Jump to content

Talk:Periyar/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

EVR

Simply no Good references All others seem to support Periyar's viewpoint .Please go through them Baka before speaking All the references against Periyar are not online and clearly debatable

Sara Dickey,"The politics of adulation in South India", Journal of Asian Studies Vol 52 No 2 (1993) pages 340-372 ^ a b Lloyd I. Rudolph Urban Life and Populist Radicalism: Dravidian Politics in Madras The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3 (May, 1961), pp. 283-297 ^ Lloyd I. Rudolph and Suzanne Hoeber Rudolph, The Modernity of Tradition: political development in India P78,University of Chicago Press 1969, ISBN:0226731375 ^ Singh, Yogendra,Modernization of Indian Tradition: (A Systemic Study of Social Change),Oriental Press 1974 page 167 ^ C. J. Fuller,The Renewal of the Priesthood: Modernity and Traditionalism in a South Indian Temple P117, Princeton University Press 2003 ISBN:0691116571 ^ a b c d e f Bergunder M, Contested Past: Anti-Brahmanical and Hindu nationalist reconstructions of Indian prehistory,Historiographia Linguistica, Volume 31, Number 1, 2004, pp. 59-104(46 The other is blog against Periyar by Rajeev.Adyarboy 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have some concerns after going through some of the peer reviewed papers quoted. FYI I have access to most of the journals through Athens login. Starting with Sara Dickey’s 1993 paper. To start with the right title of the article is The Politics of Adulation: Cinema and the Production of Politicians in South India which is quoted wrong. It is a 32 pages long article which talks about votes mind set and quotes various examples including NTR, MGR and even touches a bit of North Indian politicians of Sunil Dutt and co. The word ELITE is referred to the previous sentence in which it denotes socioeconomic class and not elite caste as it would mean from the phrase used in the article, since the preceding sentence talks about Aryan race. Now coming to Rudolph’s paper, I wasn’t able to find where he talks about mass-migration of Brahmins. I may have missed it. Can someone point where it is mentioned please? Now the book Modernization of Indian Tradition, is of concern too since the page quoted (although not online) is obvious from the table of contents (which is online) talks about Gandhi. I do not want to comment on this for now. Will go find it in the library before I say further. But a clarification would be appreciated. Its kind of intriguing to find that the pages quoted once again are part of pages missing in the online version in the reference from the book The Renewal of the Priesthood: Modernity and Traditionalism in a South Indian Temple. Let me make my stance clear that am not throwing allegations of dubious citation, but requesting a clarification. Thanks ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 20:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As raised by other users .i also checked the references not finding the the concerned piece except in rajeev's blog .If you we can take it to mediationPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


All the references are available online if you have any question

Please raise .I will be sorted .Please do not revert blindly.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove 'Naicker' from periyar's name

Periyar EVR announced in 1929 that his name was not EV Ramasami naicker,Only "E.V.Ramasamy". Thus he denied to use the caste name in addition to his name. As he was a social reformer, fought for eradication of caste and imprisoned somany times for this reason. It is an insult to him, which was planned and implemented by some fundamentalists. So please remove naicker from his name and pu Periyar E.V.Ramasamy as Title —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princenrsama (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Name change

We will drop Naicker from the name.As per request as he himself disowned it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Name

The name and speeling have been a problem with some wanting to name him Periyar as the Tamil Nadu Government calls him and other by other spellings.His website calls him PERIYAR E.V. RAMASAMY [1]going by it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

RAMASWAMI NAICKER WAS 100% TELUGU MAN AND HE BELONGED TO BALIJA NAIDU CASTE

If any one has any doubt regarding the origin of Ramaswami Naicker, please see the following information from the venerable PAULA RICHMAN in MANY RAMAYANAS. " BORN IN 1879 INTO A FAMILY OF BALIJA NAIDUS,A TELUGU JATI OF TRADERS AND CULTIVATORS, HE GREW UP IN ERODE ,A FAIRLY IMPORTANT MERCANTILE TOWN IN THE COIMBATORE DISTRICT OF MADRAS." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.203.160 (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Irony

I am flabbergasted by the analogy of some people that a person's caste name can be changed with the place where he comes from, or with the language he speaks . It is a well known fact that E.V.Ramaswami Naicker belongs to Balija Naidu caste.Balija Naidus (Kapus /Telagas) are out and out Telugu people, and wherever they live and whatever language they speak they want to remain as "Balija Naidus". In my opinion they strive hard to maintain their Telugu ancestry(identity) , and do not want to become a separate caste entity such as "Kannada Balija Naidu","Tamil Balija Naidu","Malayalee Balija Naidu"or "Marathi Balija Naidu" simply because they speak Kannada,Tamil,Malayalam or Marathi respectively. Irrespective of the languages he spoke or the places where he came from Ramaswami Naidu(Naicker) was simply a "Balija Naidu" of Telugu ancestry . He spoke not only Kannada and Tamil but also Telugu.Though he himself was never inclined to divulge his caste name ,it is interesting to see some people giving him a "newfound caste name". . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.203.160 (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Indian Buddhists

The article is currently in Category:Indian Buddhists. Is there a reference to support this? PhilKnight (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Social affiliation

There are multiple evidences to show that EVR:

  • Spoke Kannada at home
  • Belonged to Balija caste
  • His ancestors migrated from Kannada speaking areas along with Vijayanagar armies
  • His Balija affiliation shows that he had Telugu ancestry


The sentence was modified to reconcile all these facts.Kumarrao (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit by 117.192.99.81 with proper citation settles the matter of EVR's caste affifiliation. As mentioned above, EVR spoke Kannada, belonged to Balijavaru caste (Balija is basically a Telugu caste) that migrated from Karnataka region to Tamil areas along with Vijayanagar army.Kumarrao (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

criticism

I removed the criticism section because they are quite damning and unreferenced. If anyone has a reliable source for those criticisms or it can be attributed to any other references used elsewhere in the article, it can be added again. DockuHi 13:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dravidian in the Intro

Dravidian is a pov term and should be removed from the lead. -Bharatveer (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is Dravidian a pov term? Indian is a POV term. Furthermore, it is as generic as the term "Oriental". Wiki Raja (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Naidruva's addition of sentence

Please do not add information which is not part of the quoted reference source. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced info added by anon user

Please do not add information which is not part of the quoted reference source. The Self-Respect movement was not Anti-brahmin, it was Anti-brahminism. Thus, it was not against the individual, but the actions taken by the individual. Further, anti-Brahminism was one of many actions taken in the Self-Respect Movement and not the main topic in discussion. Wiki Raja (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Praise of tamil language section

This section needs to be cited/referenced with reliable additional sources. They appear to be dubious. 122.164.29.66 (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI: This section is cited/referenced along with page number. It is confusing as to what you mean by dubious. This section is about Periyar's views on Tamil, not on whether all the other Dravidian languages came from Tamil or not. Wiki Raja (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

tamil and kannada scripts

I am in general not in favour of having other language scripts in article. It kind of gets ugly when regionalists try to assert their claim to the article and so i took the liberty to remove both Tamil and Kaanada scripts. Adding Kannada script to the introduction is WP:UNDUE as we know that his life and political carrier has nothing to do with Karnataka other than he was born to Kannada speaking parents in TN. Docku:“what up?” 18:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your concern is understood. But, please do not refer to Tamil and Kannada scripts as strange characters. Others could say that Hindi and Sanskrit are of strange alien writing which looks nothing more than chicken scratch. Further, please do not refer to users who, in good faith, post Tamil or Kannada scripts on this page as regionalist. Wikipedia is not a place for politics. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr.IP, I do think Kannada scripts added by you provide undue weight or significance to the lead of the article. Pls read WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD.Docku:“what up?” 14:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes Docku you indeed have a very valid point, but I still do reckon that both Tamil and Kannada scipts should be there in the lead. Just because Gandhi's article entry uses Gujarati script, that doesn't put any claim by Gujaraties. Periyar's initial days in the Congress and the claim for Dravidistan all but includes Kannada speaking population as well. Kannada speakers are not the same as Karnataka. There are Kannada (and Telugu) speakers in TN as well who have toiled for the state, both as Madras Presidency and Tamil Nadu. So lets not mix up politics with this what can be a great entry. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I do understand your comments. Adding scripts have no encyclopedic value to the article while the message can be conveyed in English without. Script from one language is acceptable and if there is a conflict to add more than one, just remove all of them. Look at this article Idly, Isnt that disgusting? One or none. Having said that, I am not going to split hairs here to get my point across if majority doesnt feel that way. Docku:“what up?” 15:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
To be honest with you, I do not think it looks ugly, but thats just my opinion. So its best for us to wait for what others might think as well. I have no preference with two, one or none other language scripts in the lead. Probably the IP can come here and express the views. As for now, I do not see any problem with two scripts (Tamil and Kannada) in the lead. If we keep adding more languages to it, it may look ugly, but with two, it doesn't. Atleast this is what I think. Lets see what others got to say. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
See Rahul Dravid article page,he is no way related to maharashtra & marati, but marati script is added just because his ancestors are maharastrians.when i tried to remove both scripts(long ago) i got banned, because it is considered as vandalism. Mr.Docku doing the same here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.204.116 (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
You dont even understand my argument. Dont equate your actions with mine, pls. Besides, could you pls point to me the particular instance when it happened? Docku:“what up?” 16:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I understood,my views are same as said by wiki san roze & wiki raja.tamil & kannada both scripts should be kept on the page.why you all guys wasting your time discussing about small issue,mr.docku lacks basic understanding of wikipedia,it is standard in wikipedia to add language scripts.FA's like Gandhi has gujurati script, because his mother tongue is gujurati. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.152.68 (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wiki San Roze that both Tamila and Kannada script be kept on the page. Kannada, since it was his mother tongue, and Tamil since he has done a great service to the language and people of Tamil Nadu. As for the Rahul Dravid scripts, I do not negotiate with IP userists.. lol... Wiki Raja (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, IP took the story out of somewhere. I am especially cynical about IPs who are strong POV pushers. Docku:“what up?” 13:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Even though some IP users may have points or not, at least they should register and get a username. It is admitable that the Rahul Dravid page looks nice and neat with both the Kannada and Marathi scripts next to his name. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Sorry about being a little snarky. I believe the article lead needs some improvement. As per WP:LEAD, The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points This lead does not mention many of the noteworthy information discussed in the article. Dont u think? Docku:“what up?” 23:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, there's more to come, in which a summary of points will be part of the lead. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


POV issues

There is so much bias in this article. Clearly he is a controversial figure - thus, both sides should be presented with neutral, non-emotional language. Much of what is written is biased and using language that is strongly emotional. What about his calling Tamil as 'kaaTTumiraaNDi mozhi' (barbarous language), his anti-Dalit statements, his crying call 'paarpaananaiyum paambaiyum paarththaal, paarpaananai mudhalil kollu' (if you see a Brahmin and a snake, kill the Brahmin first)? His statement that August 15th, 1947 is a day of mourning? He is not free of his numerous villains - especially in the political realm. These villains are not restricted to Brahmins - he certainly had numerous critics; and I think both camps need representation. His marriage with a 20-something youth as a 70-something aged senior is also not mentioned; nor is the political fallout of positioning her as the next leader of the Dravidar Kazhagam outlined. These were crucial events of his political career - one that engendered Annadurai to create the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam; by far the most influential political party in the latter half of the century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.147.41 (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that the article uses a lot of questionable sources. It is probably time to start a cleanup. Finding reliable sources shouldnt be a problem? Docku:“what up?” 13:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Fully agreed. This article needs to be rewritten from scratch with a neutral point of view.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 17:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It is missing criticism section. The article documents only his achievements. I found following references (online available) in a quick search 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 which can be used instead of the questionable ones in the article. I am sure there are many more. Docku:“what up?” 17:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and moresoever, most of the sources are not reliable. They are from Dravidar Kazhagam sites run by Periyar's followers. While,the author cites a couple of articles from tamilnation.org, the following article from the same site criticizing Periyar is left out - [2].
And terms such as "Insult to Periyar" and "Enlightment" are definite violations of NPOV. The title may instead be changed to "Incident at Kasi".-RavichandarMy coffee shop 18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The many of the sources are reliable many of them are academic,we can add more to improve it .We can improve the article.Feel One tag is enough for checking neutrality.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tamilnation.org and periyar website can not be considered reliable sources. Controversial and disputable info from this site can and should be removed. Docku:“what up?” 19:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Tamilnation not reliable site?? I don't think so. Anyway, it was only a reproduction of the article found here-[3]-RavichandarMy coffee shop 01:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion I do not see POV issues, but may be a bit of fan club like style, which happens unintended since articles are usually written by people who are interested in the topic. The article indeed uses a lot of sources and agree with Ravichandar that it can be made better by copyediting as per recommended manual of style. As for using Tamilnation, I do not think it is non-RS. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 16:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I boldly copy edited just one section, that is early life for neutrality. If someone takes a scalp to each section like that we can over come all the non neutral language. We cannot present his views as facts. It has to be attributed such as according to him, he belived etc.Taprobanus (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested rewordings

>>... the family belonged the the Naicker caste, the upper stratum of Sudras.

I feel that "..belonged to the Naicker community" is enough. A word on the position of the Naicker community in the social hierarchy seems unnecessary, and even racist.

>> "Though Kasi has been acclaimed as the most "sacred town" by the Brahmins, the worst ugly scenes of immoral activities, prostitution, cheating, looting, begging crowds for alms, floating dead bodies on the River Ganges turned Periyar to abhor that place."

Could someone provide citations from neutral sources that cheating and looting went on in Kasi. This is Periyar's perception and absolute POV. I would rather suggest rewording the statement as:

"The immoral activites, begging and floating dead bodies, which Periyar supposedly witnessed at Kasi, which is regarded as one of the holiest sites of Hinduism made Periyar abhor the place.

>> "As an active member of the Congress and as a responsible office bearer, Periyar had observed and understood the subtle maneuvers of the Brahmins to use the Congress to fortify the interest of their community. He had given them ample evidence of his selflessness and zeal to carry out the constructive programs of the Congress. His capacity for self-sacrifice and leadership was recognized by the social sorkers in Kerala and he was requested to be in charge of the agitation at Vaikom after the top leaders had been arrested. Periyar's bonafides was never suspected by the brahmins in Tamil Nadu Congress. In fact, they were secretly afraid of his righteousness and his fervor for the eradication of communalism"

POV and hatefilled statements.Need to be purged in its entirety. This was only the perception of Periyar and a few Periyarites and not a worldwide opinion. Else reword as:

"Periyar felt that the Brahmins, who formed a majority in the Indian National Congresss and occupied the top posts desired to dominate the party. Periyar was against the activites of the Brahmin leadership, which he felt, conspired to secure the top posts in the party for themselves and members of their community"

As for his "capacity of self-sacrifice" there are also people who had contrary views. U. Muthuramalingam Thevar frequently lambasted Periyar. There were a number of people who regarded him mas a hypocrite.

>> "The anti-Hindi campaigns and demonstrations were generally described as struggles (porattam). They were not only linguistic struggles, but struggles for preservations of Tamils culture, and Tamilian rights. Anti-Hindi campaigns brought together Dravidians from different political parties and united many leaders who had parted on vital policy differences. These campaigns were described as batles to rouse the feeling of self-respect."

POV and propaganda again. Also possibly a violation of WP:COPYVIO

I noticed that there is a section on Periyar's "Praise of the Tamil language". Well, let me remark here that there has also been frequent criticism of Periyar over his remark that Tamil was a "kaatumirandi mozhi" or language of barbarians. These perspectives haven't found adequate expression in the article. Thanks -RavichandarMy coffee shop 04:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the rewordings. As for U. Muthuramalingam Thevar, I dont know if they were contemperory political opponents. Even if they were, Thevar's comments can still be encyclopedic though not considered neutral. As of his characterisation of Tamil as a barbaric language, it only demonstrates that he is a rationalist and not a blind ideological believer or supporter of Tamil. It, I believe, is his strong suit. Both info can be added with reliable sources. Docku:“what up?” 15:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing to say about Periyar's rationalism. But then, considering that there is a section on "Periyar's Praise of Tamil", I feel that adequate consideration should be given to these remarks of his too if at we wish the article to be neutral-RavichandarMy coffee shop 16:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Historians call him a rationalist. Sorry. I misunderstood the other part. I have already agreed with you on that. Besides, there is no doubt he was a controversial man. I am surprised that we still dont have that section yet. I dont have sufficient sources right now, else I would work on it myself. Docku:“what up?” 16:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Shorten Kannada script

While advocating for both Tamil and Kannada scripts, please let me suggest that we shorten the Kannada script to match the Tamil script to look simpler.


Suggestion:

(Tamil: பெரியார், Kannada: ಪೆರಿಯಾರ್ ಈರೋಡ್ ವೆಂಕಟ ನಾಯಕ ರಾಮಸ್ವಾಮಿ)

to

(Tamil: பெரியார், Kannada: ಪೆರಿಯಾರ್)


The Tamil script 'பெரியார்' says 'Periyar' , while the Kannada script 'ಪೆರಿಯಾರ್ ಈರೋಡ್ ವೆಂಕಟ ನಾಯಕ ರಾಮಸ್ವಾಮಿ' says 'Periyar Erod Venkata Nayaka Ramasami' . Forgive me if I may have translated incorrectly. Anways, sticking with 'Periyar' for both Tamila and Kannada scripts would look a lot simpler and neater on the page. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good suggestion Taprobanus (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I still dont see a reason why language scripts be included, even so a overpowering one for kannada script. Nevertheless, I would have to admit that shortening is a good proposition. Docku:“what up?” 16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The shortened version surely looks neat. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 16:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Docku: If that is the case, then language scripts (ie. Hindi, Gujurati, Sanskrit) should be taken off of all Indian articles starting with mahatma gandhi and india articles. Wiki Raja (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I wouldnt mind. But i dont think it is going to happen. Like i said, i like ur idea of shortening. Docku:“what up?” 02:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Language scripts really are ornamental except when they have native spelling help Taprobanus (talk)

WP:RS

Well, I doubt if G. P. Gopalakrishnan's book could be considered as a reliable source. The book seems to indulge in blind praise of Periyar without any regard for factual accuracy. Moreover, the POV contained in the book has been replicated in the article. I feel someone has copied large chunks of text verbatim from the book. While Dravidar Kazhagam and Periyar websites could be cited in order to express the POV of Periyar-supporters, I opine that the text should be neutralized and reworded before introducing them here. Thanks-RavichandarMy coffee shop 05:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

RS is based on verifiability not neutrality, you can used biased sources as long as we use neutral language to explain the facts or balanced is with other sources Taprobanus (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Consider this line: "As his hunger grew for the past few days, Ramasamy was forced to compete with the street - dogs in eating the remnants of food in the leaves."
The seems to be more of an emotional outburst. Has it been verified for factual accuracy? Has the authenticity of this claim been established by reliable sources? Well, I too agree that it is not prohibited to cite from texts which carry POV. But the point I am trying to make is that how much can we trust the factual accuracy of a book which carries POV. Well, there is no harm in including the statement. But then, we need to add references from more reliable sources, especially in places where claims have been made.
Well, well, you are right in saying that it is fine as long as neutral language is used.:-) This is the very point that I am trying to emphasize. You may very well remember the condition of the article a few edits back when we started working upon it. It is no secret that Periyar was a fairly controversial individual. There have also been people who had criticized him and his views. This being the case we cannot express them as if they were universally held views on the subject.
I have nothing more to say. I'd rather work upon it in areas which I feel need some attention :-). By the way, I strongly feel that a section on "Controversies and Criticism" is necessary. However, I leave it to you people whether to decide whether such a thing should be included or not-RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. The writings certainly need neutralisation. There are plenty of books in Google about EVR, pretty much supporting most of the content here. One way to deal with this is choose disputable overstatements and see if it can be backed up by other reliable sources. I agree Gopalakrishnan's book should not be a singular reference for disputable facts. Docku:“what up?” 14:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that biased sources can be used as long as we use neutral language to explain the facts or balanced with other sources. Wiki Raja (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Section on "Controversies and Criticism"

Well, as the article is being worked upon, I strongly recommend that a section on "Controversies and criticism" be added. I don't know what are your views upon this. The decision is left to the main editing team. However, the introduction of such a section might be necessary if at all the article is to maintain a neutral point of view. Thanks-RavichandarMy coffee shop 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly support such a section. Please go ahead and add it. But we should keep in mind that criticism from people whom he opposed might, while considered encyclopedic, not be neutral. Criticisms analogous to "Mulayam Singh Yadav criticising Mayavathi and vice versa" or "Karunanidhi criticising jayalalitha and vice versa" are not the same as criticism from neutral people. Docku:“what up?”
Always use high quality sources such as Academic and Mainstream publications in such sections. Also try to use as Docu said Academics in the critism versus politicians and unknown commentators.Taprobanus (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I've completed my work as requested.:-) My draft is here -RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Tamilnation.org is not a reliable source and should not be used for disputable information. I have mentioned that here. I have several questions?
Why can't Tamilnation.org be considered a reliable source? The site is actually made up of articles, book reviews etc. published elsewhere on the net. True, viewer comments are also published in the website but the page I've included is a republished article from elsewhere on the net and the link is provided on top of the page.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 02:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
1) I dont understand the connection between Periyar's characterisation of Tamil as barbaric language and Anita's explanation. May be you should explain that better.
Anita Diehl says "Periyar classified Tamil as a barbaric language because ... ". I am extremely sorry about this. I dug this Google Book out from the web and only a "Snippet View" is available. The rest of Diehl's remarks are not available. A kind request - If at all someone here has a hard copy of the book in possession please add Anita Diehl's remarks in its entirety to the article. Thanks -RavichandarMy coffee shop 02:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I reproduce the "Search results" here:[4]. I've modified the line accordingly.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 02:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
2) Thol Thirumavalavan's comment does seem out of place under the title "remark on dalits". Thirumavalavan's comment sounds like Periyar's failure of policies than criticism. Dont you think?
I named the section "remarks on dalits" because if we were to include both the verified content and non-verified content I have collected in my sandbox here, you will observe that most of them are "remarks". However, I have chosen not to include the material in other section as its authenticity hasn't been verified.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 02:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
3) Is it possible to find other sources for his communication with Jinnah, dravidistan claims? I am sure such claims should be available in other reliable sources. It would be also nice to note the names of the leaders who called his actions secessionist? Thanks. Docku:“what up?” 16:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Cho Ramaswamy's article in India Today which I've used as a reference at another place speaks about his activities during the time of India's independence and subsequent partition. But the problem with the article is that it doesn't mention the date when Periyar made his Dravidasthan demand, etc, etc. So, I've included this article from tamilnation.org-RavichandarMy coffee shop 02:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


Bravo Ravi. In my opinion this looks nice and you can add them to the article. This can be a good start and can be expanded or cleaned-up (?) if need be. The remark by Thirumavalavan seems to be rather interesting, since he is a open follower of Periyar and his name is in the Notable followers list in the entry too. As for Tamilnation, as I said earlier, reckon that it can be used as RS to express comments of Tamils (or should we say Tamil Nationalist). Ravi has used it in a safe way as far as I can see. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much :-) -RavichandarMy coffee shop 02:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thirumavalavan has just mentioned that EVR did not have a separate agenda for Dalits and his policies have failed on all aspects expect removing Brahman hegomony. It rather looks like his assessment of the situation than criticism. Docku:“what up?” 18:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Declaring someone a failure is indeed a criticism isn't it? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 18:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Some policies do succeed and many often fail. Calling a failed policy failed is assessment, but calling it wrong is criticism. Docku:“what up?” 18:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I guess lets others coment on it too. As far as I can see it, Thirumavalavan's comments seem to carry hallmarks of criticism. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 19:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I make my argument based on this quote from Thirumavalavan. "On all other fronts—the battle against superstitions, for equality, atheism, rational humanism—he has failed". He just calls these as failures and please note that he neither calls his policies wrong nor attributes the failure to EVR himself. I guess there is a difference. Certainly. other opinion welcome. Docku:“what up?” 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
We dont know who runs www.tamilnation.org and there apparently is no editorial control what gets published on its pages and it certainly doesnt pass the WP:RS test. Second, Periyar's anti-Brahmanism brought too many enemies in TN, and as far as I know Cho does not like Periyar as much. I dont think Cho is an authoritative source for controversial information especially on Periyar. His dislike for the subject is tangible from the begining of his article,
I am sure we will find neutral books or articles by authors who are not his political enemies and have no purported animosity to the subject. Docku:“what up?” 03:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This page will give you the details of recognition of Tamilnation.org website. It is a pro-Tamil website and hence should not be used as a source for commentary against other parties. Hope this helps. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 05:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Cho is not a politician. He is a journalist. And a reliable source too. (I don't think India Today would publish some rhetoric by some X, Y or Z) And the article is largely neutral. If you are so particular about the authors whose books have been referenced, then you may very well find that all those writers whose works have been used as reference for this article were, in some way, connected with politics or Periyar. In that you may have have to blank the whole article and start again new. And I don't think you may be able to find a single source of the kind you expect.Thanks-RavichandarMy coffee shop 06:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
On the lighter side, it sounds like (Cho) Ramaswamy VS (EVR) Ramasamy. Reminds me of a old song ..Ramar ethanai ramaradi. :D Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 06:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, of course, we have one Ramaswamy (Cho) writing about another (EVR). While one speaks on behalf of Rama, the other is a Rama-hater ;)-RavichandarMy coffee shop 07:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course, everyone either likes Periyar or dislikes him. And we have used books written by those who like him as well as those who don't like him as reference. Please do have a second look at the article. Cho has infact praised Periyar in the article and hailed him as one of the men of the millenium. You cannot judge the neutrality of an article based on the first two lines of an article. And if you are looking for so reliable sources, then I bet all the references provided would fail WP:RS cause all those books or articles have been written by those who like him or hate him. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 06:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, here is one reliable source which backs up Cho's claim[[5]. And I personally feel that Anita Diehl's book is very much reliable despite the fact that it takes a pro-Periyar stance. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 07:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Most of the references used are by people who like him or hate him. I rememeber mentioning that we remove all the disputable and controversial info (both positive and negative) from the article and replace only if we find reliable sources. I also remember, you removed a lot of it. In this context, negative disputable information needs excellent sources. Docku:“what up?” 13:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The political affiliations of the author do not invoke doubts amongst us with respect to the content. The article merely replicates facts not opinions and I don't think a reputed periodical as India Today would publish claims if they aren't factually accurate. And by the way, just because Cho supports the Sangh Parivar and the BJP on most issues, it doesn't automatically mean that he is anti-Periyar. And do you know the number of "Dravidian parties" that the BJP was in alliance with in the 2006 Assembly elections? I only insisted on checking for WP:RS when claims were highly dubious or the author of the source lacks notability or authority on the subject.
And by the way, I did not remove anything from the article. I only copy-edited it to remove POV. Of course, when the factual accuracy of a particular source appears questionable, I've raised the issue here, in the talk page. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 14:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let me try why I think Cho is questionable. Cho says, He abused Tamil as the language of barbarians and ridiculed the Tamil people by claiming that he, a Kannadiga, could become a leader of the Tamils because there was no Tamilian fit to lead them. Cho's assessment is that he abused Tamil because he thought Tamils can not rule themselves. Anita Diehl says something else. However, Anita Diehl explains that Periyar made these remarks on Tamil because Tamil had no respective feminine verbal forms.(well, you are the one who added the same info). So, why Cho has a different view than Anita? I believe I have every reason to question his neutrality on this subject.
I will give you an example. Rabindranath Tagore said British imperialism was not a primary evil, but instead a "political symptom of our social disease". Is it because he is unpatriotic? I dont think so. Could it be misconstrued as unpatriotic, yes. Powerful detractors of Tagore with journalistic access to publish their opinion could publish these thoughts as unpatriotic rants of Tagore. Infact, such comments seem to have put his life in danger.
The point is that we have to be able to verify Periyar's original remarks on Dravidistan and Jinnah and other controversies and understand it in its original context and reconcile it with interpretation by more neutral authors before we go ahead and label him a secessionist. Docku:“what up?” 15:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Let us have a closer look at the article. This is the article which is the subject of the debate - [6]. You might observe that Cho also says
I consider these to be praises of Periyar. And as far as your comments on Rabindranath Tagore is concerned, yeah I agree. However, you might notice that I have only used Cho's article as a reference for some fact and I have never replicated his opinions in the article. And as far as the factual accuracy of the India Today article is concerned, let me remind you that India Today is a publication with a fairly good reputation and a vast readership. If they are to publish something that is factually inaccurate, the "Letters to the Editor" section would be flooded with letters complaining about the mistake. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 17:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
And as far as Rabindranath Tagore's comments are concerned, of course, if someone notable and important felt that what Rabindranath Tagore was wrong in saying so and expressed outrage in public or organized widespread protests, there is nothing wrong in creating a section on "Criticism" and mentioning the fact. However, at that same time, one should also give adequate weightage to any denial made by Rabindranath Tagore. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS says News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. Docku:“what up?” 18:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, I found this book by Nicholas B. Dirks, professor from Columbia University. Sounds like a neutral author. I added the Dravidistan creation call by periyar in the controversy section. Docku:“what up?” 16:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

anti-Brahmanism

I added some info regarding this topic in the controversy section. I hope it is ok with others. I am just curious to know if he endorsed physical violence as a means of execution of his ideologies. Docku:“what up?” 20:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Title

Article title should be as per WP guidelines. Title should be changed to E.V. Ramasamy Naicker.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

He is more commonly known as Periyar. If you didn't know according to Wiki guidelines we are supposed to use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. This is reason why we have it as Periyar E. V. Ramasamy to avoid ambiguity with the Periyar river. So which guideline are you talking about? 08:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

No question he left a legacy and believe we should build that section. Docku:“what up?” 15:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Legacy should be left intact and built upon. Why not take the present info that that has been changed to Ideology and merge that with 'Controversies and Criticisms', while changing the section 'Controversies and Criticisms' to 'Ideals and Criticisms'? Wiki Raja (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideals and Criticisms

Do I remember a Docku looking for info if Periyar advocated violence? For Docku's information, he advocated non-violence. But, here is something Docku may be interested in. If he looks at Anita Diehl's book on Periyar, he will find a section that explained during Periyar's movement, there was an instance where some Brahmin youth at the time were beaten up by non-Brahmin youth who went a little extreme and took the law into their own hands. Whoever, can find this information can add this under the Ideals and Criticisms section. Wiki Raja (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Periyar and Hindu nationalism

Periyar's attacks on Hindu nationalism, was nothing more than rhetoric. In fact, Hindu nationalism originated in Maharashtra. Organizations like the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha did not have any support in Tamil Nadu until the 1980s and 1990s. True, Periyar did occasionally condemn the activities of Savaarkar and Golwalkar and attack Nathuram Godse, but he had nothing much to do with them. Periyar attacked the Hindu religion, religious superstitions and Brahmins. But this did not mean that religious Hindus of Tamil Nadu and Brahmins were Hindu nationalists or supporters of the Hindu Mahasabha. His opponents at that time were mainly from the Indian National Congress and were mostly unrelated to any Hindu nationalist organizations. Periyar was against accession to India, that's it. It would be a mistake to say that Periyar was against Hindu nationalism, or anything of that sort. And Periyar reasoned his stand by saying that "Tamil Nadu should not become a part of India which is ruled by the Aryan Brahmin-Baniya combine". I feel that even Hindi nationalism would be more relevant than Hindu nationalism. After all, how can someone attack something which was non-existent-RavichandarMy coffee shop 17:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And if you are to consider the nation as a whole, Savarkar, Hedgewar, etc. weren't the only people he was against. Periyar was also against the policies of Gandhi, Nehru, etc. who had little to do with Hindu nationalism-RavichandarMy coffee shop 18:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Periyar did not believe in Varnashrama and campaigned against it. He viewed Hindu Nationalism (not Indian nationalism) as a conspiracy by Brahmans to maintain political power in India. He did not have much admiration for any politician who espoused either Hindu Nationalism or believed in Varnashrama. In other words, he considered maintenance of social heirarchy, Brahmanism, Hindu nationalism all to be the same. He was a member of nationalistic Congress party until he felt the above and left. His dislike for Gandhi arose from the fact Gandhi believed in Varnashrama among other things. I dont know why he didnt like Nehru though. Docku:“what up?” 19:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Neither Varnashrama dharma nor Brahminism are related to Hindu nationalism. None of the pioneers of Hindu nationalism as Savarkar or Golwalkar are known to have justified or supported Varnashrama dharma. And none of Periyar's opponents or the target of his attacks such as Rajaji had anything to do with RSS or Hindu Mahasabha, which were the prime Hindu organisations at that time. True, Rajaji was deeply religious and wrote translations of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata but that does not mean that he was a Hindu nationalist.
The introduction of Hindu nationalism in Tamil Nadu is a recent phenomenon which started in the 1980s after Periyar had passed away. Prior to the eighties, the word "Hindutva" was unknown in Tamil Nadu. Periyar comments on Gandhi's assassination, etc, were similar to the United States of America condemning Hitler's pogroms on Jews. Periyar was against INC leaders because they tried to impose Hindi. If Periyar's opposition to Brahmins, Varnashrama dharma and North Indian domination is to be construed as an opposition to Hindu nationalism, then Gandhi, and even socialist Nehru and other INC leaders are to be regarded as Hindu nationalists. Yeah, of course, Periyar, in his condolence message uttered that "Gandhi was killed by a Brahmin". But then, his opponents were rarely Hindu nationalists in the real sense.
Indian nationalism was entirely different from Hindu nationalism and the INC propagated Indian nationalism not Hindu nationalism. I feel that a link to Political integration of India would be more appropriate here. Periyar was one of those who desired to break free.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 05:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, what you and I believe and what is real are really off-topic and we can debate about it another time. I just told you what Periyar believed and how his belief led to his actions. Well, Tilak is a known Hindu nationalist and he believed in Brahman hegemony. (Vishnu's crowded temple, Maria Misra, p72) I agree with you that actions of many leaders during independence movement are questionable including RSS which cooperated with British in 1942 Quit india Movement. Docku: What up? 06:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am NOT expressing my beliefs here. Nehru, of course, is not a Hindu nationalist. Tilak was a Hindu revivalist and reformer. And he belonged to the pre-RSS era. Nevertheless, though there were high-ranking individuals in the Hindutva movement who believed in Brahmin hegemony caste-based discrimination did not form the official policy of Hindu organisations. Periyar objected Brahminism and Brahminism was not the same as Hindu nationalism. True, Periyar was against Hindu nationalists but not against Hindu nationalists alone. This is the point I am trying to emphasize.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 08:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Gandhi and Nehru among many others are impeccable patriots and secularists. There were and are a lot of people who liked them and some who didnt like them. I guess that is just the law of nature. Historians call Tilak Hindu nationalist and in fact, wikipedia calls him the father of Hindu nationalism. Docku: What up? 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
And yeah, you've yourself pointed out that there are allegations against the R. S. S. that it cooperated with the British in the 1942 Quit India movement. So, do you agree that Hindu nationalism is NOT the same as Indian nationalism-RavichandarMy coffee shop 08:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I know both are different. As apparently aware of RSS cooperation with British during Quit India Movement, I hope you will work on the inclusion of this information with equal enthusiasm in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh page under the title "anti-nationalism". Docku: What up? 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
To summarize my argument, Periyar's secessionist attitude was in opposition to political domination by the politicians of the Indian National Congress and the linguistic and cultural domination by Hindi-speaking North Indians whom he regarded as "Aryans". It had little to do with Hindu nationalism in particular.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 08:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Let me just add that he mixed up maintenance of social order, Hindu nationalism, Brahmanism and North Indian domination and perceived them to be the same and interconnected and for the same purpose which he thought was against the interests of the people he represented. Bottom line is, when we write what he did and what he believed, we just do so, we dont write what we believe is right. Docku: What up? 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Hindu nationalism, Brahmanism and North Indian domination are interconnected having the same roots. Hinduism has its origins with the Aryan Vedic faith. It was intermingled in the South with indigenous Dravidian dieties. Brahminism is the practice of promoting ones caste group as being more dominant than the others. Same can be said by Vellalarism, or any other isms of the caste branch. Bottom line is that the origins of caste was also rooted in the Aryan Vedic faith. And lastly, we have North Indian domination. We see that both Hinduism and Brahminism have its roots from the Aryans of North India. Likewise, it is the section of Aryans that manipulate the Hindu faith as a vehicle to utilize the caste system as a tool to dominate the indigenous Dravidians of the South and other parts of the sub-continent, include the Tibeto-Burmans, and Mon-Khmers of the Eastern part which did not become part of India until the 1940s by the British. There were folks of the Brahmin community which were used by the Aryans of Northern India to spread their cultural and dominating influence to the south through what Periyar calls fear and superstitions, otherwise known as mental slavery. It is true that the Aryan kingdoms outside of the Dravidian homelands have had a hard time trying to conquer them. Take for example Emperor Asoka. He managed to conquer parts of present day Pakistan, all of present day Northern and Central India, and present day Bangladesh. In one of his edicts (inscripted in stone), he states that the Chola, Pandya, and Chera kingdoms lay outside of his domain and were independently ruled. Instead, this individual sent Buddhist missionaries on so called peace missions to spread his influence. Wiki Raja (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Partly agreed, but I feel that Brahminism and Vellalarism and all -isms are one and the same and just different words used by sections of society as a substitute for caste-based discrimination. Well, Hinduism is the same as the Aryan Vedic faith? What do you say about the worship of Dravidian Hindu Gods as Ayyanar, Sudalai Madan, etc? In my view, Hindu rituals and Varnashrama dharma had its origins in the Vedic faith. However, the Dravidian pantheon has survived. The Hindu religion today comprises of the worship of Dravidian Gods through Aryan rituals. If you go back to Vedic times, you will observe that the people of the Vedic civilisation worshipped Gods such as Mithra, Varuna, Agni, etc. none of whom are highly regarded in modern times. However, Vedic rituals as homams and yagams have survived and the Aryan pujas are the most widely used form of worship for Hindu gods. Even gods such as Siva and Vishnu appear to be post-Vedic and hence, probably Dravidian in origin.
Well, Periyar opposed the imposition of Hindi. And Nehru was opposed because he tried to impose Hindi. And atheist Nehru would never qualify as a Hindu nationalist. He was, in fact, an ardent socialist and did not believe in Hinduism or Varnashrama dharma. So, you ought to accept that North Indian domination and Hindu imperialism are pretty different. Not all North Indians who tried to impose Hindi were Hindu nationalists. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 01:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Both Hindu nationalists and Hindi imposers may have their differences in ideology, but have the same roots of origins. Other than that, it can be said that the Hinduism practiced by Tamils, for example, have integrated their indigenous beliefs and deities with the Hindu pantheon. This is similar to that of Santeria of Puerto Rico, Voodoo of Haiti, and Candomble of Brazil where the early African slaves and indigenous peoples of Latin America mixed their beliefs, deities, and the Yaruba faith with Catholicism Wiki Raja (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There are many theories around and should have a bit of truth in everything. Guess we will never know the true scope of any ancient history and India is no exception. Docku: What up? 00:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
History revisionism at it's finest. Wiki Raja (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Periyar's religion in info box?

It seems that an anon IP user has added religion to Periyar's info box. It shows that he is atheist. Periyar did not claim a religion and neither is aethism a religion. Furthermore, Periyar mentioned many times that he was not an atheist, but a critic of various faiths, especially Vedic Hinduism being used to dominate people for their selfish ends. Suggestion would be to remove religion status from the info box as it does not relate to the subject. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I see self-identification can be important. However, for all intents and purposes, he is an atheist. We have several references supporting that and I see no problem with that. Docku: What up? 00:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
And there are several references supporting that Periyar himself stated that he was not an atheist. It's funny that Periyar has also mentioned that just because of his criticism on the manipulation of religions, especially Hinduism, he is considered an atheist. Besides, atheism is not a religion. Wiki Raja (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Periyar/Archive_4&oldid=1190260634"