Talk:Udayar (caste)

Recent reverts

This edit has been reverted by me and others. Some of it is unsourced, some of it is poorly sourced, all of it is poorly phrased. And it seems to remove content that is reliably sourced. The contributor has left a note on my talk page but it appears mostly to be original research. I am also concerned that they refer to "we" in that note, in a manner that suggests they may be editing on behalf of a caste group - that is not a good thing. - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

udayar is lower than vellalar community — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis sebastin (talk • contribs)

Vellalar is the highly dominant caste in tamilnadu You see vellalar history in Wikipedia Vellalar is not lower than udayar Why you specificly compare than vellalar All are know vellalar is the high caste You please change your mistake Aravindsiva2686 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Udayar

New editor User:Archescientist posted this at my user talk page, and at the user talk page of User:Sitush. I'm copying the discussion here where it belongs. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

1) I accept that some people of udayar caste are following Christianity. But when compare to Hindus udayar not even comes to 1%. The reference what you have given is not worked based on caste or orgin. It deals with only south Indian Christianity people.

2) Socially Humbler than Vellar - Vellar is the group of people how doing agriculture. But udayar caste are belongs to Velir group. For reference please read Dennis B. McGilvray work on caste system in south India. One more all udayars are under obc category. Earlier it was in General category later changed to obc category after Dravidian movement has became ruling party in Tamil Nadu. But most of the vellar cast are in mbc category earlier they where in BC later moved to MBC. If the caste is humbler than vellar then how this this is possible.

3) Malayaman Udayar are belongs to Malayaman Dynasty. There are lot of inscription which has return on sangam period found in Tamil Nadu and also found in Literature. Please refer the following artical - http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_26/introduction_1.html

We request you to don't revert the page. If you have any concern replay to this mail. Will make it clear. -> Archescientist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archescientist (talk • contribs) 12:14, 23 December 2017

Replying to each question:

Question 1: you'll need a WP:Reliable source to WP:Verify that claim of not even 1%.

Question 2: same again for all of these claims.

Question 3: Who is "we"?

The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Below are the reference: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=5YksAAAAMAAJ&dq=udayar+caste&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=udayar Title Indian Anthropology Author Nadeem Hasnain Publisher New Royal Book Company, 2010 ISBN 818926799X, 9788189267995 Length 292 pages Reference Page : 1 to 7

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=jAMdAQAAMAAJ&dq=udayar+caste&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=udayar Title Contributions to Indian Sociology Volumes 9-10 of Contributions to Indian Sociology: Occasional Studies Contributors Ecole pratique des hautes études (France). Section des sciences économiques et sociales, University of Oxford. Institute of Social Anthropology, Research Centre on Social and Economic Development in Asia Publisher Mouton, 1975 Reference Page : 35 - 36

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=W2pYAAAAMAAJ&q=udayar+caste&dq=udayar+caste&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidxYCTyKDYAhXKPo8KHSK_Blw4FBDoAQhTMAk Title Temples of Madras State, Volume 9, Issue 1 Volume 9, Part 11 of Census of India 1961 Temples of Madras State, India. Census Commissioner Author India. Census Commissioner Published 1965 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized 14 Feb 2008 Referrence Page : 186

Think this reference is enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Archescientist (talk • contribs)

For what point(s) are these intended to be references? I cannot actually read more than a few sentences of any of them and what I can see doesn't appear to be relevant to anything in particular.

With regard specifically to the Christianity thing, please note that the article makes no comment about how many Udayar are Christian. It is left deliberately vague - at least some - because that reflects the cited source. I doubt very much we will find a source that puts a number on it. - Sitush (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

See The below phrase

Indian Anthropologist, Volume 2, Issue 1

Page 1

Udayar (UDaiyaar) caste, which is found primarily in the salem, North Arcot, South Arcot and Trichy Districts of Tamil Nadu. Udayars are high caste, typically landowners.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0pTXAAAAMAAJ&q=udayar+sub+caste&dq=udayar+sub+caste&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwignYT__6HYAhVMso8KHWr1BggQ6AEIPTAE

They played an important role in village political affairs. All of them belonged to the Nattamar subcaste, as did all persons calling themselves Udayar in the villages of Kadayampatti and Nachanampatti, each at a distance of less than one mile from Nadupatti.*14 These Udayars claimed that there were three divisions: Nattamar (Nattamaar), Maiai- mar (Malaimaar, or sometimes Malaiyamaar), and Sudarmar (Sudarmaar, or sometimes Surudiyamaar)

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=gsMhKQEACAAJ&dq=udayar+sub+caste&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqwaWT_6HYAhXCO48KHRz_AA44FBDoAQhZMAk

Nathamar is one sub caste of Parkavakulam community of Tamil Nadu, India. The others are Moopanar, Nainar, Malayamar and Shruthimar. Nathamars traditionally engaged in Agriculture. Most of the Nathamars followed Shaivism and the reminder followed Vaishnavism. Christians can be also found. They are the people of the chola dynasty and cholas were now called as udayars mentioning the whole as parkavakulam community. King Rajaraja Cholan was called as Periya Udayar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archescientist (talk • contribs) 06:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

All interesting stuff. I don't see what difference it makes regarding your initial objections, though - none of the quotes appear to tie up with those objections, which appear to be original research because you are inferring things from what is said. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Kindly see the history which we have added earlier. We have mentioned the same information. But the content has been removed by you people and asked for source. Now we have provided the source. Since am from Tami nadu i know the actual status. What we have provided is the true information. We have nothing added unrelevent or untruth information. We request you people to read the content what we have added with the help of reference provided by us. Also we requesting you to added those content in this page. Bkr087 (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Who is "we"? The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

We is group of people from the udayar community. Nothing else. Bkr087 (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Editors are not allowed to operate shared accounts. Your contributions are also nearly identical to those of User:Archescientist, so please note that WP:Sockpuppetry is also not allowed on Wikipedia. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It's ok. It's not shared account. Accidently two accounts has been created. bkr087 will not be no longer exist. I will use only archiscientist. I request you to revert the page. Am the only person using the both account. I have not shared the account any one. Archescientist (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I've asked for Bkr087 to be blocked as a sock per the above message. However, it is all very odd as the claims was that there is indeed a group of people from the Udayar community who are trying to influence content here, and that would imply more than one account being operated by more than one person. I'm beginning to lose a bit of faith in this situation and it isn't helped because the quotes given from the sources do not appear to support the points that are desired for inclusion. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

about your article

Why you mention specially that udayar is higher than vellalar Why you not mention konar chettiyar Sudden you change Udayar is higher than vellalar Alexis sebastin (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

We have to reflect what the sources say. See the information at WP:V. - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrong information

The first reference in the page is wrongly attributed and in fact just tells the opposite regarding the social hierarchy and the ratings of udyar and other castes below the vellalar community. Ref. page no. 23. This needs to be corrected to avoid spreading false information. Xavinanotech (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I cannot see page 23 of that source but the statement does align with what is attributed to the next source, which says "The three dominant caste groups of the region - namely, Pallar, Kallar and Udayar, collectively known as Marava castes ..." - see [1]. Can someone please provide a quote from around p 23 of the first source. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Please check in google books. It is freely available. One can see page 23 too. Again you are referring to second part of the statement which is right in showing a group of castes and ignoring the wrong info about the hierarchy which is the first part of the sentence. This needs to be corrected. Xavinanotech (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I cannot see it. Google Books does not show the same content everywhere in the world - see User:Sitush/Common#GBooks. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I am able to see it; in Germany. I am writing down the paragraph. If you have email I can send a screen shot.

"In terms of the caste hierarchy in Tamilnadu, the Vellalas are ranked higher than the socially humbler Nadar, Udayar, Kallar, and Pallar caste groups."

It is very clear what is written in the Wikipedia page about is wrong even from the quoted reference and also from several other commonly available sources. Xavinanotech (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not need a screenshot. How do you propose that we word it, given that the next source says the Maravas are dominant? I suppose "dominant" may mean in terms of numbers or politics or something like that, rather than in social status. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, comparing two different castes is not good for political reasons. Whoever wrote this had some political motive or interest in comparing two particular castes. Now it has been changed to humbler, I see. Referencing Vellalar can be removed, as it is irrelevant, otherwise you need to include that they are below mudaliars, bhramins and chettys too, which is not going to help. Xavinanotech (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not worried about the political issues, as long as the source is reliable. Wikipedia is not censored. But without being able to see that source I cannot determine the relevance of the remark and, as you say, there are plenty of higher-ranked communities. There must surely be some relevance to it - people do not just throw out statements like that in academic books. - Sitush (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. There must be some good reason for such a comparative statement in the book. Xavinanotech (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)