| Revision as of 11:05, 2 March 2009 editRavichandar84 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers47,685 edits →Pandyas← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:34, 2 March 2009 edit undoBake1987 (talk | contribs)187 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| :: I see. I have started this process only because of some fights going on ] where one person from a particular community has been calling the other "toddy-tapper", etc. I understand that these abuses have casteist connotations. Articles should not become a place for caste propaganda, definitely not a place where there should be caste-fights. Nevertheless, I insist that references be added from reliable sources for the claim. Besides, it isn't relevant at all if you mention ] as an ethnic group. Since when have Pandyas been considered to be an ethnic group. The Pandya dynasty is a dynasty of kings. There is difference between a royal dynasty and an ethnic group.-<font style="color:white;background:black;" size="4" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font><sub><font color="red" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font></sub> 11:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | :: I see. I have started this process only because of some fights going on ] where one person from a particular community has been calling the other "toddy-tapper", etc. I understand that these abuses have casteist connotations. Articles should not become a place for caste propaganda, definitely not a place where there should be caste-fights. Nevertheless, I insist that references be added from reliable sources for the claim. Besides, it isn't relevant at all if you mention ] as an ethnic group. Since when have Pandyas been considered to be an ethnic group. The Pandya dynasty is a dynasty of kings. There is difference between a royal dynasty and an ethnic group.-<font style="color:white;background:black;" size="4" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font><sub><font color="red" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font></sub> 11:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| There are already enough proofs in this article and moreever we don't have to post proofs for your sake. The term you used to describe the nadars (toddy tapers) shows that you are deliberately trying to make people look down on us. The controversy you are talking abt was over a long time ago. As i said there was never a thevar behind this controversy. You made that up yourself. And the reference site sishri.org(a site based on neutrality) appended to this article clearly proves that the nadars are the descendants of the ancient pandyas and this proof has been published in several reputed tamil magazines and newpapers. The controversy regarding the ancestry of the nadars was over a long time ago and the the site was undisturbed till today. Ravichandran is without doubt committing vandalism just to prove that he is right and is deliberately trying to create a point of view that the Nadars are mere toddy tappers. The wikipedia authorities should look into this issue as soon as possible. ] (]) 13:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:34, 2 March 2009
|
An entry from Nadar (caste) appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 4 April, 2007. |  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nadar (caste) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
 | India: Tamil Nadu Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
POV and original research vs. scientific angle
Where is written that you can't mention the prominent individuals of a caste. Every caste article does it. Kammas, Iyers, Gounders etc.. Why not Nadars? Are you anti-Nadar? P.S I am not even Nadar? I am a Nair. But I am just looking out for my brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.252.158 (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC) There is too much haggling in this article about prominence of individuals of this particular caste. In an encyclopedia, the article about a people group should be as close to the anthropological/ethnological/ethnographic point of view as possible.
Caste-promotion should be left aside. It is of no interest to the readers, and it reflects social/political agendas that are mostly POV. Signed: Shiva 122.162.165.45 (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The section "In the field of economics" has a lot of POV. There should be more refs and less of caste-glorification-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 22:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Pandyas
The mention of Pandyas in the article has been removed. The claim appears controversial and it is recommended that rfs be added. See here.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 02:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There has never been an issue regarding the pandyan ancestry between the thevars and nadars,so far. The conflict is actually being initiated by ravichandran entirely! The edit of ravichandran is just triggering unnecessary problems and misunderstanding..122.164.168.69 (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I see. I have started this process only because of some fights going on here where one person from a particular community has been calling the other "toddy-tapper", etc. I understand that these abuses have casteist connotations. Articles should not become a place for caste propaganda, definitely not a place where there should be caste-fights. Nevertheless, I insist that references be added from reliable sources for the claim. Besides, it isn't relevant at all if you mention Pandyas as an ethnic group. Since when have Pandyas been considered to be an ethnic group. The Pandya dynasty is a dynasty of kings. There is difference between a royal dynasty and an ethnic group.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 11:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
There are already enough proofs in this article and moreever we don't have to post proofs for your sake. The term you used to describe the nadars (toddy tapers) shows that you are deliberately trying to make people look down on us. The controversy you are talking abt was over a long time ago. As i said there was never a thevar behind this controversy. You made that up yourself. And the reference site sishri.org(a site based on neutrality) appended to this article clearly proves that the nadars are the descendants of the ancient pandyas and this proof has been published in several reputed tamil magazines and newpapers. The controversy regarding the ancestry of the nadars was over a long time ago and the the site was undisturbed till today. Ravichandran is without doubt committing vandalism just to prove that he is right and is deliberately trying to create a point of view that the Nadars are mere toddy tappers. The wikipedia authorities should look into this issue as soon as possible. Bake1987 (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Categories: