Talk:Sivakasi riots of 1899

Neutrality

Hi all... if there is some conflict, plz explain here, so that the contentious issues should be resolved. Axxn (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have received threats on my user page from an anonymous IP. I am not sure why I am targeted, as I don't have anything to do with the article. What I am saying is that if there is some conflict, plz explain here, so that the contentious issues should be resolved through dialogue. Axxn (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Dialogue with a non-neutral guy like you. Yeah right. No,you are very sure of what youre doing. We don't wanna have a discussion with an anti nadar!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.142.55 (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. You are testing my patience. If you think people can be bullied here, then you are wrong. I am referring this to Admins. Axxn (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• The article is now temporarily protected in order to stop this revert warring. Discuss controversial changes here instead of edit warring, and do not resort to name calling and personal attacks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This what we hate about wikipedia. If you are going to protect this page for freaks like anand nair. Think again. This article is untrue and sickly written by a caste fanatic. Oh, admin. I am scared to death! Your talking to the public. I am quite sure many will visit this page coz this issue is in orkut. There is always a freak IN WIKIPEDIA TO SPOIL OUR REPUTATION. YOU CALL THIS NEUTRAL!! Guys do whatever it takes to reduce this article to nothing!! This riot was known as the Sivakasi riots (NOT ANTI SHANNAR RIOT)and we DID NOT ally with any caste to repel it!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.115.219 (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I ve been watching the articles abt my caste for a long time.Did you really think dat the nadars dont know abt all this? and it seems you,abdullah n linguistic geek are somehow related.this should be noted by wiki.all these three here are for discrimination.they should not be given an account.Once again i think someone should let the nadar association know about all this.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.246.253.129 (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Good pt.If u hav nothin to do with all this axxn, y did u revert the edits of the person who was trying to remove lines which didnt have any sort of proof and y didnt u give a proper explanation after reverting it. U know y? Bcos u r either yusuf abdullah himself or his accomplice! u were not able to use ur abdullah account yesterday, coz it was blocked. Coincidence perhaps. The edit history of axxn and yusuf abdullah are quite similar(both of them usually edits pages relevant to the nair article. This article is nothing but a pure tall tale. Every riot has a name and the appropriate name of this riot was the Sivakasi riots of 1857. Not Anti-shannar riots! The topic itself is false and sounds like some kinda AIDS awareness program. The conflict happened between the maravars and nadars. These 2 castes were not accompanied by the gounders, parayars and pallars. The line "The riots resulted from the long standing animosity between the lower caste Shannar community and the Tamil Kshatriya (Maravar & Gounder) community" comes right from a fairy tale book written by Abdullah himself. There are no kshatriya classes in tamil nadu(and ofcourse the gounders were not even in the fight). So right from the topic to the bottom nothing is true. The references sitting along with the article are completely irrelevant(check it if u want to). This is not even worth a discussion. Someone (admin) should delete it without any second thought. Abdullah was tryin to bash the reputation of the nadars or was deliberately tryin to induce rivalry between the nadars and thevars.We are definetely nt goin to fight bcos of some malayalee. The article cant be altered or adjusted because it was just designed to degrade the reputation of the Nadars. This is racial abuse! Here is the proof behind watever i said. [1] 122.164.181.1 Its google book.(talk) 15:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please calm down and stop making accusations of racism and so forth. It would be good if you could stop ranting and try making logical arguments in which you clearly state your specific objections, and include reliable sources to support your view. The page protection was done not to support one version or the other, but to stop the edit warring and encourage discussion of controversial material here. Consider using some form of dispute resolution if needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This article was on my watch list, and so when I noticed the section blanking, I reverted it back. After that I checked the article and references, but found nothing derogatory against any castes. The user was saying that there are no Kshatriyas in TN, but the 1891 Census of India clearly catagorizes both the Maravar and Kallar communities as Martial races. Also, the Maravar article clearly states that they are Kshatriya. The users should have specified which section should be modified instead of making threats and calling names. I am referring this to dispute resolution. Axxn (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If anyone want to resolve this issue, then go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Anti-Shannar_riots_of_Sivakasi. Axxn (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Beeblebrox, we are not here to edit wikipedia articles. We can't stay calm after all this. We are here because we are offended by AXXN. Nothing is true in this article. A community which has martial traditon can't become a aryan kshatriya class. You refered the maravar caste article? If you are a regular editor you would know about the wikipedia rules more than me. How can you refer an article which had no proper sources. Why dont you show me an article which is not in wikipedia. If wikipedia is fraught with users like axxn, you cant expect these articles to be true. There are no kshatriya classes in Tamilnadu! The Periyar movement(also known as Self respect movement) was based on this issue. We don't want to mediate with the guy who's responsible for all this. We want this article to be deleted. Why isnt anyone looking into the reference book posted above?? We are speaking the truth!!59.92.112.126 (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• The link you provided shows that a book exists. Fine, there is a book. That doesn't really help us understand your objections since we can't actually see the content of the book from that listing. I strongly recommend that you agree to the mediation. The way it works is that a user who has had no prior involvement with this issue will hear both of your cases and attempt to find a way to resolve this. The other way this can go is the path of more edit warring and needless drama, probably ending with the page being protected again and/or some blocks being handed out. Of those two choices, mediation is the route most likely to produce a result that is satisfactory to all parties. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Chill out dude. Anand Nair is a pip. Leave him out of the picture. I can understand ur feelings. And lets make Beeblebrox understand our concern too. Lets hear out his proposition. Wat do u want us to do Beeblebrox? We do not like dis article one bit boz its not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.114.16 (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, since you decided to blank most of the article I have reverted your edits and fully protected the page from editing until this matter is resolved. You can either participate in a calm civil discussion of these issues, or sit and stare at an article you have now lost the ability to edit, the choice is yours. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so u re intimidating us! Fine then. The neutrality of this article will always be disputed then. Are you trying to say its ok to host a page which has no proof. Where is the proof for all this nonsense? No reply for that one,eh Ok. We are not here to beg!! Why are you not going through the proof posted above. Because you re not neutral too. Don't play God here. We are not here to contribute to your stupid site which is run by freaks. I dont have to respect the rules of wikipedia. I am a commoner. This is a public place and if you continue host a page which is not even worth a discussion, we ll not just sit and watch as you say. Do your best. EVERYONE it is ANAND NAIR who's responsible for all this.59.92.112.126 (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr.59.92.112.126, I am telling you again and again, I didn't added anything to this article. If you are trying to find a scapegoat for your own failure to explain the dispute here, then find someone else. Axxn (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to intimidate you, and I am trying to make it clear to you that you do in fact have to follow certain minimum standards of conduct to edit here. Controversial changes to articles need to be discussed. Personal attacks and other breaches of the civility policy are not tolerated. Arguments to make changes to articles should be backed by reliable sources. If you are unwilling or unable to abide by the basic principles of Wikipedia you will not have a very pleasant experience here, and neither will those trying in good faith to edit articles around you. My role as an administrator in this dispute is not to take a side but rather to attempt to get a constructive conversation started to resolve these issues. You are correct in saying it is not okay to have a page that is untrue or inaccurate, the way you are going about trying to resolve the issue is the problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello anyone der??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.114.16 (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If we agree to this, is there a possibility to delete this article for good as it contains no proof or truth.59.92.112.148 (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

And start a new article instead o something.59.92.112.148 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

An article about the conflict between two dangerous castes of tamilnadu.I dont think thats a good idea.Lets somehow delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.87.159 (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you are willing to actually discuss the matter rationally and have a reason based on Wikipedia policies, it could be nominated for deletion at WP:AFD. If you really want to do that I would be willing to initiate it for you. Be aware that it is a discussion, not a vote. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok,what should we do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.125.204 (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.101.8 (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree, please provide sources

Anonymous editors in the section above this one have complained about errors in this article. Our minds are not closed, but we expect you to participate in rational discussion. Comments like the following tend to rule out any sympathy for your concern: "We are not here to contribute to your stupid site which is run by freaks. I dont have to respect the rules of wikipedia". If you believe there are genuine mistakes in the article, please offer published sources and quote the information you think is wrong. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

We are willing to cooperate to have this article deleted. No offence. Everything even the title is very negative and against our caste. Refer pg 104 to 120 (101 to 120) of this book [2] and also refer the second link(reference appended to this article). We would be obliged if someone would help us to delete this article as it is aimed to trigger unwanted rivalry between the nadars and thevars. The article is too favourable to the thevars. Please nadars. Dont intervene for now. lets see what they can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.111.31 (talk) 05:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rajni Kothari is the author of the book you mention, "Caste in Indian Politics", which was published in 1970. Many of his books are held in major libraries, so his work is likely to be credible. You have given us only a page reference, 'pages 101 through 120'. Can you tell us what claims in the article can be shown to be incorrect, based on Kothari's work? What does Kothari say about the matter? Do you yourself have access to the book so you can look up information for us? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wel someone has already mentioned wat is wrong with this article very clearly above. anyways i ll mention somethin nwew. the nadars are not untouchable castes. perhaps we were a little lower than the maravars due to our association with liquor and demon worship. we were never as low as the untouchable castes like parayar or pallar. the nadars are today considered a clean upper caste. and not all nadars were aided by the british christian missionaries. some nadars were wealthy land lords and petty kings who ruled over the lands of nayak kings. they were rich right frm the beginning. refer pg 101 of this book [3]. the nadar caste are not very low. and there are no kshatriya castes in tamil nadu. this fight was between 2 castes of similar status!! s, this book is accessible122.164.164.7 (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes.Only some christian nadars were benefitted by the christian missionaries.70% of the nadars are caste hindus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.86.37 (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good improvement. But the second para demographic makeup and 3rd para sivakasi riots of 1899 are still the same. Actually the battle was between 1500 nadars and 5000 maravars. The second link |title=Papers Past — Star — 1 Hereturikōkā 1899 — CUREENT TOPICS |publisher=Paperspast.natlib.govt.nz. Can we edit now?

why moved

guess Ravichandar moved for the spelling. my reason is the word "anti" is inherently POV and there was more than one party involved in the riot. The riot was as much known as "Sivakasi riots" as was "anti-Shanar". therefore, the less POV title. --CarTick 06:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the term "Anti-Shanar riots" is the one most popularly used in contemporary sources. The term "Sivakasi riots" have been used in some of the recent works, but then do we not used Madras instead of Chennai and Trichinopoly instead of Tiruchirapalli if we are write of something which took place during the colonial period.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 06:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming issues

An article in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, an acknowledged classic uses the name "Anti-Shanar riots". See [4]. I feel that the 1911 Britannica is more reliable than the other sources. And the riots took place not in Sivakasi alone but also in the immediate neighbourhood.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 06:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

is not a question of reliability. we are not debating whether the incident happened. it is about the appropriateness. --CarTick 06:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please check out the first point in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Maintaining neutral point of view

If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view

So, POV is not an issue here. Please check [5], [6] and [7]-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 06:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

that is if we decide "anti-Shanar riots" is the only common name and I disagree. see here --CarTick 06:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the term "Anti-Shanar riots" is the one most popularly used in contemporary sources. The term "Sivakasi riots" have been used in some of the recent works, but then do we not used Madras instead of Chennai and Trichinopoly instead of Tiruchirapalli if we are write of something which took place during the colonial period.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 06:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the links, I'm inclined to agree with Ravichandar here. If the search parameters are "Sivakasi riots"+"1899", there are a lot let references than for "Anti-Shanar riots". -SpacemanSpiff 06:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Given the heated exchanges above, I'm compiling a list of sources here.

1. The Star, Christchurch, August 1, 1899 - [8]
2. Gait, Edward Albert. Census, 1901. p. 128. OCLC 11875362.
3. Clothey, Fred. Ritualizing on the boundaries: continuity and innovation in the Tamil diaspora. OCLC 255232421.
4. Thurston, Edgar. Castes and tribes of Southern India, Volume 3. p. 364. ISBN 9788120602885. OCLC 249219384.

All the above have significant coverage and can be considered to be reliable for purposes of this article. -SpacemanSpiff 06:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

looks like there is abundance of sources and it has a potential to become a good article. --CarTick 06:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeated removal of sourced content

• I have now referenced the entire article, and immediately an IP came back removing the references and deleting the content. Some others, please watch over this please. -SpacemanSpiff 03:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Once again the same IP has removed the sourced content and inserted other stuff in not backed up by the references, I've undone once more. -SpacemanSpiff 04:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The term low caste or emulation must be avoided. Because it isnt what we believed in. We didn't unite to act. We believed strongly that we were placed wrongly in the caste hierarchy and we still do. We are a clean upper caste today and many prominent hindu temples are taken care by the hindu nadar association. All these books were written by the British and it did'nt have our involvement. The Nadars were actually irritated bcoz of these books. So that makes these not neutral. [9]. Refer page 101. It says that some nadars were wealthy right from the beginning. 122.164.139.122 (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, what you or I believe in has no bearing on the article. Articles here need to be reliably sourced. Wikipedia only reports what other sources have published and has been generally accepted. Also, the threshold for inclusion in the article is verifiability, not truth; also Wikipedia is not a forum to correct historical wrongs. In this case, the content you are repeatedly removing is from all the four references that I have included above, and those included within the article. -SpacemanSpiff 06:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.105.47 (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC) And once again, what if these so called references are just assumptions made by the Britishers. How do you define neutral point of view. If this is a neutral article, why are its contents being repeatedly challenged. Bcoz someone is offended by these lines. You did'n go thru the links i posted. Instead you are just speaking about wikipedia rules and regulations which proves that you are not interestd in our pt of view. How can an article be contemplated as neutral, if it seems very invalid to us. Perhaps you should go to a real library instead of google books. I ll repeat what I said. Some nadars were wealthy right from the beginning. And not all the nadars were toddy tappers. If you can't understand this simple concept, I am afraid this conflict will never end. Its not just my point of view. Its our pt of view. Perhaps you should take a look at the discussion pages of other nadar relevant articles. No offense. This article is a contrary to our core beliefs. I ll surely post something to prove this pt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.139.122 (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Refer page no 70 to 79 of this book. [10] and refer page 77 to 79 of this book [11]. It shows that the nadars were actually irritated by the people who wrote books contrary to their beliefs. This reveals that there is another pt of view to the story and i think it should be considered b4 someone is offended by these lines. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.139.122 (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

we are not doubting your concern to improve this article.we r simply tryin to say that u r jumpin to conclusions hurriedly.U can comprehend the history of a tamil caste by referin a handful of books.coz tamil history is based on assumptions n these assumptions cannot never be considered as neutral.Neutrality is always a difficul concept to balance.Sorry,But v cannot assert dat dis is a neutral article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.216.33 (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, in both your refs, it states there's a claim for a higher caste status, but that sociologists and historians do not agree. Since this is reliably sourced, I have no problem adding it, and will do so soon. -SpacemanSpiff 20:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only dat. Some nadars were aristocrats from the beginning. I can post refs for that too. We dont want the term high or low caste in this article. Bcoz they are both only partially true. Just including a line after all this. I am very sorry to say that ure not at all cooperating. You re just aggravating us. Y did u place tags to the nadar main article which has proper refs!! Did you atleast go thru the refs in the nadar maIN article.All the books you have posted is based on only two books namely hardgrave and caldwell. These books books were abhored by the nadars and has a one sided pt of view. Period!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.105.47 (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Once again, what you want or don't want has no bearing on the content of the article. We report what reliable source have written. That's all there is to it. -SpacemanSpiff 04:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that you can post whatever you want to without our permission or intervention. We ll see about that. AND THESE ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES FOR YOUR VERY KIND INFORMATION!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.105.47 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 9 November 2009

Please read what I said. It doesn't matter what people want. If reliable sources classify as something, we report that. Simple. I could care less about what the actual content is, as long as it is sourced correctly, to good quality sources. -SpacemanSpiff 04:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt matter what people want? Then is it what you want. You refer 3 books and you tell us that you know our history! Wow. I am sorry to say. Just because these books seem neutral to you doesnt mean youre right!! Refer pg 20 of this book [12].refer446 of this book [13].refer 100 of this book [14] and refer pg 6 of this book[15].Refer page36 of this book.[16]. They speak of group of wealthy nadars who were wealthy right from the beginning. You know what. Just because you think you re right doesnt mean you can post whatever nonsense you want to. We dont need an editor who is hasty. Someone else should take care of this article.122.164.105.47 (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me go through these sources and get back on this tomorrow. -SpacemanSpiff 05:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just went thru the article Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It says that wikipedia is about impartiality. You are most probably irritated and you are purposely attacking the nadar articles. Check this one too [17]. Edgar thurston and hardgrave arent the only historians in the world. Even they are claiming something. Which makes it an opinion not a fact. The Nadars had many occupations and they were categorized according to their profession. We definitely need someelse take care of this mess. There are numerous articles regarding our history and you are just refering to books which were highly abhored by the nadars. How can this be neutral?? Why don't you check google books yourself. I am gonna bring this to everyone's attention. All your claims are stubborn and you are just interested to fit things into this article as you wish. Are you trying to say that pages like vellalars and nairs dont need tags?? The Nairs and Vellalars are sudras but they append fancy terms like kshatriyas into their article. And their page still remains. How partial?122.164.105.47 (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm done interacting with you. Go ahead and bring it to everyone's attention. -SpacemanSpiff 08:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries here. I am not here to nod s, to whatever you say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.105.47 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion is the best idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.163.74 (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Tamil Kshatriyas???

I found that someone has been adding this POV-term to the article as a reference to the Maravars. See [18]. The very term "Tamil Kshatriya" is a joke cause there does not exist one. The Tholkappiyam mentions only Arasar, Anthanar, Vanikar and Vellalar amongst the divisions of ancient Tamil society. Source: Studies in Tamil Literature and History by V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, Luzac & Co., London, 1930, pp 181. The oldest claims made by some Tamil-speaking communities of belonging to the Kshatriya varna do not go beyond the 18th century AD. I strongly insist that such POV terms not be added in the article.

Besides, I also find claims of Brahmins and Vellalars being involved in oppression of the Nadars despite the fact that existing sources describe the Sivakasi riots as a two-fold conflict between Nadars and the Maravars and do not speak a word about the involvement of Brahmins or Vellalars. -The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 04:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The claim of oppression by Brahmins or Vellalars is routinely made in Nadar/sandror association sponsored books and publications. The problem is one can never verify whether this is historical revisionism or just setting the issue right. Thurston, sarah tucker, Caldwell et al who have shaped the existing majority opinion are dismissed by the current crop of Nadar historians as having been ignoramuses or missionary agenda pushers. --Sodabottle (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

new section

Nadars were earlier addressed as chanars and one village named as chanar patti in kongu region. Later after accumulating wealth they started calling themselves as nadar , nadaluor, affixing surnames like pandiyan ect. . In 1899 riots started with Nadar men started misbehaving with marava women of sorrounding villages who came to sell firewood and vegetables. Naickers also invoved in the riots allying with maravas. the region was under control of marava kings sethu pathis . There were maravarpalayams in tirunelveli district and those poligars were descendents of the later pandyas. Notable among them are Chokkam patti, kadambur, V.K puthur, sivagiri, singam patti , maniyachi ect.poet Subramaniya Bharathiar in his Panchali sabatham addresses shatriya pandavas as "Arya vel maravar".Later he describes the tamil community of maravas as shatriyas. But despite their royal lineage they never call themseves as shatriyas.Because of independent sprit and non submissiveness they became backward and impoverished. Later Mr.Kamarajnadar revenged the maravas by instigating caste riots between Devendra kula pallas and maravas.Worst type of state terrorism was practised during his Gandhian rule. Thus the black gandhi through his blackmachinisations was a fore runner of Gujarats Modi and Srilankan ruler Mahinda raja pakshe . It is very unfortunate that there is no Reliable authority to decode Tamilnadus history . Intellectual mushrooms sprout in every community to write fancifull stories

of their own

-X avier Fernando

do u have any reference for this fantasy of yours? --CarTick (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion tag

Mr. Iru was recently trying to remove lines with references. Now he is trying to delete the entire article.Mayan302 (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if a 100year old newspaper is a good source.-> paperspast

Once again, The IruLord edit wars. I know its written in the source. But how are the Shanars any different from the Nadars.Mayan302 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)