Talk:Paravar

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Christianity: India Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Christianity in India (assessed as Low-importance).

India: Tamil Nadu Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Lost tribes of Israel

We say The Paravar belief of being the Paravaims of the biblical scriptures and the lost tribes of Israel added to the differences with the Arabs, which is acknowledged by Fr.Henrique Henriques by his claim of kinship but I think that might be based on a snippet view of the source. Henrique Henriques is certainly not reliable himself and I can find no other mention of his theory except in the snippet view of the Roche book, which tantalisingly stops (in my version) just as the sentence begins to express doubt about the claim.

Can anyone else find a modern source concerning it? And can anyone provide the full text of pages 16-17 of Roche? If not, I think we should remove this. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning article

The article is not written in a proper way with many non suitable sources. I will try cleaning up the article. Xenani (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted you for now. What sources were "non suitable"? Why? And why change a citation style without consensus? Also, see my comment in the next section below regarding Sri Lanka. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably read WP:MASSR. You removed a lot of content that I spend much time on. I will ad some of them back. Xenani (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay. Some essays are useful and often mentioned, others are not. In 10 or more years here, I've never seen that particular one before and I stand by what I did. You need to explain better which sources (many of them, apparently) you think are unsuitable and why. - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only followed WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. I agree that I formulated my comment "many non suitable sources" wrong. However I did not remove any suitable sources either (besides the source by Subramaniam which I shouldn't have done). Before adding any content did I restore it to the best version i.e. the version that is currently, because someone's edit [1] made it look like written in a non proper way. I think including this

"...as well as according to at least one modern writer, described as "ferocious soldiers"

is not WP:NPOV and shouldn't be included in the lead, thus I removed it from there (including its source). Should perhaps included it in the history section instead. Xenani (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I see that WP:MASSR was created around 13 years ago and has been linked in total slightly over 500 times, including redirects and all sorts of other irrelevancies. I'm not saying that it is useless but it certainly hasn't gained the sort of traction of essays such as WP:BRD. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sitush. It might be an old essay but I think there is some significants in there. It is very distressing when you revert the whole edit and reverting it solely based on the earlier consensus isn't improving the article either. Therefore I ask you to add back that which was reverted or let me add it back and explain in more detail which content added by me shouldn't be included in the talk page so that I can edit it or discuss with you. In that way, there should be achieved more consensus.Xenani (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka

Until my big revert of a minute or so ago, this article had recently-inserted information about the Paravar in Sri Lanka. But it said that they were Bharathas. So why the heck include them here in any detail? They have their own article and a simple single sentence or See also entry would suffice, surely? - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add any great detail about the Bharathas, they were included in the lead with only one sentence,

"The Paravars found on the western coast of Sri Lanka are known as Bharathas who migrated to the island under the Portuguese rule.[7]"

You should probably check twice before making a statement. Xenani (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A whole chunk of stuff relating to Sri Lanka existed in the article and I think it should not. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which content is related to Sri Lanka? Which is related to the Bharathas? And why shouldn't there be "A whole chunk of stuff relating to Sri Lanka" exist in the article? There aren't any major difference between Paravars of India or Sri Lanka and the Bharathas are the same group who just have been "officialy" been renamed as the mainstream academic sources claim. And what are the stuff related to Sri Lanka that you mean should not be included? You need to be much more specific and clarify better your revert. Xenani (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So propose a merge of the articles if they're the same community. Stop spamming Sri Lanka stuff here just because of some Tamil nationalist POV or whatever it may be. - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, if they are the same community then we should have one article, not two. If they are not the same community or there are significant differences then there should be two articles, each with a pointer to each other either via See also or an in-text link and brief explanation as to why. - Sitush (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush:, if there is only not consensus regarding the Bharathas being included in the article, is there at least consensus regarding the etymology section (and mythology section) which has also been removed with your revert? I think also that in the lead, the names "Bharathakula Pandyar" and "Bharathakula Kshatriyas" should be removed as they are not mentioned in the source or put on a tag for needed quotation as I couldn't find the terms in any sources. Xenani (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A long time has passed and due to lack of response, will I add content among other regarding the etymolgy. Xenani (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cholas are also Parathavars

நளிஇரும் முந்நீர் நாவாய் ஒட்டி, வளிதொழில் ஆண்ட உரவோன் மருக ! களிஇயல் யானைக் கரிகால் வளவ !

Self explanatory!

Karikala Cholan descends from the race of sea farers ie) Parathavars 103.247.54.81 (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Tamil people

The administrator like ReagentsPark is completely working again any feeds on Historical Data on Tamils https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RegentsPark MaduraiSelvam (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added details about the notable people list with the King of Pearl Fishery Coast and this person removee it. The data is based on a publication https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2021/dec/13/forgotten-valour-pandiyapathy-the-freedom-fighter-king-of-the-pearl-fishery-coast-2395084.html MaduraiSelvam (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure you only add names of people with wiki-pages in lists and no one will bother you. RegentsPark (comment) 14:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]