Talk:Iyer/Archive4

Mischief and controversy again

The actual facts(duly noted)

They are held to have been the “land-lords“ and “head-men “ of the Brahmin villages called agraharams[14]. The supposed rule by pagan “vijayanagar” and “nayaks” was completely illegal and illegitimate. This group of “brahmins” is heterogenous, coming from various racial backgrounds, converted and admitted on basis of utility. The literature of this period is both obscure as well as dubious. Some pseudo-scholars have by taking out of context and misinterpreting a few words of sangam tamil , have attempted propogate falseful theory giving the existence of this group in tamilnadu during sangam times. This is both ridiculous as well as absurd as the words using which they have constructed this pseudo-history could hardly have referred to any community. The rest of the rogues have cited an obscure and fabricated migration chart and put up a date of 800 .C.E for this group, this is absolute gibberish, as we know that period was the hey day of chola /pallava emperors whose rule was absolutely blemishless and that the rogue deccan dynasties which housed this group were inveterate enemies to these illustrious clans. The ones who attempt to propogate such non-sense are such a perfect and habitual liars that they can make A.Q.Khan blush for shame. No puranic literature known till date, however vague, re-written, corrupted and irrelevant, make a mention of existence of this group or explain its origin. The fact that these groups do not have worship rights in any of the ancient temples(let alone in the south) further establishes its duplicity and fraudulent nature. Certainly the heterogenuity points to a classless budist/jain predecessorship. It is further noted that this group was behind the smuggling, forgery and re-writing of many ancient documents belonging to previous dynasty and also smuggling the leftover of their bronze works. To attempt to manipulate evidences, history, thieving identity etc are extremely evil and points to the excessive wickedness and oppurtunism of the group that can certainly be dangerous for its survival. Citizens are forewarned against any cheating by this group members and alerted to approach law and order agencies including the federal ones incase of any suspicion.

References 1. http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1509/15090820.htm 2. http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jun/19dalits.htm 3. http://www.flonnet.com/stories/20080704251306500.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sembian valavan (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.105.175 (talk)

Look at the section on subcastes. Its either height of ignorance or mischief. Look at these obviously incorrect statements- Quote 1 - "Vadama the last brahmin colonizers-????????????" Its untrue that they were the last immigrants in the first place and secondly the word colonizers is an incorrect term to use. Its plain rubbish. Quote 2- "The vadamas have vaishnavaite practices" - This statement is born out of ignorance. Wearing the gopichandanam cannot be termed as vaishnavaite, it can be said that this bears resemblence to practices of vaishnavas. Then again, the above statements indicate that all vadamas wear the mark on their forehead and follow such practices.This is also untrue. For instance there are some vadamas who are traditionally more saivaite than other brahmins as well. They even worship shiva linga at home and have only the vibhuti mark on their forehead.

I am reproducing the exact text from The Castes and Tribes of Southern India Vol I, Page 334-335 for Mr.Harish Subramaniam's reference:

" /. Sinartha—{a) Vadama.—The Vadamas claim to be superior to the other classes, but will dine with all the sections, except Gurukkals and Prathamasakis, and, in some places, will even eat with Prathamasakis, The sub-divisions among the Vadamas are :—•

1. Choladesa (Chola country).

2. Vadadesa (north country).

3. Savayar or Sabhayar.

4. inji.

5. Thummagunta Dravida.

All these are Smarthas, who use as their sect mark either the urdhvapundram (straight mark made with sandal paste) or the circular mark, and rarely the cross lines. They worship both Siva and Vishnu, and generally read Puranas about Vishnu. Some Vadamas use the Vaishnava namam as their sect mark, and are called Kiththunamakkarar. They follow the Smartha customs in every way. There is a common saying " Vadamam muththi Vaishnavam," i.e., a Vadama ripens into a Vaishnava. This is literally true. Some Vadama families, who put on the urdhvapundram mark, and follow the Smartha customs, observe pollution whenever a death occurs in certain Sri Vaishnava families. This is because the Sri Vaishnavas are Vadamas recently converted into Vaishnava families."

"(f) Brahachar7iain (the great sect).—The Brahacharnams are more Saivite, and more orthodox than the Vadamas."-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 07:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is being prepared for FA-status. You are welcome to contribute anything useful to the article. But then, I am not going to tolerate it if you are going to remove referenced stuff or add original research with no reliable third-party sources for reference without any sort of discussion over it. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 07:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Vaishnavite religious beliefs

* Worship of Lord Vishnu

Vaishnavite religious practices

* Some sects put on a namam

* Some families observe pollution when death occurs in Srivaishnavite families

I don't understand how you can call it as POV. Well, I've worded in such a way that it appears brief and to the point. You see, the article is on Iyer and not Vadamas, and the Wikipedia:Manual of style clearly states that Wikipedia articles should be crisp and to the point. The statement you added creates a great deal of ambiguity and contains peacock terms. It has been already stated at the beginning of the article that Iyers are Smartha Brahmins who worship Shiva. So, it is pretty obvious that Vadamas, who form a subsect of Iyers, worshipped Shiva. And I don't think I need to mention that. The only quality unique and peculiar to Vadamas is that they are inclined towards Vaishnavism than other Smarthas. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 12:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote 3- "Brahacharanam and Ashtsahasram are more saivaite than vadama". Its my understanding that being saivaite means giving more importance to rituals related to worship of shiva. Is there any evidence for the above statement. There are many in the Brahacharanam and ashtasahasram who have vishnu as their kula devata and there are many among vadama who follow very ancient and the purest forms of saivaite(including shakthi) practices. Example : Descendants of Appaih deekshitar and descendants of Kamakoti sastrigal"

All in all a whole lot of rubbish being written as though it were the truth.

--Harishpsubramanian (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote 4- "Chozhiars are descendants of Chanakya" - This is another misleading statement. Chozhiars have many gotras and cannot be descendants of a single individual alone. The rightphrasing should be -" It is believed that Chankya belonged to the Chozhiar community" --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote 5 - "Ajith and Trisha are among the leading stars in tamil cinema".Can somebody provide evidence that Ajith is an Iyer, all I know is that his father was a kerala Brahmin. Does that imply that he was an Iyer? --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See http://www.webindia123.com/movie/star/actors/regional/tamil/ajith/biography.htm

Each and every statement in the section is properly sourced. Edgar Thurston clearly mentions that the Vadams might've been the latest settlers in Tamil and are greatly inclined towards Vaishnavism. Maybe, Thurston is correct, maybe not. But if you are going to refute his claims you ought to source those refutations from published material instead of removing those statements altogether. Else, they don't belong there. "According to legend, Chozhiars have descended from Chanakya". Again, the statement has proper citations from published material. Please don't remove reliable stuff and add you own original research. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Racial Origin - I have introduced the word Many in the context of the statement that Iyers have different physical makeup. Is there some kind of clear racial demarcation? Is it universal? How could such irresponsible statements be made which imply that all Iyers have a different makeup from non brahmins of Tamil Nadu be made. Right now have the genetic scientists examined every person in the Iyer community. They have collected a statistical sample and have pointed out a general trend. This does not mean that the earlier statement was universally true and there is sufficient reason to believe that atleast some Iyers are not different from the rest of Tamil population. Also this statement implies that no non brahmin belongs to the same genetic pool as some of the Iyers. What about those who have originated from the sexual unions of brahmins and non brahmins - things which have been occuring regulary through the ages. --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. You cannot remove something just because you feel it is objectionable. The points you don't want to be mentioned in the article have adequate citations for verification from unbiased sources. Besides, peacock terms like "Many" should not be used in Wikipedia -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentences are all properly worded. Genetical analysis of a whole community has never been performed and I don't think is feasible. It isn't possible to analyze the DNA of 3 million Iyers. Yeah, a suggestion to this effect could be made but it is entirely out of scope of this article. The general practice is to analyze a statistical sample. I haven't indicated about the difference in physical makeup due to the difference in genetic makeup. I have provided references for the statement and you may very well check it out.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 08:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have checked this up again, the detailed section on Vadamas has been added after the GA Status. Once again I need proof for the statement colonizers and I have added settlers. Please quote the exact statement in the book? There are quite a few statements which have been loosely paraded in this manner. The reference has been provided but the actual reference does not contain all of what is said. I am not sure if you want to move the article to A. Not allowing edits is going to be counter productive especially when the individual who has done the edits has valid reasons to object and requires sufficient proof for the statements made. --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Migration to West Bengal

Now dakshinatyas means southerners - Does this imply Tamil Brahmins. It is more likely to have been Andhra Brahmins( including a few tamil brahmins as well) considering the fact that places in North eastern andhra are only a few hundred miles away from Bengal. It also makes more sense as Andhra people continue to be among the largest South Indian immigrants to West Bengal even in modern times. Please indicate proof to this statement or remove it. This is plain unproven stuff. --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have specified the need for citations in this context. The quoted reference neither mentions that it was an oldest migration nor does it mention that dakshinatyas were tamil brahmins. The article obviously needs improvement and is not fool proof.

--Harishpsubramanian (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it. :-) I observed that the article on Bengali Brahmins only speaks of migration of Brahmins from Dakshina or South India. It does not mention the Tamil country at all -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 12:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

New Edits in the section on Political issues

There is a current issue affecting the lives of hundreds of Brahmin Priests in Tamil Nadu. It is highhly essential that this controversy is mentioned in this section as the article would be incomplete without mentioning such significant current issues. I have put these edits after quoting reliable references --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Colonizers????

I observed that a particular user objects to my usage of the term "Brahmin colonizers" in the article. I don't find anything wrong with that term however.From the definition of "colonizers" from the Free Online Dictionary:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/colonizer

"col·o·nize (kl-nz)
v. col·o·nized, col·o·niz·ing, col·o·niz·es 
v.tr.
1. To form or establish a colony or colonies in.
2. To migrate to and settle in; occupy as a colony.
3. To resettle or confine (persons) in or as if in a colony.
4. To subjugate (a population) to or as if to a colonial government.
v.intr.
1. To form or establish a colony.
2. To settle in a colony or colonies.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

colo·nizer n."

Of course, there is nothing objectionable if you are to interpret them in the first three ways. I don't understand how it contitutes WP:NPOV. The usage of the word "colonizers", in fact, appeared more relevant to me because Brahmins who migrated were often provided with grants of land in which they established their own colonies called "agraharams". -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 18:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well we need to understand that in the Political arena, the Politicians have been brainwashing the society that tamil brahmins(including vadamas) were colonizers in the sense of subjugation or imperialism. This would be a blatant lie as these people did not wage a war to take over land and in fact were allocated land by the king. We must remember that the owners of the land were really the kings, who had the right to take away land at will (though they did not,most of the times out of respect). So the brahmins really did not set up colonies by themselves, they were gifted lands under the asumption that they were loyal to the king. I would prefer settlers or a more neutral word or phrase which does not lead to misinterpretation. They did not rule the pieces of land or the population who lived there or worked with them. Any dispute between the peasants and the brahmins managing the land were resolved by the judges appointed by the king. In the british time they became title owners in the literal sense, but by then they had already become sons of the soil. So colonizers is best avoided. --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actors

I am aware that some actors such as Gemini Ganesan and Trisha are Iyers.But Ajith? Is there any citation for this, not that I really care, but we dont really have citation for the origin of these personalities.Could some provide this, if it is not found, please remove. --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've given the link to an article on the biography of Ajith is response to a previous query of yours. I reproduce it here- http://www.webindia123.com/movie/star/actors/regional/tamil/ajith/biography.htm -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations required

There are some extracts which even I believe to be true based on hearsay. But it would be good if we can have citations to support them. In the related paragraphs we do have references but these do not specify what is mentioned in these particular extracts.

I have a list which I will be adding if I find any more need for citations. 1. Pattar word being derogatory? Is there a citation for this? 2. Telugu Brahmins calling themselves Iyer. I know this for a fact. But then there is no reference mentioned for this. It is also mentioned that majority of telugu speaking smartha brahmins are mulukanadu- I dont disagree but there is no citation for this either. Then again the point that they settled mostly in coastal andhra and north tamil nadu.Is this certain ? Any proof? Did they not settle in Madurai district? Once again no citation!Paramacharya was a descendant of Govinda Dikshitar- mentioned in article (and therefore could be deduced to be a telugu, but no reference for this interlinkag)and S.P.Balasubramaniam was a telugu brahmin who has very recently settled in tamil nadu. I have no issues if you can include reference for including the name of the two specific personalities. With regard to S.P.Balasubramaniam , I have seldom seen him to be referred to as Iyer. --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations for statements related to Madi. This is a practice well know to Iyers, but right now some of the text in the article cannot be substantiated by any of the existing references.This include rules on daily bat , cooking only after bath etc. There is an earlier reference for Madi. I have checked this, and not all of the relevant text in the article can be taken up from this reference. I have added a reference to similar practices among Madhwa Brahmins. However we still do not have enough citation for this practice being prevalant among Iyers

--Harishpsubramanian (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed for the practice of Annasuddhi! --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Further Citations required

Please provide Citations for the following 1. Iyer Origin of all Personalities mentioned in the article.

2. Iyengar dialect being a distinct and separate dialect. --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry for not having informed you. I had reverted to a previous version as I had found it difficult to spot the head or tail of the changes you've made. Nevertheless, all your concerns have been addressed and all the requisite changes made.

* I have removed the paragraph on Mulukanadu Brahmins. I added that about a year back when I found people having the surname "Iyer" in 'List of famous Mulukanadus'. However, I haven't been able to find reliable third-party sources till date. In case, you do find proper sources you are welcome to add them :-)

* I have added references to the section on "Traditional Iyer ethics". (including madi)

* As for Iyers marrying outside the caste, such incidents have occured among individuals from all Indian communities and is not limited to this community alone. So, it is better that such statements not be included.

* As for the "famous personalities", I feel that providing citations for them would be outside the scope of this article. There are around 15 or 20 individuals in the list and if we are to provide sources for each and every one of them, the list of references would be exhaustive (it already is) and also unnecessary and confusing. So, it is better that we rely on statements provided in individual articles. I also feel it is better that references be added in those individual articles. Anyway, if you have a different opinion on this and you wish those citation-needed tags to remain, then let it be so :-)-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Chidambaram Temple Controversy and appointment of Non Brahmin Priests

These are two different issues and need to be mentioned separately, the decision to appoint non brahmin priests has no bearing on Chidambaram Controversy. I am once again making the amendments to clear the air, if you disagree you may state your opinion on the same --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The terms you used appear too general. "Sacred location"??? In my view, the whole temple is sacred. Besides, I don't it is necessary to detail upon the facts. Featured article guidelines suggest that the "article should not deviate unnecessarily from the subject and should be to the point".

I also observed that your additions do not adhere to WP:MOS. There have been unnecessary capitalizations and misplaced punctuations. Please try to rectify the same.

As for references, we have been using the following citation format. Please adhere to the same if you desire to maintain any sort of uniformity.

For news articles:

{{cite news | last= | first=  | title= | date= | url = | work = | accessdate = }}

For web-based publications:

{{Cite web|url=|title=|accessdate=|publisher=|author=}}

For books:

{{cite book | title=| last=| first=| date=| pages=| publisher=| id=ISBN }}

You get further details if you take a minute or two to examine the citations that have been added to the article

As for your statement regarding Vadamas and Shaivism, none of the references you've provided suggest that Appayya Dikshitar was a Vadama-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 16:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Positive and Negative Portrayal of Iyers in Media

Whether a Portrayal is Positive or Negative depends on Indiviudal Opinion. This section needs to be changed to have a simple section called Portrayal of Iyers in Media- The facts should be stated for what they are. This is not a forum to discuss whether something was positive or negative. You could include different types of Portrayal, but the terms Positive and Negative is a matter of Opinion! --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If an opinion is expressed in some article in a renowned newspaper, magazine or periodical, then they are certainly worth being included in the article. And as you might be noticing, no individual opinions have been made. Those that have been expressed are only universally held views and they have been sourced with proper citations from the articles or books in which they are made. (For example, portrayal of Brahmins in films as Parasakthi or books as Aryamayai cannot be regarded as positiive by anyone). Yeah, there are a couple of lines where individual opinions, but they are just a couple of lines not much. And I've contacted a few people to help in sorting them out. :-) -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made some amendments to keep the article consistent. For example I had earlier used appayya dikshitar's name to describe about vadama involvment in saivism. But I checked up references, which I had mentioned and nowhere is he explicitly mentioned as vadama. this however is a well known fact among members of the Iyer community and there are internal evidences to prove this- such as the declaration of his descendants who have put a genealogical website where they have declared themselves as Vadamas. I have removed the reference to appayya for the sake of making the article acceptable and included the name of another individual, even though the latter is not so well known.

I request you to also practice what you preach. If you consider certain statements as universally known, please indicate a reference for the same. For people such Mani Ratnam , Balachandar , Ajith I did check up the list of references in the article. Nowhere is it mentioned that they are Iyers, You did quote a valid reference for Ajith but then you did not include this reference in the article. Please do so. With regard to S.P.Balasubramaniam its a well known fact that he is a Nellore Telugu settled in Madras. How can he be classfied as Iyer. What is the basis for this?

With regard to Portrayal, the words positive and negative are vague and obviously reflects the opinion of the editor. This will not do. Take the case of Mr and Mrs Iyer- You say that it could be called a negative portrayal. This is your opinion. Can you quote even a small statement which tries to belittle Iyers. I think whether something is positive or negative should be left to the sensible reader, its not you who should decide. You just need to write what the movie shows. You can merge the content of Positive and Negative Portrayal and remove your own interpretation . Just present what the media has to say- dont start your own interpretation.

Practice what you preach --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Section on Vedic Sakhas in Tamil Nadu appended to Gotra section

I have clubbed both these sections together because the Gotra, together wih the Sakha identifies the Brahmin . Both these aspects of tradition are passed on to the Male Progeny. The two aspects of Tradition are included in the Abhivadanam or Formal introduction to elders. This is a very important tradition of Iyers which deserves a mention and very much constitutes their identity. --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Shakas are more related to Vedas. In case you have missed it, there is a mention on the classification of Iyers based ont he Vedas they follow in Subsects section. I strongly feel that your statement on shakhas belongs there. Anyway, if you feel that it should be in the gotras section it is your call :-) However, if a decision on the contrary is taken as a result of the peer-review than I may have to moved those points -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 08:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I had narrowed down exactly those shakhas followed by Iyers today. There are lot more shakhas which do not relate to this article. It is something which is inherited through Parentage and marks the identity of Iyers just like the Gotras. It is not merely something which is followed due to an individual's inclination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 11:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said of Vedas too. A child is supposed to belong to the same Veda as his father.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 03:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Vedic Vocalization and its influence on Tamil

In the language section, it is essential to present a scholarly opinion on the influence of Vedic vocalization of Brahmins in Tamil Nadu on the language of Tamil. This is an important theory because it highlights two things - The presense of Brahmins in Tamil Nadu since very early times and the language of Brahmins and its effect on Tamil as a whole. --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of Overlap with Iyengar article

I would suggest that the editor retain only that part which is specific to Iyers and move the overlapping section to a different aricle. Many of the statements apply to Iyengars as well. --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Radhakrishnan and Rahul Dravid

This article has incorrect Information on Radhakrishan. I would like readers to refer to wikipedia section as well as number of other sources on internet which identifies his mother tongue as telugu. That apart from the fact that he is a Mulukanadu brahamin, and also from the fact that sarvepalli is his family name. unlike iyers who keep their father's name and village name in their initials, telugu brahmins keep their family name in their initials. These are sufficient proofs for him to be not qualified as an Iyer. If we use a broad range of definition of the term Iyer then tanjore marathi and saurashtrain brahmins of madurai should be qualified as iyers as well, in fact they have a greater right to be classified as tamil brahmins than radhakrishan who spoke telugu and belonged to a sect of mulukanadu of vaidika sub sect and bore the surname "Sarvepalli". With regard to dravid all is fine with his ancestoral origin but he is half marathi with mother being maharashtrian , speaks and follows deshastha customs. This apart from fact that ancestors were long separated from tamil nadu makes it difficult to qualify him as an Iyer.

Please make amendments and remove the names from article as well as the picture of Iyers .

For Information on Radhakrishnan , the wikipedia article mentioning him to be a telugu is sufficient. For dravid there is more Information indicating that he is maharashtrian rather than an Iyer inspite of his ancestoral origin -mentioned in Vedam Jayashankar's book.His ancestors were Iyers not he. Please rectify this wrong information.

--Harishpsubramanian (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree they both should be removed. It is easier said than done 99.247.129.133 (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the List of Iyers mentions that Dr. Radhakrishnan is an Iyer. Could you present evidence that he was not! Just because he was a Telugu Brahmin it does not imply that he was not an Iyer. Consider the example of Tyagaraja. And then, the removal of the two pictures would create empty spaces in the image. Kindly find substitutes before you remove them. Anyway, it isn't a serious issue, though, and I leave it to you people to sort it out. It would be a lot better if User:Harishpsubramanian suggests solutions than simply raising issues-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 01:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Images and Portrayal in popular media

1. Well is "List of Iyers" a validated article?. Cyclic arguments cant be used to prove a point. The issue may be minor, but then the article Iyer fails with regard to these points. If all telugu brahmins who lived in the first half of last century in tamil nadu can be classified as Iyers, then all Iyers settled outside tamil nadu and in kerala and karnataka should not be included in classification of Iyers. Is there proof that like the family of tyagaraja, radhakrishnan's ancestors lived in tamil nad for many generations or even called themselves Iyers. Thats a serious concern for me. Moreover I did not insert the image and I dont want to remove the image and spoil the look of article - If thats what Ravichander wants!

My point is there is a peer-review going in parallel. It would be good if you could raise this issue there and request their opinion on how to handle the issue. I don't wish to meddle with the article on my own as I personaly feel that there would be an image missing and an alternative needs to be arranged. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 11:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Portrayal - Too much opinion of the editor. Quote - "There have been extensive portrayals of Iyers in popular media, most of them, positive and a few negative." That was a bouncer

Quote- "This is because despite the fact that Tamil Brahmins form just 3% of the Tamil population their distinct culture and unique practices and strange habits make them strong targets of criticism,both positive and negative." 3% thats ok, but who brought in these terms such as "strange habits" . Strange in common dictionary usage means - "Not before known, heard, or seen; new. Not according to the common way; novel; odd; unusual; irregular; extraordinary; unnatural; queer. " . Now I can agree with the word unique, every community in tamil nad is unique. Something that has taken root in a land for 2000 years cant be any more strange. There is nothing unusual or odd but Iyers. This is too much of editior's opinion.

There is a citation-needed tag placed beside it and I've let it remain indicating that I have no objection to your concerns. I thought of preparing a lead section and just typed it out myself. Nevertheless, I'll remove those lines now.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 11:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"The first known literary work in Tamil to heap criticism on Brahmins was the Tirumanthiram, a treatise on Yoga from the 13th century" Can I have the exact quotation from this book.

I request ravichander who has done these edits to make suitable amendments himself. Or I would need to make the changes myself. These points in the article are unacceptable. There is a quite a bit of "personal opinion" of the editor which makes the tone of the article. This I feel is unacceptable.

--Harishpsubramanian (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I provide the link for your verification. You could verify any statement sourced from this book -http://books.google.co.in/books?id=VF2VMUoY_okC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+smile+of+murugan&sig=ACfU3U0PpUd_dV06Wabczt2bOUBjdx58Og-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 11:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

4. "As per popular tradition, Iyers are the descendants of Indo-Aryan migrants from North India." I dont think the word "popular tradition" can be applied here. The dictionary meaning of tradition is - . The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication.

A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage. A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present: followed family tradition in dress and manners. See synonyms at heritage. A body of unwritten religious precepts. A time-honored practice or set of such practices. Law. Transfer of property to another.

I am not sure how some theory whose background is only 100 years old can become tradition. I would suggest a suitable proof that this word tradition is very much justified or I would be making the change regarding this. Also do we have citation for the statement that this is indeed something "popular"? --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the words "widespread view in the 21 st century" instead of "popular tradition" --Harishpsubramanian (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you heard of the tradition of Agatthiar and his migration from North India? I don't find anything wrong with the wording. There is a long-standing tradition of a migration from the North. And as far as Indo-Aryan is concerned, I am not speaking in a racial context. True, the Aryan race theory is just a hundred years old and has been largely disproved. But Dravidian and Indo-Aryan family of languages and corresponding cultures do exist and in this context, Agastya was definitely an Indo-Aryan migrant to South India. Any attempt to remove it and introduce the theory of indigenous origin would be regarded as POV, for a theory for tradition strongly speaks of a migration though it is uncertain whether it actually occured or was simply a myth.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 11:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Length

There is a tag about the legth of the article, I kind a agree. It is too big to be featured. May be we need to peel of some sections. :))Taprobanus (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you might observe that I've greatly reduced the section on festivals, Patronage of Art, etc. There are areas to be worked out. To some extent, the article has been shortened. The list of Iyers has been moved to another page and a short introduction included here. Portrayal in popular media, too, has been moved to another page. As for the sections on etymology and origins, if we are to create separate articles for those, I am not sure they would satisfy notability. There isn't much to remove in the sections on Agraharams or Traditional attire. As far as subsects are concerned, there is only a short introduction for each subsect here and the bulk of the material on each subsect is present in the individual article for that subsect. Leaving all these aside, I find that the only sections that could be comprehensively reworked are those on Rituals, ceremonies and festivals and the one on Traditional ethics.

I am sorry, but I have made over 900 edits to this article and I feel I had enough of this article. If I continue to edit this article it would be akin to taking ownership. Such being the case, the article would not be a COLLABORATION but the work of an individual, which is obviously, against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hence, I request you people to work on the article. I would peep in now and then to edit, but I don't wish to be involved in long-term editing. Thanks :-) -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 09:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

About editing articles, it is labor of love, look at Sri Lankan Tamil people, although I had a lot of help, I had to put a lot of edits. I am doing the same with Dalits now. It is the way in Wikipedia. If you want to take an article to featured status, then there is always a primary author whether we like it or not. Karanataka team does have a team but even then it is Dinesh you put's in most ofthe work. 18:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I observed that User:Kalarimaster had made some recent edits. I had examined Kalarimaster's issues and accordingly modified the contents of the article.

• [1]: Redundant. The third sentence of the paragraph speaks of the theory of migration from South-east Asia
• [2] I am replacing the link with one to disambiguated pages Indo-Aryan migration and Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia
• [3] : "Aryan-speaking origin". grammatical error.

(Agnidevan (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)) In the traditional ethics, need to add AASHWALAYANA SUTRAM OR ASVALAYANA SUTRA for RIG VEDIS or RIG VEDA. In the Smartha of Tamil Brahmin there are some following Rig Veda Samhitha, they are following Ashvalaya Rishis Sutras for ritual rites, not Apasthamba or Boudayana sutra. The Rig Upakarma (Aavani Avittam) mostly coming one day before of Yajur vedis, that is when moon entering to Thiruvonam (Sravanam) star. Not of Pournami or Avittam star.

I am sorry but unless you are able to source these claims from reliable sources you cannot add them to the article-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 03:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The introduction collage is missing a picture to make it symmetrical. I suggest adding in

Dikshitar

This man is one of the only pictures in the article of a traditionally clothed Iyer doing the traditional priestly occupation.Pannaya (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but adding such a caption is pure OR. The caption for the image is exactly the one given in the book by Edgar Thurston from where the image has been taken. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 12:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)