category. Most of the interviewees were popular theologians, commentators, orators, and editors of journals on this religious phenomenon. Some of them were patrons of the different centers of worship of AV. The interviewees were drawn from differnt places - from Kanyakumari District to Chennai."
The conclusion of such a study (I mean among the followers in the matter of the religious phenomenon) on Ayyavazhi is given by the author and this was summerised in the sub-heading "New Religious Phenomenon" So you will consider what, the view of a single webmaster or that of 33 top known theologians?
It doesn't mean that that particular site should not be followed. It can be followed when it's views and the view of the Scripture is one and the same. This is the same in the matter of citing the book Religion and Subaltern Agency. It should only be followed when its implications don't move far away from the view of Akilam in beleif related matters.
In the matter of official recognition, as per the India constitution acts any one can create a religion, but not against the policies of government (as per the act 26 I think) and no body will question. But still you consider it a fact it was already mentioned right in the top of the article. A fact doesn't need to be mentioned more than once.
"The worship practises and mythology borrows heavily from Hinduism and the founder of the religion is considered by its followers as an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu. They believe in the Hindu gods Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. They also indulge in the mystic practices of pocessions and devinations similar to the tribal religions of Tamil Nadu."
How can you tell Vishnu as a Hindu God. Vishnu is a concept(god-head) followed in both traditions. It means, Vishnu doesn't belongs only to either of them. This is not a scientific or social matter to take the oldest of them, but belief. So if needed you can tell in the article that "Ayyavazhi shares the term 'Vishnu' with Hinduism ".
Moreover, take care both Ayyavazhi and Hinduism provide different views about Vishnu and also in the matter of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva.
Let me define shortly. Ayyavazhi accepts the views of Smartism in the matter of Trimurthi. Both say that These three are the different aspects of the same God. Which means three were equal in power. But Ayyavazhi says that it was like this till Kaliyukam. Right from the time Kaliyukam starts the others give all (it means surrender) their responsibilities to Vishnu. So from the bigginig of Kaliyukam, that is at the present age Narayana is all in all among the trimurthis. So in the matters of Trimurthis and Vishnu the views differs.
Then in the matter of "the mystic practices of pocessions and devinations", if these were followed by tribal religions and also Ayyavazhi, does it mean that Ayyavazhi borrows? This is same as in the matter of Vishnu. Since these were beleif, we can't declare that the oldest is the owner.
For example: 'Prayer' is a practice (concept) followed by almost all the religions of the world. Let us research and found XXX is the oldest religion in the world. Then shall tell that all others borrowed the concept of 'prayer' from the religion XXX. Is it right?
"The penetration of Ayyavazhi in Tamil Nadu is confined to a few territories traditionally associated with the Nadar community. There are no official figures for the number of followers of Ayyavazhi."
How do you tell this. The foot note number five in the Ayyavazhi article and the book Religion and Subaltern Agency confirms Ayyavazhi's fast spread in Tinnelvely's (This Tinnelvely extends near to present Madurai) and Travancore's (This Travancore extends near to present Palghat) southern districts. Which means nearly 4 districts in present Tamil Nadu and 4 districts in Kerala almost 8 districts. Were all of them assocated with Nadar community? And if you attempt to tell that most followers of Ayyavazhi are from Nadar, it's already mentioned in the article. It doesn't mean that "Almost all of them are from Chanar" but majority of them.
In the matter of official figures of followers, If there is no official recognition then wht is the possibility for getting figure. But still in an indirect way there was recognition. That is the holiday for three districts. Was it given to two or three followers from each districts?
"Apart from Akilattirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool, the two religious texts associated with Ayyavazhi, we have no other source of information on its philosophy. There is no independent analysis of the contemporary status available on this sect."
Are you telling the book Religion and Subaltern Agency is religious and not independent?
And the books on Ayyavazhi philosophy:That is really rare in english, but in Tamil. That is really a difficulty.
"Although some of the followers have attempted at defining an independent philosophy to this sect, the underlying philosophy, mythology and worship practices are identical to the Hindu philosophy of Advaita and Smartism and Hindusim in general."
Not some followers (almost all the scholors of Ayyavazhi as told earlier)
Then in the matter of beleifs related to Hinduism you can't tell that "the underlying philosophy, mythology and worship practices are identical to the Hindu philosophy". Bacause, you might have known the relation between Christianity-Bible-Judaism. Christianity does not borrows a little from Judaism but more than half. If you take a Bible (Both the Old&New Testaments)only less than one-forth (The New Testament)is that of Christianity. All the else were selected from that of Judaism. But they were two religions. In that sense in Akilam only less than half is from the so called Hinduism. That is the second half starts with taking the body of Mudisoodum perumal for Vaikunda Avatar in to the sea. Where the events of previous yugas (that is things borrowed from Hinduism closes within Akilam three, where Akilam had seventeen sections).
So if you can consider Christianity as seperate religion from Judaism then can undoubtfully consider Ayyavazhi outside Hinduism.

Due to all these facts, after placing reasons I'am removing this Sub-heading. I am not removing unilaterally. - Vaikunda Raja

Although IMO you haven't given any valid reasons for deleting the section, I have included an edited version much toned down. You now have no reason to delete it. Every article must accomodate any valid alternate viewpoint. Otherwise your articles will degenerate into a self indulgent fancrud. - Parthi 01:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I accept and find right now, but not to the cent.
The site in my vision is not an Ayyavazhi. Beacause as per Ayyavazhi there are 8 yugas and as per the site it told 4 yugas, that of hindu views. Sook this The page statrts as a Vishnavite. Then inside every page at the top lines from Bhagavat Gita are included as quote, which Akilam considered gony awry (lost their substance). Then see this here Kroni is alternatively viewed as Kalanemi. There was no mention about this kalanemi in Ayyavazhi scriptures. See the number of Yugas mentioned in that site. I think this cite master had tried to mingle both. Or this may be his view on reading both the Hindu and Ayyavazhi sources. But not of kilam.
This question was earlier rised by User:Raj2004. See this talk on yugas.
May he the site master be a Hindu Inclusivist. But you can ask, May not he be a Ayyavazhi inclusivist? But Ayyavazhi scripture is telling the old scriptures gone awry, then how can you, as a ayyavazhi follower, accept that?
Again Iam asking you, How can you say Vishnu as a Hindu God? May be Vishnu is a god-head in both Ayyavazhi and Hinduism.
You can't say that there are no views on Ayyavazhi Philosophy. There are. But not on net especially on other languages (though a few in malayalam). It should be mentioned in the article so.
What, for you(you think to be needed for deleting this) "valid reasons for deleting" in this matter? Also I don't oppose alternative views. But it sould not be like (Vaikundar utilises the superstitious nature and say himself as God) this etc. - Vaikunda Raja —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.1.210.204 (talk • contribs).

Ayyavazhi

One by one all say Ayyavazhi is not a religion.
vkvora 18:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Who say? and How. I'd cited that Ayyavazhi was autonomous which was from a book published by University of Madras. - Vaikunda Raja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.1.210.216 (talk • contribs)

The passage:

It may be concluded that Ayyavazhi emerged as a 'new and singular' religious phenomenon. Amidst the various traditions — the sanskritic Hinduism, the newly-introduced Christianity, the not-so-prominent Islam, and the ubiquitous folk forms of worship — Ayyavazhi was developing as a distinctively alternative religio-cultural form in South India, its place of origin. This fact had been recognized by the followers of Ayyavazhi.
They addressed their religion with a new nomenclature, "Ayya Vazhi" ("the path or way of Ayya") and thereby confirmed its new identity. They considered it, on the one hand, as ghee churned out of the existing religious traditions and, on the other, as a new phenomenon that had come to replace the old traditions. They believed, on the one hand, that Vaikundar had 'unified' all the existing deities unto himself and, on the other, that the essence of the old traditions had gone awry with the advent of Vaikundar. They placed their religion within the existing traditions and yet perceived it to be different from them. The distinguishing aspect of Ayyavazhi needs to be seen against the background of the sanskritic tradition whose pre-eminence was upheld by the State. That Ayyavazhi had emerged differently against this religious tradition is a pointer to its distinct singularity. The emergence of Ayyavazhi needs to be seen also against the presence of the British in India [70]. From a sociological perspective, reform movements in general were patronised by the British in the nineteenth century Thiruvithankur. But Ayyavazhi was never patronized by the British; it arose and stabilized without their support. In one sense, it was anti-establishment, presenting itself to be new, both in terms of a difference and in terms of a synthetic character. It called itself new, as well as a medley of the extant traditions [71].

is possibly copied verbataim from the source Patrick, G, Religion in the Subaltern Agency.

Parthi 01:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Friend, What do you want? In this same article you ask to cite at more than 70 places. I was made to cite each and every line. I don't know why? Do every articles in WP was censored in such a way? Then even after citing you said that this was a balant attempt to insert original reserch. I said I am ready to cite every line. Then said that Vaikundar utilises the superstitious nature of people to say himself god in the name of controversy. Now this. Even now I am telling, I am ready to cite each and every line of that section. But not a copy write. More over as per your policy in citation, Only copy writes may be suitable to wikipedia. Frankly telling I am not here to bite any one . Please understand - Vaikunda Raja 02:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Also Vaikundar was not the foundar, because he did not founded Ayyavazhi. If needed it can be noted "Ayyavazhi is a religion centered on the life and teaching of Vaikundar" .More over you've not replied for my suggestions.If so I will rewrite the section Controversy. - Vaikunda Raja 02:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think what Parthi asked above is whether the quoted paragraphs are direct copies from the book, which would make them copyright violations. Please comment on that rather than replying something completely different. Thanks. --Ragib 03:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
My suspicions of plagerism and copyvio were raised because of the difference in the style of these paragraphs compared to the rest of the article. I am also of the opinion that the "It may be concluded..." paragraph does not read encyclpaedic. Concluded by whom? If you are deducing something, then WP is not the place for it. See WP:NOR. Under these circumstances, I have reverted your reverts as I feel that this passage does not add any value to this article. - Parthi 09:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks friends, No need of any administrative actions. Sorry for all my mistakes so far. No one will find me a nuisance to WP here after to oppose any one. Still I like WP very much. Bye Vaikunda Raja 19:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi and other Castes in Hinduism

Jain, Buddha, Shikh are from Hindu but differ in many ways and hence separate religions whereas Ayyavazhi is only caste of Hindu.
vkvora 16:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi on the french wikipedia

Hello,

I'm from the French wikipedia. I wrote some articles about the religion Ayyavazhi, because there was nothing about it in French. But I really am clueless about Hinduism (mythology,...) and all its related beliefs (like Ayyavazhi), so I had to translate parts of the english articles. I had help (in english) from someone who knows quite well this religion, but even then I can not be sure I did not make any errors. So, if someone can understand french well enough, could he (or she ;) ) check my articles and tell me if I wrote stupid things, wrong things,...? It would really help me!

The articles :

My talk page (french wikipedia) (you can write in English on it)

Thanks a lot!! Chtit draco 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Marking as NPOV

I'm from Tamilnadu and visited most places in my 23 years and have not even heard of this so-called religion. I tried to google it, and didnt find much conclusive evidence, apart from pages caching WP. In the meanwhile, the article seems to be having a lot of unverfied claims and glorification on the sect, and all the proof seems to emanate from one person's book & a couple of other questionable missionary sources. It seems to me that, anyone with some knowledge of WP and two questionable books as citation could glorify any thing as a religion in the world. The article doesnt even seems to show that majority of Tamils even have no idea what this sect means, and I'm not convinced why this sect should be considered more than any other sects in Tamilnadu. I'm not sure this aspect is NPOV and wanted more discussion on that.

Kindly don't delete this tag till the discussions are over and more research is taken by the Wikipedians (particularly from Tamilnadu) to make sure that the cited sources have meaning. Either we Tamils are totally ignorant of such a magnificient happening in our own place or it must be the biggest hoax in WP history.

Balajiviswanathan 23:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprized why even knowledeable Wiki editors and admins were silent on this hoax issue. How many have verified this so called proof - "Religion and Subaltern Agency" by a Englishman called Patrick. All the dozens of categories and articles about Ayyavazhi seems to quote only that and I could not find a single reference to what the book is about or whether that book even exists as I couldnt find in my library references. I would request the Admins to immediately mark all the Ayyavazhi articles as POV and make sure that the book cited is a notable work before allowing further alterations. If those Ayyavazhi guys cannot provide any conclusive sources, we have mark the articles for speedy deletion. Balajiviswanathan 23:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I had seen this hoax a long long time ago... infact many months ago. But I didnt want to comment lest somebody assume bad faith. Yes, I know I erred on the wrong side of caution. I also request admins to take another look at this family of articles and the portal and take appropriate action. Sarvagnya 00:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Freinds, What Hoax? Please understand. The link for the book - Paul 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither the book nor its author is of any notability. Hundreds of such books come and publishing them is not hard. However, to use them as a citation, they have to have reputation. Before calling somethig as a religion and to the extent of creating a portal for it, you need to have atleast a few news articles, a few reputed books whose contents can be verified or a few good peer-reviewed papers. This issues might snowball into a big embarassment for Wikipedia itself and if things are left as it is, there wont be any credibility left. IF the admins left some unknown book written by an unknown author that is unread by any of us, to be a sole source for creating a new religious category and putting up a portal, what kind of management is going on in Wikipedia? Why am I always remembering "The emperor's clothes"? It takes a child's knowledge to see this as a big hoax. If you could provide me reputed sources (news papers atleast - "The Hindu" covers Tamilnadu extensively and puts even the minutest villages and obsucre practices in its articles and even that has not written anything about this "so called" religion. Something very fishy. Balajiviswanathan 00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This religion has a considereble number of followers at least in Three districts. There is an official holday for three districts for an Ayyavazhi festival. See The Hindu Report of declaration for Tirunelveli district this year.
Many Tamil News papers published news. But in Eng wiki it could not be cited . Also Daily thanthi and Dinakaran came with e-paper facility only two or three months back . So it may not be verified online.
Many books available offline including University papers. - Paul 00:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hoax may be a little too harsh. But then it is certainly being projected to be bigger than what it really is. I am not even so very concerned about the Ayyavazhi article eulogising this religion/sect. What I am more concerned about is you guys sneaking in Ayyavazhi everywhere - even on articles like Ravana, South India, History of Tamil Nadu etc.,. Why should readers of Wikipedia have to know what a small sect/religion has to think about Ravana? It is nothing but giving undue weight to something that is held by a very small minority. In other words, Ravana is a figure from Hindu mythology and in all fairness only Hindu or other 'notable' views on Ravana should go into that article. Read the link I've given. It says,
"...In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all."
Similarly, Ayyavazhi means almost nothing to South India. Entire South India minus the three districts you claim havent even heard of it. So why should it be there?
As for the book itself, I am convinced that the book and the author are real. I checked it here. But then, what about 'notability'?? Who on earth is G Patrick? Why should Wikipedia treat his work as sacred and sacrosanct?
Also, btw, I know you claim this to be a religion by itself, but I keep seeing references to both Hinduism and Christianity. So what is it really? An offshoot of Hinduism or Christianity? Sarvagnya 03:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Friends,

The book Religion and subaltern Agency is a publication from Department of Christian Sudies, University of Madras. The religious study on Ayyavazhi by this book is based on 33 top known theologians of Ayyavazhi. Since it is a University publication it is valid. Then the number of worship centers (8000) too is from a University book (Madurai Kamaraj University).
Then in the matters of Ravana, etc... Ayyavazhi and Hinduism says about Ravana. (i.e) Both refers to a same person. The mythical events told about Ravana is also almost the same. But varries in some area. So if not mentioning Ayyavazhi view in Ravana article, then we may have to create seperate article for Ayyavazhi view on Ravana. Like wise once there were three different articles for Siva, Vishnu and Brahma which were Sivan Vethan and Thirumal. But then after a series of discussions all were merged to Trimurthi article. (SeeThree godheads (Ayyavazhi))
Don't think that each and every view of every individual of the world is not appropriate to be placed in the article. Ayyavazhi is a religion which celebrates it's festival with a holiday for three districts. It is an indirect proof for the existence of Ayyavazhi.
Also Akilam the scripture which views Ravana is not written today or yeasterday. More than 150 years ago.
For example, If a king is mentioned in a book XXX, which was written 500 years ago and also mentioned in another book YYY, 150 years ago, If the views slightly varries, them both is notable in an article about the king. The notability doesn't comes from, how many people's view is similar to XXX or YYY. But definitely, todays people may not be notable. But the view of books XXX and YYY are treated, almost equally for a study. This is a historical matter reffering to the king. But in the matter of Ayyavazhi and Ravana, this is not history to take the oldest and consider valid. It was a beleif.
Bhogar is a well known Tamil Siddar. For example, in the Bohar article, the view on him from the book AAA of 12th century is noted then if another book BBB of late 18th century also says about him, and if the view varries, then both is to be noted. No matter how much of todays people accept either of them.
Also I found some days before, people comparing Ayyavazhi to reform movements such as Arya Samaj and some others comparing Ayyavazi to various castes. Arya Samaj is a reform movement but Ayyavazhi is a religion(may be officially a sect).
A religion should be viewed religiously, concerning its beleifs also. But a reform movement may be viewed Historically.
Let it go away how much people follow Akilam. But historically it was a book wrote some 160 years ago. Not today or yester day So friends please understand. - Paul 04:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Vaikunta Raja alias Paul Raj. Are you using both the accounts or have you abandoned the previous one? Anyway. Since you have some very strong believes we dont want to question about your founders, Vainkuntar, Bohar etc. The main question is the one of notability. There are zillion organizations around the world and not all can be recognized in Wikipedia as religions and given separate portals and categories. The best you can do is to retain the article, but you have to tear down the portal and all the family of articles and dont mess up with Hinduism related articles. If we keep doing for every one-person religion, then Wikipedia will go nuts. An Wikipedia portal or a category denotes notability and in no way your grouping is close to the world major groups like Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism and Buddism. Even in that one line corner news stating the holiday for Vaikundar, there is no mention of your sect. So, the best such a non-notable grouping can get is an article. Since, one person is so passionate about it, the rest of Wikipedia have to put up with the article. But, the rest of the articles have to let go.
You have to be a bit reasonable. How do you expect people to accept some un-notable grouping among the world major groups, where there is no iota of a proof. Leave ISBN. Who is that author? Nobody has heard of him and what is that book? Except for the 33 people in your religion nobody had even heard of that book. Be more reasonable. Wikipedia is not the place for unnoted organizations to have their day of renaissance. Balajiviswanathan 19:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Am I Vaikunda? I've told it many times to some users earlier. They don't understand. Any way, Comming to the matter,
The LMS are the early historins (in the matter of Ayyavazhi) to note Ayyavazhi as a seperate religion and see it against and placing to another pole. They call it as a seperate religion with the name Muttukkuttyism. The LMS reports are valuable in Ayyavazhi related matters because the LMS plays an anti-Ayyavazhi role in the 19th century Travancore. So any reports on Ayyavazhi from the LMS about its growth followers etc.. become valid because thats the view on Ayyavazhi from the opposite pole. They considered them in the religious ground, as one among the three players, Hinduism, Muthukuttiyism(Ayyavazhi) and Christianity (LMS). And the report is from the London Missionary Society, the largest and the first Protestant Missionary. More than 80 years of LMS Reports says about Ayyavazhi and Vaikundar, and also told that this Muthukuttiyism is a terrible check for their grown, in Travancore, the most succeded zone of LMS in India.
Who ever G.Patrick and his book Religion and Subaltern Agency be. But his book become valid because it was published from University of Madras, one of the leading Universities in India. Not only this Book there are many other books are cited there in the article.
I've told all this many times. You are going on calling Ayyavazhi as a reform movement. I still can't understand that. You may call Arya Samaj as a reform movement, but how do you call Ayyavazhi? They have seperate scriptures, holy places, etc... Especially Akilam the scripture of Ayyavazhi is seen seperately because (i.e) we can't consider Akilam as one among the Hindu Scriptures because Akilam says that all previous Agamas, Sastras, Vedas, Puranas etc.. have lost their substances right from the incarnation of Vaikundar. And alternative of that Akilam is given as scripture. Then how will you consider Ayyavazhi among Hinduism or as a reform movement?
Then keeping a portal and Category doesn't mean that it was compared with the largest religion in the World, Christianity. Now, Jainism have a few million followers, but Christianity more than 2000 million. A portal is kept for Jainism. Does it mean that Jainism is compared sociologically with Christianity?
Right now Kanyakumari district only (may be one or two more) have a seperate category among the districts in Tamil Nadu. Does it mean that Kanyakumari is the largest district in Tamil Nadu? It varries upon the users who make use of effort and time. May be, for some time there may not be any users from Kanyakumari and then the kanyakumari related articles may remain undeveloped, and may be the worse developed after a period of time. It doesn't be related with notability.
Ayyavazhi is not expecting any rennaissance from here. I've cited Ayyavazhi studied as a an autonomous religion. I've also cited the book from Online source. On the other hand the book is from a major University. Then the LMS; Iam ready to give the complete list of LMS Reports which mention Ayyavazhi. It covers more than eighty years. More over it couldn't be said as reform movement, because Ayyavazhi is a religion based on beleifs and not on reforms or revolution.
And if not considering offline notabilities, then many articles, especially India related works may have to be deleted. Many deep rural areas are far from the world of Internet and hence the result for the lack of Notabilities. See this discussionfor the reason for lack of online notabilities
Three districts are announced as a holiday for the Ayyavazhi festival in Swamithope. No other temples in Tamil nadu conducts its festival with three district, holidays. The report on the News paper is a summary news, and it just refered the reason for the Holiday. We can't expect the history of a religion in the news of Holiday announcement. Friend, you are going on telling 'tear up' etc.. Why? Wiki is a learning material? That is of no use if it come up in the world only as a strict 'set of rules'.

So please understand friend - Paul 13:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hindu or not?

Do practitioners of this faith count as Hindus or not? It would be helpful for me to know, so that I can determine whether the Religion project banner or Hinduism project banner should be placed on the articles relating to it. Badbilltucker 20:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The honest answer is that some followers of Ayyavazhi consider themselves to be Hindu and others consider it to be a separate religion. I have been unable to determine whether there is a majority one way or the other. However, judging from websites, which are admittedly a very biased sample in this case, the consensus seems to be that websites which represent themselves as Ayyavazhi are Hindu. Of course, you will no doubt hear an opposing view which states that these websites are not "real" Ayyavazhi. Hope that helps to confuse matters ;-) --BostonMA talk 20:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Consider personal websites than University papers as per the WP rules. Ayyavazhi is seperate as cited from valid, third-party sources.

Also why the section History of Ayyavazhi is tagged NPOV? See each and every lines are cited there. - Paul 18:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Official recognition by Indian Government

I removed words which stated that Indian government has not officially recognized Ayyavazhi. Indian government does not undertake any role to recognize religions. This article is well written. It can be considered for GA class.--Indianstar 11:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as NPOV

2) # ^ G.Patrick's Religion and Subaltern Agency, Chapter 5, Page 120,121. "This fact had been recognised by the followers of AV. They addressed their religion with a new nomenclature as "Ayya Vali" (The path or way of Ayya) and thereby confirmed its new identity."

This citations is currenty used to support that followers of Ayyavazhi consider it as a religion different than Hinduism. I need more information about G.Patrick and more information about in what context this statement is used. This statement by itself can hardly be used as authoritive support for stating that followers of Ayyavazhi consider themselves non-Hindu and followers of a new religion.

3)" ^ G.Patrick's Religion and Subaltern Agency, Chapter 5, Page 120,121. "it may be concluded that, it may be concluded that AV emerged as a 'new and singular' religious phenomenon in that context"

This singular citation is used to support that AV is a separate religion. However, this statement is weak in many regards. First of all in what context is the statement referring to? Furthermore, notice that it says "it may be" - that is not a particularly strong assertion even if context was there.

4) ^ Madurai News Letter, Thozhamai Illam, Kanyakumari, Page 9. This site (News letter) tells about a discussion in swamithoppe, and Ayyavazhi as an important sect of Hinduism See this Pdf "Fr. Maria Jeyaraj arranged an inter-faith dialogue at Samithoppu, Kanyakumari, on Akila Thirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool, the scriptures of Ayya Vazhi, an important sect of Hinduism. The present head of Ayya Vazhi, Sri Bala Prajapathi Adigalar, guided the meeting."
5)# ^ Dr.R.Ponnu's, Sri Vaikunda Swamigal and the Struggle for Social Equality in South India, Ram Publishers, 2000, Page 64, Chapter 4 "AYYA VAZHI - A NEW HINDU SECT"

This citations are used to support that it is counted as Hinduism in Indian census. However, it seems to also strongly support the fact that at least some people consider Ayyavazhi as a sect of Hinduism.

53)# ^ G.Patrick, Religion and Subaltern Agency published by Department of Christian Studies, University of Madras, Chapter 5, page 91: "By the middle of nineteenth century, AV (abbreviation of Ayyavazhi) had come to be a recognisable religious phenomenon, making its presence felt in South Tiruvitankur (Travancore) and in the southern parts of Tirunelveli. From the LMS reports, one gathers the information that AV was spreading with certain 'extraordinary' speed."

Religious phenomenon does not equal to new religion. I am starting to wonder if you are exaggerating or rewording things on purpose to support your POV?

81)"^ Tha.Krishna Nathan's, Ayyaa vaikuNdarin vaazvum sinthanaiyum (Tamil), Chapter - 4, page 83. (This citation was included here from Tamil wikipedia article)"

Please provide the tamil page and a translation for this citation. You cannot just copy and paste citations. How do we know who wrote the article on Tamil wikipedia and whether or not it is correct?

This is as far I have gotten. It seems to me that some people consider Ayyavazhi as a new religion but it is far from being well established as such and also many consider it as a sect of Hinduism. Also, most of the important citations are coming from one book written by G.Patrick - everything I have read so far resembles many different sects in Hinduism however. Keeping that in mind it is not proper how this article and many entries of Ayyavazhi on other pages strongly lean towards Ayyavazhi as a separate religion. Finally, adding a token controversy paragraph at bottom is somewhat amusing. Is their even such a controversy outside wikipedia? It seems to me that the paragraph at the end has been added to address the uneasiness of various editors rather than referring to something that has happened outside Wikipedia.--Blacksun 14:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation 2:- G.Patrick is a scholar (possibly a proffesor) in Christian department, University of Madras. Any way, let some body write some thing, I consider that book a valid because it was from one of the most creadible universities in India. Then in what sense that line could not be considered an authority for the new identification for the Ayyavazhi followers. On the other hand I may've to cite some tens of News papers calling them 'Ayyavazhi makkal' which means as 'Ayyavazhi followers' instead, calling them as Hindus while reporting Ayyavazhi functions.
You seem to think that a book = fact. This entire article is based on one authors opinion. Atleast all of the important/controversial aspects of it are. If that author is wrong then everything in here is wrong. Their are significant errors even when a topic is thoroughly discussed in academia. --Blacksun 01:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Entire article is based on one book?!!! What about the large number of references made here? Also your personal opinion is not more important than that of wiki guidelines. As per wikipedia, apart from several (independent) academics that book(valid third party source) is made as citations for the autonomous nature of Ayyavazhi. So are you telling that 'all academics along with the Madras University' which says Ayyavazhi is seperate, are all errors? ==> Д=|Ω|=ДPaul| 11:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Citation 3:- Friend, that was a line from the conclusion of a case study from an university and hence even 'a single line' is valid. Also apart from the conclusion, through out the book, Ayyavazhi is called as 'a religion'. Then also in this thing I'll cite news paper reports(tamil) which call ayyavazhi as seperate religion. I focus mainly to this book because its from an university so very much valid in wikipedia.
Conversely, one may cite many people who claim that AV is a sect of Hinduism and not a religion. Even some of your current citations state that.--Blacksun 01:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Why the climes that 'Ayyavazhi as a sect' is important than the reserch conclusion on the very same subject publised by a creadible university important? I've given well detail reply to this question. No use of mere repeatation. ==> Д=|Ω|=ДPaul| 11:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Citation 4&5:- External agents views are comparabely less valid rather than what Ayyavazhi followers and a 'overall reserch' on Ayyavazhi and it's followers reveals in matters related to their conscience. The first on is from a christian agency and the second is from a reserch on 'Ayya Vaikundar and hs activities' while the second is a reserch right on the field, "Ayyavazhi".
External agents views are usually more significant. Furthermore, due to the very nature of Hinduism, many Hindus have no problem accepting various new dieties and gods. This does not mean that they are not Hindus anymore. You have not given me anything that satisfies me that good majority of followers of AV sect consider themselves to be non Hindus. Absolutely nothing. Consider that with the fact how similar AV is to Hinduism and that it started as a Hindu sect as per your citations makes things very complicated. --Blacksun 01:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you expecting each and every Ayyavazhi followers want to contact you and identify them as Ayyavazhi's?! Friend that is what the conclusion of the book says. ==> Д=|Ω|=ДPaul| 11:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Citation 53:-That citation supports Ayyavazhi as a 'religious phenomenon' not now, but as so in the middle of ninteenth century; (i.e) at the beggining of it.
Then... 'Religion is not the same as religious phenomenon'? Phenomenon means "a fact or an event in nature or society, especially one that is not fully understood", as per Oxford. That is same in the case of Ayyavazhi; 'commonly, not fully understood' or 'misunderstood so far'.
No, religious phenomenon does not mean that it is a different religion. Lot of individual parts of a religion can be religious phenemenons. For instance, I could write a particular sect of a religion is a religious phenomenon. That does not make it a religion. --Blacksun 01:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
"Religious phenomenon is not equal to Religion" says You(POV); and "a fact or an event in nature or society, especially one that is not fully understood" says Oxford (third party). This definition, rightly fits to Ayyavazhi which is a socila fact not understood fully(commnly) by the society. Also note that,it was noted that 'recognisable religious phenomenon'. Also the sentence in the Ayyavazhi article is told that 'had come to be a seperate religion' which says the social condition of Ayyavazhi, felt by the LMS (the active historical recorders of Travancore 'in this matter') as outside Hinduism. ==> Д=|Ω|=ДPaul| 11:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, that citation is not used their to cite Ayyavazhi as a religion but to say the spread of Ayyavazhi, then.
I fail to see how citation 53 is sufficient for that sentence then? You are claiming that it came to be known as a different religion by 19th century in that sentence too.
Not 'religious phenomenon' but 'recognisable religious phenomenon'. Which means the social presence of Ayyavazhi is felt considerebly.==> Д=|Ω|=ДPaul| 11:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Citation 81:- I've made changes.
Then apart from these, the articles are properly cited. Also the controversy section is not added by my self. Pls go through the edit summary. If some thing of Ayyavazhi, resambles to some other religions it couldn't be consiedered as Ayyavazhi is similar to the rest, instead it should go through valid citations, Thanks. - Д=|Θ|=Д Paul| 18:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I never said that you added it. I was simply commenting on its very existance. --Blacksun 01:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ayyavazhi materials in Internet are too low, especially english. But I've cited too many offline notabilities, even with university papers. But I don't know why people are not considering that all. I was complined to be using povs here. Though not used as citation (Tamil users) see this tamil link which says about history of Ayyavazhi. - Д=|Θ|=Д Paul| 21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
See also this tamil link - Д=|Θ|=Д Paul| 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


How do you explain the complete lack of mention of this 'religion' in The Hindu, the leading neutral broadsheet published in Tamil Nadu: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]? - Parthi talk/contribs 21:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally such things are far beyond the reach of English news papers which are with limited reporters and news coverages. But regarding Tamil Papers the news related to Ayyavazhi are extinsive. If needed, I'll also cite sources from Daily Thanthi, which is perhaps the largest readed news paper in India.


Why this Daily Thanthi and generally the Tamil News papers covers many news regarding Ayyavazhi because, Tamil news papers have a number of editions from Madurai, Tirunelveli and Nagercoil while the nearest Tamil Nadu edition of Hindu from Kanyakumari is Madurai more than 250 km away. Possibly low news coverage from deep interior areas when compared to regional and Tamil News papers. - Д=|Θ|=Д Paul| 22:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If Ayyavazhi is not notable enough to be mentioned in the Hindu newspaper, which has multiple editions from a number of cities of Tamil Nadu, then how is it notable enough to be mentioned in the hundreds of unrelated articles in Wikipedia? Parthi talk/contribs 23:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly!--Blacksun 01:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've clearly explined the reason as, possibly the limited news coverage of Hindu, when compared to Indian language or regional Papers. So friends, are you telling that also wikipedia should remain with limited subjects ? Leave Hindu, are you telling that Tamil News papers are not creadible (especially Daily Thanthi, the largest readed news paper in India), enough to be cited here? - Д=|Θ|=Д Paul| 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes the fact that you have only a handful of obscure "university papers" coupled with the fact that the "religion" has never found mention in any respected newspapers or anywhere else for that matter does indicate that it is not that notable. EVERN your university papers that you are citing is not done in good spirit - you use vague terms from the paper that do not give any specific information to build a castle in the sky. --Blacksun 10:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
"never found mention in any respected newspapers"?:- So are you telling, a news paper with a largest raedership in a nation and with over one crore readership as not respectable? Also a reserch paper from one of the most creadible universities in India is obscure? - ==> Д=|Ω|=ДPaul| 19:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am saying that one research paper cited in the manner you have does not have much credibility in my eyes. Any other questions? I missed which largest paper in india has reference to AV and in what context. --Blacksun 00:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be in hurry. Patiently read what I exacty told. I don't tell that I've cited; But that I'll. But now I've done (see the direct quote in foot note 3). And as a side note, please tone down. It is of no use in any way, if you make comments as Personal attacks. - ==> Д=|Ω|=ДPaul| 10:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I cannot read Tamil, assuming it is Tamil.--Blacksun 02:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll be able to read and translate any Tamil sources. Parthi talk/contribs 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, kindly translate his new quotes in citation. --Blacksun 10:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I've already translated those tamil quotes. ==> Д=|Ω|=ДPaul| 06:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Umm I dont see it. Reference 3 is still untranslated for me.--Blacksun 10:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've translated. ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 18:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That does not look like a newspaper article clipping. What is the quote from? BTW please refrain from removing the npov tag. You have not convinced anyone yet and I have even more questions about the entire thing. I am waiting on the neutral user Indianstar's analysis before deciding on what to do next. --Blacksun 10:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That quote may be taken as citation for two things
  1. The origin of Ayyavazhi is March 4th 1833
  2. Ayyavazhi is a seperate 'Religion'. The quote call Ayyavazhi as religion and not a sect.
Then now the news paper clipings are added as reference with Translations. ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sir, I meant what is that quote taken from. Never mind all your citations have changed again then what I was referring to. I do not know how to take these new citations. They seem to be of newspaper clippings where someone or some organization is referring to Ayyavazhi as a religion. But without the proper context they could mean absolutely anything. I have to go by user Indianstar's analysis of all your citations that he posted on his talk pages. Do you have any reason to disagree with his analysis? --Blacksun 22:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The news paper clipings are from the context that they are reporting the celebration of Ayyavazhi festivals and reporting the holiday announcement respectively. There they (the news papers itself and not any organisations or some other people) They report is there as if the author or editor of the news (news paper) is narrating the things. The news regarding the holiday announce ment is published on behalf of editor. And for User:Indian Star I've replied him there with few suggestions. - ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 22:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Also note that User:Indianstar told here that "Tamil regional newspapers do mention Ayyavazhi separately.(These reports available mostly in regional editions of regional newspapers meant for specific districts)" ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User:IndianStar 's opinion

Since both parties were waiting for his analysis and had more or less accepted him as a neutral party on this, it is important to look at his opinion after taking a critical look at all the evidence given by him. This is a copy/paste from his talk page in conversation with user Paul Raj:

Following are the views expressed by me to User:Blacksun and I stand by that statement.
1) Tamil Newspaper citations are available to show that some Ayyavazhi followers believe Ayyavazhi as separate religion. There is no way to establish whether that "some" is majority or minority.
2) Credible evidences are not available to show that Majority of Ayyavazhi followers think Ayyavazhi is totally separate from Hinduism.
3) In my personal opinion(Wikipedia community may differ) only credible evidence to prove above point is either census or surveys. For example if census says India's population is 1 Billion and if some university paper says it could be 1.2 billion, I will take census because it is more credible source to estimate population. When census has enumerated 1650 religions (some of them are followed by tribal people whose literacy rate may be within single digit) there is no known bias available for group of census officers operating in different regions to club millions of Ayyavazhi followers along with Hinduism. There is no way to believe that people living in districts with 90% literacy rates are not able to say their religion correctly to census officers.
4) Newspaper citations are available to prove the existence of Ayyavazhi followers in large numbers in districts pointed out by you and celebration of Ayyavazhi festivals in grand ways. But that is not a proof that Ayyavazhi is different from Hinduism. There are many variants available in Hinduism like Shaivites, Vaishnavites, Lingayats etc etc.Different festivals are celebrated by each variants of Hinduism. --Indianstar 11:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you kindly post your analysis in the ongoing discussions at Ayyavazhi page. --Blacksun 10:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This leads me to believe what I suspected all along - Their is no clear cut evidence for all the things claimed/implied in this article. What Paul needs to COMPREHEND - and I cannot EMPHASIZE on this any less - that a handful of discrete statements in local newspapers and one book is NOT enough evidence to a) State with such confidence that Ayyavazhi is a separate religion in this article, and b) Go post about Ayyavazhi in scores of other articles. Just reading this article, despite all the pov by Paul, still confuses me in terms of how exactly it is separate from Hinduism. As User:DaGizza noted in the talk page of Eastern philosophy their are many different sects in Hinduism that have lot more people claiming to be a separate religion and are still not identified as such in Wikipedia. My proposal is that both sides be equally stated in this article and that Paul should stop adding Ayyavazhi in other articles. I am open to allowing his case of stating Ayyavazhi as a separate religion in this article as long as it is presented in a manner that leaves it open for interpretation than it being a fact. Otherwise, I will have to start a RFC and let this matter be settled by opinions of other community members. I hope Paul can understand what I am trying to state.--Blacksun 10:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've cited with University publication, you called it as "one university book"; Still In fact I don't know on what ground you are forecefully rejecting the opinion of 33 top know theologians (in the matter that what Ayyavazhi followers beleive about themselves) and the conclusion of such a creadible university in India. Then I cited with historian views you called as "mere POV".(as in citation 12) then for citing from independent cites the same is the reply. Then I cited with News Papers and wonderfully now calling as "mere news paper reports". I don't understand those things. And for the deviation of Ayyavazhi from Hinduism see Talk:India/Ayyavazhi.
Anyway, you told that
"My proposal is that both sides be equally stated in this article and that Paul should stop adding Ayyavazhi in other articles. I am open to allowing his case of stating Ayyavazhi as a separate religion in this article as long as it is presented in a manner that leaves it open for interpretation than it being a fact. Otherwise, I will have to start a RFC and let this matter be settled by opinions of other community members. I hope Paul can understand what I am trying to state."
Though this seem to me as some sort of threatening, I shall come down. But the things shouldn't be considered like this in all articles.
For example Once an Ayyavazhi related article is started as "Three God Heads" to focus the Ayyavazhi vision to Thrimurthi. But then it seems that some users opinion that it could be merged to Thrimurthi article and mention the vision of Ayyavazhi there under different heading.
So like so, if Vishnu, Siva etc.. doesn't find a place to mention the Ayyavazhi vision, then a very same article should be formed with a new name to the same Siva and Vishnu etc.. since Ayyavazhi vision on Vishnu and Siva is different from that of Hinduism. And it is of no use to do so. I think Black Sun will understand this thing. Otherwise User:Blacksun, you tell another way to proceed.
Then other independent religion related works, when minor movements and organisations are mentioned it should definitely find a mention to Ayyavazhi. For example the article Religious text. See there even small movements are mentioned there but it seems to me as a revenge on Ayyavazhi; it was removed from there. Likewise in the religious symbolism article.

If needed I will discuss in appropriate article's talk page before adding the Ayyavazhi contents. But it shouldn't be so, as some days before, "mass removal of Ayyavazhi" as a revenge ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 18:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi is such a minorreligion/sect that it cannot find mention in some of the largest journals in Tamil Nadu. Paul Raj (and Vaikunda Raja in an earlier incarnation) is the only author adding ayyavazhi related information. These two facts suggests that this is not a well known faith even in its limited area of influence in the three southern districts of Tamil Nadu. While creating hundreds of articles on such minor and obscure 'faith' may seem an overkill in wikipedia, it is unacceptable to spam links to ayyavazhi in hundreds of articles such as First man or woman, Ravana, Duryodhana, Pilgrimage, Religious text, etc, etc... This is simply not warranted and gives undue weight to this minor faith. This has always been my stand. Parthi talk/contribs 21:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
So are you telling that Daily Thanthi, Dinakaran and all are not major news papers? If not so see the mentioning as cited in the article. Then you are also telling that Ayyavzahi "is not a well known faith even in its limited area of influence in the three southern districts of Tamil Nadu". So are you telling that declaring an official holiday for these three dists is a game played with teddy by the Government? Then adding Ayyavazhi related articles are aoverkill??!!! All the articles are written by citing the sources. So are you telling that such things do not existed? Or are you telling that the no such books (which are cited sources) ever exists? Then writing and improving the articles on certain subjects rest upon the intrest of the users to those related things. If some other religions don't have such a number of articles, then that may be a trouble on them or may be their lack of intrest towards them. What shall I do? Relating to it how you can address Ayyavazhi articles as overkill? In wikipedia any articles with suitable citations cannnot be questioned. No matter what is it related to. What overkill???!!!!!
Then in the matter of independent article, leave Eastern Philosophy, Dharmic religions etc... but in the matter of Pilgrimage, Religious text, etc.. my question is nothing but, even minor organisations are found mentioned then why Ayyavazhi? See Religious text article there many minor movements are noted. What is your feed back to them? If non, then why Ayyavazhi is removed?
Regarding Ayyavazhi not only thease three dist holidays, I've cited source for the huge amount of worship centers even from University books. You call them as POV. I don't understand that. Do wikipedia guideline call University publications as POVs?
Even on removing Ayyavazhi from Dharmicv religions, Eastern Philosophy etc... people here don't move as per wiki guidelines. But moved as per the fact that some 5 user's (view) vs One user.
One major fact (defect) to which I agree to the cent. 'No other active users to write on Ayyavazhi related articles'. That is really a difficulty. But the real pathetic thing is, based only on this factor, all my citations, even university papers are seen as POVs. ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 09:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
My views are given below
Ayyavazhi as a phenomena is well documented in Tamil newspapers.
Most of the Tamil newspapers call Ayyavazhi as separate sect.
It is very hard to find news reports about Ayyavazhi in English newspapers/Internet websites etc. Paul's argument that social infrasture of Ayyavazhi is very weak is not convincing. Districts which has Ayyavazhi population in large numbers are few of the most literate districts in Tamilnadu. There is no data available to justify his claim that only Ayyavazhi people are illiterate in those districts. Most(May be all) of the Google English language search hits are pertaining to Wikipedia articles created by Paul in various wiki sites. But English language citations alone cannot be taken as source. Since Ayyavazhi people are concentrated only in few districts of Tamilnadu, Tamil newspaper citations can be considered as source.
None of the survey results like Family Health survey by Govt. of India, National sample survey of Government of India, mentions about Ayyavazhi religion. These surveys are large in nature with samples from all districts of India. Loyola college which conducts surveys frequently in Tamilnadu also does not point out anything about Ayyavazhi as separate religion.
We can allow both views in this article like Ayyavazhi as separate religion(Based on Tamil newspapers and some books) and Ayyavazhi as part of Hinduism.
Ayyavazhi festivals are celebrated in grand ways in few districts of Tamilnadu and citations are available for the same. I could not understand why that cannot be stated in Tamil people article.--Indianstar 20:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your effort. Paul dont you think the article warrants some changes now? Every single person seems to disagree with you to some degree when it comes to strength of your citations and the assumptions you make based on them. --Blacksun 12:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Blacksun, the controversy is on only one thing. Ayyavazhi is a religion or a sect. Thats all. Even in that case I've provided as much of citations. But still agree that some people consider Ayyavazhi as a sect. It mean that, 'article need some changes' probably adding some lines. But it doesn't mean that a 'complete rewrite' is required as told by you earlier.
On what ground you are questioning the large number of citations provided? Are you telling that all the citations provided, not at all exists? Or Are you telling that there is no such 'Ayyavazhi' is there, and so 'no Akilam' no 'Panchapathi', no 'worship centers' no 'theology', no 'rituals' for them etc... ?
If or not Ayyavazhi is a religion, all other may remain as so, since they are not based on the fact that, whether Ayyavazhi is a religion or not. ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 12:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I can accept that line of thinking. --Blacksun 02:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Misleadng text

  • "South India contains the largest population of Ayyavazhi practitioners,[15] with significant numbers of followers in the southern districts of Tamil Nadu such as Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli and Tuticorin.[16]" - This implies as if their are significant populations of Ayyavazhi in other parts of India/world when it would be far more accurate to state that, "Ayyavazhi is primarily followed in following three districts of Tamil Nadu." Their are many such examples of misleading text. Once again, try to think in terms of enyclopedia instead of a brochure to promote your "religion."

-

Citations were re-named; Then Ayyavazhi practitioners are found through-out India. But only a few. But in South India the practitioners are of good numbers as if thousands of worship centers are found across South India. Then again the practitioners are comparably much regarding South Tamil nadu and South Kerala. LMS report is a proof for it. Then in the southern districts the prastitioners are more than any other Place. It is what told from the sentence. For all the above told, University books are th source. And for one the report from the LMS.
As a side note, One thing I like to remember you once again. Please tone down. Any thing in the pathway of Personal attack is of no use in any way. Thanks ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 12:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
One more citation(foot note 7) added; You may call some other users to verify. ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 02:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
So would it not make sense to copy edit the statement to say "Ayyavazhi follows are primarily found in the district x, y, and z of Tamil Nadu"?--Blacksun 02:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Documented evidences state that Ayyavazhi followers are concentrated in specific districts of Tamilnadu.They are sparsely populated in other southern districts of Tamilnadu and south kerala. Probably we can say they are mainly concentrated in South Tamilnadu & South Kerala. Do you have additional evidences to support the claim that 8000 temples are available for Ayyavazhi sect?--Indianstar 11:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I object to statement that "Ayyavazhi followers are counted along with Hinduism in census". This statement is original research. It sounds as if there is a bias in census officers. We have to categorically state that Ayyavazhi followers declare themselves as Hindus in census or something which sounds like that. I will try to modify the statement, see whether it is OK --Indianstar 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes to come out of POV

I made following changes to lead so that we can come out POV tag.

1) Article should start that it is sect of Hinduism, since credible evidence like census and government surveys shows them as Hindus and there is no known bias.

2) Views of Ayyavazhi as separate religion is also allowed since some Regional language newspaper reports and books consider it as separate religion.

3) Lead should clearly state that Ayyavazhi followers declared themselves as Hindus in Indian census and government surveys. Earlier sentence gave the impression that census officers clubbed Ayyavazhi along with Hindus and raises suspicion on census officers intention.

4) Estimate of population is based on one interview given by one of its practitioner which is not credible evidence.(Practitioners always estimate their popuation on higher side). Only estimation done by statistical surveys or well known sociologists can be quoted as credible evidence for population estimation.

Focussing primarily on Ayyavazhi as separate religion violates WP:UNDUE. If we clearly mention Ayyavazhi as separate sect of Hinduism and allow opinions about Ayyavazhi as separate religion, I think community will agree to release POV tag. I suggest Paul to not to make changes to lead till community consensus is reached. I will try to collect opinions of other community members.--Indianstar 06:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


Friends, before forming an opinion line-by-line, My I suggest one thing?
Indian census is a independent agent which treats all people's views from the one or two words for their questions as 'discession making Golden words', irrespective of an short-sided illiterate (Iam not meaning that illiterates are fools) and a decidable scholar. If or not you people accept the above statement, My question is if so, then why thease news papers, religious agents, historians and even University papers consider Ayyavazhi as seperate religion? Are you whole-hartedly overtaking these citations as mere bias?
Mind that these above mentioned agents are the academics who in one way or another, might have deeply studies the social, structural(power-relation), scriptural and ideological depth of something, certainly than the 'mere questioning' census in a society. Additionally, creadibility is on thems side too. So this shouldn't be thrown into air as 'a mere clime'.
I am suggesting the above thought mere because, it will only be the reason that the census and the academics seriously disagree. ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 15:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Your assumption is wrong. Indian census officer does not give multiple answer question for religion. It is a open question and respondents are free to quote any religion. 7500 respondents in Tamilnadu have chosen a religion which is different from 5-6 major religions.Your statement that Ayyavazhi followers are around 8 million is completely sourceless. It is as high as 20% of Tamilnadu population. I heard about Ayyavazhi only through wikipedia though I have travelled all over Tamilnadu. Even other people have expressed similar opinions like Venu or Balaji viswanathan who are from Tamilnadu. But argument cannot be centered around whether individual is conversant with the issue or not.(Wikipedia says " I don't know is not the right reason to reject the claim"). I weighed issue based on available citations not based on my personal opinions.--Indianstar 18:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Indianstar's edits and I think they are absolutely appropriate. My problem has always been the question of [[undue weight with the single editor's evangelical zeal of inserting links to ayyavazhi is numerous articles. That should be stopped and weeded out immediately. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For User:Indianstar, Regarding the number of followers, the report of the interview may be a view of one follower, but, we can't reject or otherwise weigh less, the other sources in the matter that "Ayyavazhi followers are found through-out India, from - one a leading news paper, another from a historian, and other an university paper? You call it as 'claim'! I accept that even one personality is a scholar, heavy chances are there for a biased views from his works; But if his work is accredited by an university, then you can't argue from a 'vision of doubt', especially here in wikipedia. Citations 15, 16, and 17 should be changed from now, which weighs them much low than their creadibility; the word 'claim' should removed as per my opinion.

In the 'citation 18' : See I've wrote the exact quote from his book, then why the sentence saying, the spread of followers across South India had been changed to "South Tamilnadu and South Kerala contains the largest population of them". Again in this matter, don't weigh it as a mere claim from the opinion from one person. This is what, which really worries me, 'Calling even university papers as Pov or as my own view'. People also argu once that, Iam making a big thing here on basing only a few university paper. I' ve another souces too, but still focus to University papers because, they are creadible than any other sources.

Citaion 20 & 21 not fit to the statement. I may have given that from some other reason. I might have chequed and changed them; But you told me not to change anything. So please care this. Then, the statement, "those who consider Ayyavazhi as a seperate religion, classified it as a Dharmic religion". 'Those who consider' means some Tom, Dick etc consider it so. The citation is a source from one of the most creadibile universities in India.

In the matter of 8 million it is the view of one Ayyavazhi follower. One more citation, dating 3-3-2007 from the daily Dinakaran Nagercoil edition (I think this news is available in all editions through-out Tamil Nadu) which says the Ayyavazhi followers are over 1 crore. In this matter it couldn't be told that "one Ayyavazhi follower claims that so and so", but as "there are climes that..." (You told me not to change and so Iam not citing it now)

Then one thing, you told that, "I've never heard of Ayyavazhi from any other places than wikipedia", on the way of rejecting this claim of 8 million as a complete exaggeration. More than this, see here a wonder happened, Yesterday the Vaikunda Avatharam Festival is celebrated. No such news is seen in Hindu, even in the religional edition. Even the starting of Mondaicaud temple festival which have only local holiday is mentioned, but not this Ayyavazhi festival which have holiday for three dists.

Today's Daily Thanthi says that "அய்யா வைகுண்டசாமி அவதாரதின விழா- நாகர்கோவிலிலிருந்து சாமிதோப்புக்கு பிரமாண்ட ஊர்வலம் - லட்சக்கணக்கான பக்தர்கள் கலந்து கொண்டனர்"(news Heading). This report also says that, thousands from Kerala also participated in this procession. From the layout of the news, it seems that this news is reported in all the editions of Tamil Nadu. The Sun News channel also reported this festival. But such a festival not even mentioned in 'The Hindu'. That's the situation of english news papers.

To note intrestingly, Once when I spoke to a reporter of 'Indian Express' about this matter, asking that why such a large festival is not reported in English papers, he told that "they (The religious headquarters) might not invited the press for a meeting and so the reporters may not aware of that."

And for User:Parthi, It's worriable that no others active users are there for writing about Ayyavazhi. But it's pity for Ayyavazhi. But it can't be mentioned as a reason for rejecting all things I've told. The article is not referenced as 'Paul's edits' as sources, but from around 150 citations. They are not my own vision. It's fitting to mention Ayyavazhi in atleast some articles, such as Tamil People, Holy texts etc where even minor religious movements are mentioned. ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 13:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

.... லட்சக்கணக்கான பக்தர்கள் கலந்து கொண்டனர... means nothing. லட்சக்கணக்கான பக்தர்கள் may take part even if they just belonged to a sect of hinduism. லட்சக்கணக்கான பக்தர்கள் can take part even if they werent Ayyavazhi followers but lived in a village/town/city where there is a considerable Ayyavazhi presence. In India it is not uncommon for people of all castes and religions to take part in each other's public celebrations.
As for Indianstar's suggestions, I approve completely. Sarvagnya 23:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It's really, really pity that, people reacting not even understanding for what reason Iam telling something, on the way of critisising what ever Iam telling. ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
See one link from Dinamalar which calles them as 'Ayyavazhi followers' 'ஐயாவழி பக்தர்கள்'. ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
See another link that reports about this festival celebrated in Chennai. And in the procession from Royapuram tyo Manalimudunagar held there, thousands of worshippers participated. ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 01:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"The religion is highly related to Hinduism, in some aspects its practitioners,[7] several news papers,[3][4][8] and some academics [9][5] all of them call it as a seperate religion. Apart from this, certain groups outside Ayyavazhi too recognize it as a separate religion, including some social[10] as well as religious[11][12][13] faculties." - I find this sentence to be rather odd, especially when you consider the lead sentence because you are basically expanding the citations that you used in first sentence. Anyways I agree with the direction but it needs polishing in terms of grammar. --Blacksun 10:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Grammar and sentences needs to be polished. I only wanted users opinions on direction.--Indianstar 12:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"Though the religion is highly related to Hinduism in some aspects, its practitioners,[7] several news papers,[3][4][8] and some academics [9][5] all of them call it as a seperate religion. Apart from this, certain groups outside Ayyavazhi too recognize it as a separate religion, including some social[10] as well as religious[11][12][13] faculties." It's in this meaning the sentence was placed. ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 15:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations are based on superlative adjectives used by its followers

All your citations for Ayyavazhi's presence all over India and Ayyavazhi population figures are based on superlative adjectives used by Ayyavazhi followers or supporters. If some Ayyavazhi follower or person who does research on Ayyavazhi says "Thousands of temple is found all over India"" does not mean thousands of temples exist.(For example if some book says Hinduism exist for millions of years then I cannot quote that in lead of Hinduism article. I should be able to find dozens of such books about Hinduism ) These are called metaphor. Have anybody tried to identify even 10 specific Ayyavazhi temples outside Tamilnadu??. Have anybody tried to identify statewise or districtwise population of Ayyavazhi outside Tamilnadu.?. How can you estimate population of the country or no. of temples in the country without even trying to estimate population at lower levels. Figures for population or number of temples does not fall under credible evidence. Giving population figures and saying Ayyavazhi's presence all over India in the lead based on available evidences is totally misleading. These can be quoted in separate sections like Ayyavazhi supporters views or something else. I really appreciate your efforts to collect lot of citations and answering questions from multiple editors. If this is done along with some grammar corrections or rephrasing sentences then I suggest POV tag can be removed. I wish to have views of other editors.--Indianstar 16:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I could not have penned it any better. This is one of the primary concerns I have had with the citations and have been struggling to phrase it--129.125.7.218 11:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Here begins the unwanted controversy again. This is the exact place of the discussion where I am really worried about. Note that the reports are from leading news papers Historians and even university papers ect... May be, you can seal the historians as biased on. But what about the lading news papers and creadible universities.
Also a person who obtained a doctorate in some universities may not be geneune. But when a book itself is published by an University, on what ground you call it as Ayyavazhi biased? Are the universities the play ground of lunatics? or Are you arguing that all those universities denotes Ayyavazhi, were are depended to Ayyavazhi? And you your self know that since majority of it's followers sre considered Hindus, then how you could estimate them exactly. On the other hand creadible evidence exists for supporting that Ayyavazhi's are present accross India. Bt it doesn't mean that half the population of India is Ayyavazhi. But inspite (incase) of their low number, they are scattered accross India, and hence the worship centers accross the nation.
I've made a citation that thousands of people participated in the procession in Chennai on march 4th. And before no body might have accepted that Ayyavazhi is present in Chennai, merely telling that "I've travelled all accross Tamil Nadu for the last 40 years and not even heared of it." And one thing I wonder you asked "If somebody can find even 10 worship centers outside Tamil Nadu". This seems to be a good joke!!! Even, I personally know about (heared) some 10 Thangals in Mumbai city alone. One of my friend attended several functions there in some Thangals. Any way this is not official here in wikipedia. So leave it. The main thing here to be cared is the University papers. I once agin telling that, don't call as, "mere University papers" but as "even university Papers", especially here in wikipedia.
And finally, as a side note, as far as I've read, those persons, Patrick, Poulose or Ponnu; all are not Ayyavazhi. Patrick is a Christian, Poulose and Ponnu were Hindus, still they've done several works on Vaikundar and Ayyavazhi(these two people call Ayyavazhi as a reformatory system hghly focussing it's sociaological impact). ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
My opinions are based on available citations and not based on whether I have come across Ayyavazhi people in my life or not. In same way, your view that I know 10 Thangals in Mumbai will not be considered credible source, we need third party source which lists down few Ayyavazhi temples in other parts of Tamilnadu. I did not question existence of Ayyavazhi which is proved by various university papers,news reports etc etc being quoted by you. I only questioned Population of Ayyavazhi people or No.of Ayyavazhi temples. All university research papers are not credible evidences. Accreditation given by university is to certify organized way in which research is conducted. It does not certify everything said in that paper is true. For example there are research papers which says population of Indian muslims is around 20%.(Census estimation is 13%). There are research papers which disputes basic science principles.
You have spent lot of time to write articles in structured manner.Please accept valuable inputs from others without arguing points again and again. Nobody is against Ayyavazhi religion or sect. They only question buildup being given to the article based on few available news papers, books, university papers etc. You are free to use Population estimation done in statistical or scientific manner. Please don't quote population,its spread, no. of temples estimations done by few Ayyavazhi supporters.--Indianstar 04:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept, that the exaggerated POV of Ayyavazhi's is or should not be considered as citations. You asked that, "we need third party source". My suggestion is the reply for this exact thing. News paper reports and university papers are available for the number of worship centers and the spread of Ayyavazhi accross India. And apart from accrediting this statement, there is no chance for any univresities to go out and count door-to-door the worshipcenters, especially when it's followers are counted within or as some others. But on the other hand Univesities might not accredit any set of non-sense, especially such creadible universities like Madurai Kamaraj University. They might have verified some solid proof. They must. And it is the same in the matter of the Dinamalar report. It was not an interview or someother thing published by Ayyavazhi's. But that by the newpaper(one of the leading tamil newspaper) itself. And for the presence of Ayyavazhi worship centers throughout India (without numbers); again another university paper is the refernce; Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, from Kerala.

Also you said, "For example there are research papers which says population of Indian muslims is around 20%.(Census estimation is 13%)". Though in my POV, I can't say that which side is true, you can't compare Ayyavazhi citations in this matter. Because two (each of them shouldn't be thrown as invalid) views points are available in the matter of muslims which are controversial to each other. But in matter of Ayyavazhi, valid sources are available for support one side, that those centers are present accross India. ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 15:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Their are various census carried out including Indian census. That is a solid evidence against the few sources you have provided. Your argument that census does not include Ayyavazhi does not hold merit - where is the source for that? --Blacksun 09:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Again the discussion seems to be going unhealthy. Friend the reason is clearly state in the second part of the second sentence, and more over in my above discussion. Please read carefully everytime what I've told before marching against me. Thanks. ==> Д=|Ω|=Д PaulỸ 14:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ayyavazhi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
==WHY?==

This article is definitely not a stub; and is best informative. Why this article is tagged as a stub? - Paul 18:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Does such a long and refrenced article deserves only a 'B' Class ? - white dot...!!! 06:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Below are comments by another editor. Good luck guys! Ncmvocalist 10:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

MoS-wise, this article is close to FA material. But content wise, the problems with this article are plenty and deep. Several people have questioned its notability and some have even called for deletion (I personally wouldnt go that far). The entire article(dozens of related articles, actually) is sourced to an author and a book that nobody has heard about. No Indian editors (including natives of Tamil Nadu) other than the couple editing that article have even heard of this religion or sect. Talking of which, brings us to the other major point of contention - is it a religion or is it a sect? Is it a sect within Hinduism or Christianity? The only source used in this article is patently lopsided in this regard and nobody is prepared to buy its views. The problem is compounded by the fact that there are literally no reliable sources at all with which to corroborate what is said in the article. The paucity of sources is so great that it wouldnt be too far fetched for someone to make a case that it is an elaborate hoax! Until these core and basic issues are addressed, I dont see the article advance beyond a "B". Sarvagnya 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, only for the questions about its notability I cited those large number of Leading News paper reports. And that "one book" is nothing but, 'Religion and Subaltern Agency', From Madras University, to which 'G.Patrick' is the author who is a lecturer in the Department of Cristian Studies in that University. I've told this many times to 'that community' people you mentioned. And till now I don't understand how an university book from a leading university from India become obscure.
And comming to the matter, this book is cited there only for the religiosity related things for Ayyavazhi. All belief and faith related things are cited with various religious books, commenteries and other publications. About the social exsistence of Ayyavazhi, Vaikundar and their existence and their influence over the society, number of worship centers, and all, large number of citations were provided from news papers from Tamil Nadu, and from some leading news papers of India ,(The Hindu, Daily Thanthi...) Also other citations for these includes that from independent websites, Govt publications from Tamil Nadu, Kerala, And various university publications etc..
See the large number of citations there in =Ayyavazhi&oldid=158290509 this version of the article. Now many citations were removed that too many citations are making the article completely un-readable.
And after seeing these number of references, i am wondering that how they are dare to say that "I don't know", "I've not heared of it" etc. May be it's their mistake of not knowing what is happening there around the world. Still I really wonder how you tell that this article is an elaborate hoax!
As per wiki-guideline I've added many valid citations citation and the article looks fits to a FA, but still some copy-edit to be done. Thanks - Paul Raj 12:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Also how or in what base you decided that Ayyavazhi is a Cristian sect? Does the article says so? And for the view that it is a sect and that it is a religion itself, there are different opinion from different groups, organisations, news papers and faculties. And all were cited with appropriate sources respectively. I don't understand this --> "nobody is prepared to buy its views" Who need to buy? No one is needed to buy it's views - Paul Raj 12:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayyavazhi/Archive_1&oldid=1147964520"