![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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 mediation Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Please raise .I will be sorted .Please do not revert blindly. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 00:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The article is currently in Category:Indian Buddhists. Is there a reference to support this? PhilKnight ( talk) 20:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
There are multiple evidences to show that EVR:
The sentence was modified to reconcile all these facts.
Kumarrao (
talk)
08:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
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. Docku Hi 13:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Dravidian is a pov term and should be removed from the lead. - Bharatveer ( talk) 09:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
>>... 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 - Ravichandar My coffee shop 04:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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- Ravichandar My coffee shop 05:53, 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)
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- Ravichandar My coffee shop 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | 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. | ” |
“ | ... one may safely conclude that he was accepted and acclaimed as the leader by a significant section of the Tamil population in spite of all his contempt for Tamil and disdain for Tamils only because he was perceived to be a genuine individual, a rarity among those in public life. There was no shade of hypocrisy in him and he never attempted sophistry while propounding his social philosophy. And what a philosophy it was! | ” |
“ | ...Periyar is still revered because of the solid contribution he made in the demystification of the Brahmin from the exalted position in society | ” |
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)
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)
No question he left a legacy and believe we should build that section. Docku: “what up?” 15:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
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'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- Ravichandar My 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- Ravichandar My coffee shop 18:04, 7 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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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 mediation Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Please raise .I will be sorted .Please do not revert blindly. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 00:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The article is currently in Category:Indian Buddhists. Is there a reference to support this? PhilKnight ( talk) 20:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
There are multiple evidences to show that EVR:
The sentence was modified to reconcile all these facts.
Kumarrao (
talk)
08:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
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. Docku Hi 13:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Dravidian is a pov term and should be removed from the lead. - Bharatveer ( talk) 09:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
>>... 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 - Ravichandar My coffee shop 04:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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- Ravichandar My coffee shop 05:53, 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)
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- Ravichandar My coffee shop 16:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | 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. | ” |
“ | ... one may safely conclude that he was accepted and acclaimed as the leader by a significant section of the Tamil population in spite of all his contempt for Tamil and disdain for Tamils only because he was perceived to be a genuine individual, a rarity among those in public life. There was no shade of hypocrisy in him and he never attempted sophistry while propounding his social philosophy. And what a philosophy it was! | ” |
“ | ...Periyar is still revered because of the solid contribution he made in the demystification of the Brahmin from the exalted position in society | ” |
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)
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)
No question he left a legacy and believe we should build that section. Docku: “what up?” 15:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
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'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- Ravichandar My 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- Ravichandar My coffee shop 18:04, 7 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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |