Talk:Iyengar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Title

Why was this article moved from Iyengar? Google returns 1520 hits for Aiyangar, (and asks "Did you mean "Iyengar"?), but returns 235,000 hits for Iyengar. According to Wikipedia policy, the most common English spelling should be used. – Quadell ^{(talk) (quiz)}[[]] 17:01, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Aiyangar is phonetically correct (Iyengar is not). --Rajasekaran Deepak 19:11, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

A weak argument. By the same standard you could argue that "thumb" shouldn't have a "B" in it for phonological reasons. What do the others think? David Cannon 19:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think, since Iyengar is the most common English form, and since one of the most famous Iyengars (B.K.S.) spells his name "Iyengar" when using Roman letters, that "Iyengar" should be the spelling in the title. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:54, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

It could be mentioned in the first few lines of the article that "Aiyangar is the correct phonetic for Iyengar", but the article should still be Iyengar as that is where people are gonna come looking for. Similar correction should be made to Srinivasa Aiyangar Ramanujan. Kesava 00:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll change the spelling back, and I'll note in the introductory paragraph that "Aiyangar" is phonetically correct. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 19:07, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

POV

The last para states that "In addition to their earlier occupations, Iyengars today have diversified into a variety of fields—their strengths particularly evident in the fields of law,mass media, science, engineering, mathematics and computer science." Do you have any statistical studies to prove that Iyengars are a substantial chunk in these professions compared to other castes? Arunkrishnan 11:52, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I guess the point is majority of iyengars belong to these professions.It does not in anyway convey the converse.So let it be the way it is user:Anonymous16:34, 18 July 2006

Would this be more better classified under Category:Social groups of India instead of Category:Indian culture Alren 17:31, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are some other serious POV issues with this article. I just removed several instances of descriptions of various people as "renowned" or "well-known" (peacock terms). Is there a need for a POV tag to be added? Ketsuekigata (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

possible vandalism

User:220.236.152.72 made major edits to this article. They should be checked carefully. He/she has just been blocked for exceeeding 3-revert rule after repeatedly making major edits (mostly deletions) to topics in areas related to this, ignoring requests to discuss, creating separate POV versions of articles under slightly different names, etc. In this case (counter to pattern he/she has largely inserted material (although there are also deletions). Changes just might be accurate, I suggest especially checking any deletions. I won't be watching this page, so if you need to ask me something further, please ask on my talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:39, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

More vandalism ?

There have been a few major deletions done to this article over the past few days. Are they genuine or the acts of a vandal ?

I am not too unhappy to see the text about incarnations go as it was irrelevant to the article, but a number of good entries in the list of famous iyengars have gone too. Tintin 14:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too many professors

Is there any reason for keeping them ? They are not known outside perhaps a very small circle. Not the sort of people who would qualify for a 'famous people' list. Tintin 4 July 2005 13:35 (UTC)

Moved the professors

• Professor S.R. Srinivasa Varadhan - Mathematician & Fellow of the Royal Society
• Professor Mudumbai NARASIMHAN - Mathematician & Fellow of the Royal Society (1996)
• Professor Madabusi RAGHUNATHAN - Mathematician & Fellow of the Royal Society (2000)
• Professor Conjeeveram SESHADRI - Mathematician & Fellow of the Royal Society (1988)
• Professor Mandyam SRINIVASAN - Fellow of the Royal Society (2001)
• Rangaswamy Srinivasan - Inventor of Ablative Photodecomposition (APD) - Using Excimer Laser for Eye surgery
• Professor Cadambathur Tiruvenkatacharlu Rajagopal - Mathematician, Ramanujan Institute of Mathematics
• Professor Chidambaram Padmanabhan Ramanujam - Mathematician, TIFR

Tintin 5 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)

Tintin: These people above are very well known people depending on who you talk to. Same applies to a whole lot of other celebrities. The list was added by me after verifying the facts and with the intent of showcasing this community's contribution to academics (Mathematics in particular). Please reinstate the update. Thanks

Reverted the changes. Not very convinced, though :-) Tintin 5 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)

Not that it is terribly harmful to have them in there, but if you go along the lines of being well known in a few academic circles, then the Famous People list in many articles about communities, such as Iyer, should be greatly expanded. One unrelated thing is, why are some of the last names capitalized? I think it stands out and disrupts the flow of the text. Adityan 17:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Those professors were missing, so I am adding them. FYI, to be a Fellow of the Royal Society is a very high honor for a mathematician; and a very small percentage are ever so honored. It is like being a movie superstar compared with being a regular mathematics professor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.96.128 (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Are they Iyengars?

I have removed the ISRO chief Kasturirangan from the list.He is a Palakkad Iyer. I am not sure about Gen.K.Sundarji.Can any one clarify on this

Harishsubramanian 07:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

When should Vedanta desikar be on the list

Among all the people in the list Vedanta Desikar was the Greatest.But the rest of the people belonged to the modern times.Either someone should prepare an Iyengar list for all time,which must include people like Ramanujacharya or have only modern Iyengars.And I would like to put them on a separate list.Spiritual teachers need to be mentioned separately.

Harishsubramanian 07:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Mathas or Ashramas

Shouldn't there be a mention of the Mathas/Ashramas of followed by the Iyengars? Let me list the mathas I know :

• Andavan Ashrama
• Ahobila Matha
• Parakala Matha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.50.200 (talk • contribs)

Parthasarathi Ayyangar

S.Parthasarathi Ayyangar ML,IP has currently been put up for deletion. Please comment in this page if you are familiar with this person. Tintin 10:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Most Priests are Iyengars?

The article states that most priests in South Indian temples are Iyengars. Given that there are probably more temples to Shiva and Devi in South India than Narayana, I don't see how that can be true. The only reason I'm not cutting it out is I have no proof to back up my point either. It is something that is in need of attention, though. Adityan 17:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed Rengarajan Kumaramangalam from the list. He belongs to Gounder Caste. I think Srikanth (Present Tamil Actor is Iyengar). His name is Srikanth Krishnamachari. Somebody can clarify that and add his name. Ravi

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Unverified

The list contains names such as Chinnasamy (which Brahmins dont usually keep) and even included T.A.Sekar (which is obviously a Saivite name which Vaishnavite Iyengars dont keep). The list needs to be verified and more references included.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

Could someone produce links to sources on population of Iyengars??? -Ravichandar 02:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

citations??

this article is gradually expanding without providing enough/no citation , inspite of placing multiple tags the editors who add information seem to fail to provide enough notability nor citation's .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of names without a corresponding page in wikipedia

While I have no problem in getting the names of people who are not quite well known widely, I can't see the justification for removing names just because there is no seperate page. One has to build that also. We can't try to impose one's perfectioinst streak get in to basic database building. If one is perfectioinist , build the page rather than deleting the names. If the argument is that , the persons for whom there is no seperate page are not famous enough, I don;t think that is good enough an argument.

Sme of the people are Bhatnagar award winners , for whom seperate page in wikipedia is not there, that does not make them any less an achiever than actors/actresses.

I think the nomenclature should be high achievers and not famous. Movie stars are the most famous , that does not entitle them to get in to the list by default

Major science award winners and academicians who aciveve excellence , may not be famous, does not disnetitle them to be in the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreeranga61 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest that for every name added that does not have an article on Wikipedia should have at least one or maybe two reliable sources cited behind the entry. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That is okay. Nams which have been added have generally brought out their acheivements which have a source in one of the other sites. One can always provide the link. Some of the sites themselves may not survive for long, hence the reluctance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreeranga61 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• The names have not been removed, only commented. Try to establish the notability of the individuals by creating articles for them. The names would then be considered for inclusion. :-). Anyway, the list has been moved to List of Iyengars as maintenance has proved to be difficult. The discussion may be continued in the corresponding talk page. Regards -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sub sects of Iyengars

The sub sects of Iyengars are many and not limited to the Karnataka's Mandyam and Hebbar. Other groups such as Kilnat Iyengars (mostly from Tamil Nadu, a much larger group than Mandyam or Hebbar is found in Karnataka also),Hemmige Iyengars,Kalkunte Iyengars, Telugu Iyengars, etc.

Edgar Thurston summarizes the diffrences between Thengalai and Vadagalai Iyengars. Can they be grouped under the sub heads of Thengalai and Vadagalai so that one knows what each sect's arguments are.?--Nvvchar (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

அய்யங்கார் or ஐயங்கார்

The Tamil word அய்யங்கார் is pronounced aiʄŋɡaːʀ while the Tamil word ஐயங்கார் is pronounced eːʄŋɡaːʀ. Iyengar should be pronounced as aiʄŋɡaːʀ(அய்யங்கார்) and not as eːʄŋɡaːʀ (ஐயங்கார்) -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 04:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism in Iyengar article

I have reported Vandalism to the administrator of English wikipedia who will block the user from removing contents of WP. I have added the erased contents back to the page. Svr014 (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

Spelling correction in the Origin section

I had to correct the spelling of Non-brahmin to non-Brahmin in regards to the discussion that talks about the origin of Thenkalai sect. Svr014 (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

Famous Iyengars

In response to Ravi's question, Srikanth was born an iyengar (pun intended). Talking on related terms, I am curious to know if people who have publicly given up their Sri Vaishnava traditions that they come of should necessarily be included in the list of famous persons ? -திருமங்கலம் அம்மங்கி ஸ்ரீராம் முரளி —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srirammurali (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree and find it very inappropriate to have Kamal Hassan's image in the info-box there (if that is what you are referring to.) Not that I have anything against him. Cribananda (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

+1 on removing KamalHassan image, Why we must portray Iyengar using a person who has shunned the identity. I guess there are many other popular faces which can replace him. Srikanth ^t 06:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Addendum and modification to the article

Some body is removing contents from the WP. That is a violation and will not be tolerated (according to the administrator of the English WP). Please do not remove the contents of WP. Also, I had to rephrase and reinstate some of the contents in the Iyengar article. Svr014 (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Origin Aryan theory

• The Vadakalai Iyengars belong to the Indo-Aryan racial group while the Thenkalai Iyengars belong to the dravidian racial group .
• Many vaishnavite scholars concur to the understanding that many centuries ago some non-Brahmins (notably Mudaliyars, Goundars, and Chettiyars) were converted to Shri Vaishnavism ultimately forming the Thenkalai sect .

Please use a valid wikipedia citation. Linking to an article which itself has POV items is not a proper citation. Srikanth ^t 14:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I second Srikanth. Race is a highly controversial thing. Please provide sources which support claims that Vadakalai Iyengars were Aryans.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 04:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Please undo the change you made to the article Iyengar. It is authentic in my opinion and I sincerely believe seeing those statements regarding the different racial origins of Vadakalai and Thenkalai Iyengars in a website many weeks ago. I am not able to recall the site now. Can you please look over various sources on the internet that talk about the racial origins of Iyengars? Awaiting your reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svr014 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 25 June, 2006 (UTC) on Srikanth's talk page

Svr014, Personal Opinions cannot be entertained in WP as it does not fall under encyclopedic content.Refer WP:NOR Please use valid citations from notable, reliable sources and also rephrase the text to be in line to reflect WP:NPOV . Refer WP:RNPOV for more. Srikanth ^t 06:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

From what i googled about Origin of Thenkalai, i did not get strong,valid sources mentioning about origin.Most of them were blogs/discussion boards. They did mention about the Conversion of other caste people into Thenkalai, but did not mention that as the "formation" and hence i contest Svr014's words "ultimately forming the Thenkalai sect". Its better not to have these without a clear source as it might lead to edit wars similar to the threads/comments on the blogs/discussion boards. Srikanth ^t 06:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that those were not my personal opinions. I read similar messages in one website but could not recollect the exact location of the website. For now I will modify/remove the statements. I will try to look for scholarly articles in Vaishnavism and later improve the article Iyengar which is an article of distinction. Svr014 (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

• This edit shows the twisting of facts from the references to Vadakalai.
• The reference given for The Coming of Aryans and Brahmins into Kerala doesnt speak a single word about Iyengar or for that matter even the word Tamil Brahmin dont come together in the entire text.

Svr014, Request you to give proper references While and please qoute the actual text and do not intrepret references to fall in line with personal opinons. Srikanth ^t 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the publication by P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar is on Hindu Brahmins which includes Vadakalai Iyengars and Vadama Iyers. I have given appropriate references for the 'Aryan Origin' (references 11 and 12). If you have doubts please read scholarly papers published by scholars in Vaishnavism. I did not coerce my personal opinion on any article in the WP or on any person. You must learn to respect what people publish after conduction some amount of research like the case with Srinivasa Iyengar. Svr014 (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I took reference of this great work of Sri P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar which is named 'History of the Tamils from the Earliest Times to the Present Day'. He was a great historian and a scholar on various theories.Svr014 (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read through the reference given. Mr.P.T.Srinivasa Iyengar has not mentioned *Vadakalai Iyengar* , *Vadama Iyer* specifically. When quoting references one must not alter the content which it meant.Quoting his words on Brahmanas and saying that its about *Vadakalai Iyengar* is as very ambiguous to say the least. You must also read the words about Bhargavas on the same page. Coming to the other reference 8 of wheelar, I don't find anything related at all. Please provide proper references and qoute them in context properly.You haven't answered yet to the points i raised. I will definitely take out ambiguous statements referenced out of context.I am patient because you are new user. Please assume good faith. Srikanth (speak) 17:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the word Brahmanas includes Vadama Iyers and Vadakalai Iyengars. These two ethnic groups follow the same lineage of gothras and have a slight difference in sampradaya. Please read the article on deductive reasoning and then try to understand the point mentioned by Sri P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar. Iyers and Iyengars with specific reference to Vadamas and Vadakalais is strongly authentic. I have answered your concerns and they (my answers) are strong. The Kerala article talks about Brahmins and the word brahmin clearly includes Vadakalai Iyengars as they are the prototype brahmin community among Sri Vaishnavas. The Thenkalai evolved after sometime and they tried to create their own sampradaya. Hope this answers all doubts. Svr014 (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no two opinions on "Brahmanas includes Vadama Iyers and Vadakalai Iyengars", but replacing all occurances of Brahmins with *Vadamas and Vadakalais* by any logic doesnt hold strong at all that too while quoting materials as references. Again i find you making dubious claims like "Vadakalai Iyengars as they are the prototype brahmin community among Sri Vaishnavas". There is no evidence to this at all and is purely WP:OR You seem to have missed answering my query on wheelar reference. Your answers are not convincing to me(and many others who believe in WP:NPOV) to say the least. Srikanth (speak) 19:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the book by P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar has hundreds of pages. Specific references are given after the first 50 pages where Iyers and Vadakalai Iyengars are talked about with reference to social customs and beliefs. Wheelar also talks about South Indian brahmins in his work with references to Vadakalai Iyengar community as well as Iyers. Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Vedantadesika are the two important gurus for Vadakalais. Hence, the Vadakalais are called the prototype brahmin community among Sri Vaishnavas. Just out of curiosity, are you a Thenkalai Iyengar? You seem to have problem in trying to stomach details that are of paramount importance to some topics. I checked with other scholars few minutes ago and found that the sources I attached to the material are scholarly and authentic. Please learn to respect the contributions of other WP users. Brahmins in general descended from similar set of rishis (all from the North). The Vadakalais and Vadamas have similar gothras and sort of different sampradaya. Hope this elucidates all your queries. Have a nice July 4th! Svr014 (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are specific references(any), please correct the references given.Note that this will help in improving the article.. Until then the given references are ambiguous and does not support the POV expressed by you.I asked you evidence for your WP:OR on Vadakalai as prototype and you had given a fact completely unrelated to that and justifying your WP:OR. You seem to have selectively missed my note on Bhargavas in the book by P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar.I am a WP user who believes in WP:NPOV , WP:V, WP:NOR. I have always respected meaningfull contributions and will continue to do so as long as am in WP.I did not ask about Origin of Vadakalai and Vadama. Have a nice July 4th :), though it doesnt mean anything to me  :):). Srikanth (speak) 05:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by Bhargavas in P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar's work. You were talking about Brahmanas which clearly included Vadakalai Iyengars. Please note that facts are facts and they may or may not be neutral. For example, Village A has more Cardiologists than Village B is a fact. A living example of multi-millionaire/billionaire is Bill Gates. He is one of the richest people in the world is a fact. This statement cannot be vetoed as biased. The sources I posted on the article support the statements. I will try to add the book references to the webpage with the help of a technocrat in few days time. Please try to understand what the statement reads. Please do NOT kindle disputes and misunderstandings on WP. Analysis of a particular fact is in the eyes of the beholder, but a fact is a fact. Hope this explains well. I am an American of South Asian descent/origin (in the Indo-Aryan racial group). I have consulted with scholars in Sri Vaishnavism and have made reasonable contributions to this article (Iyengar). Svr014 (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed facts are facts. Citing the reference which says Village A has more has more Cardiologists than Village B and writing that Street X has more Cardiologists than Village B, just because Street X is present in Village A is not valid. This is what am saying from the beginning. If you say so, then its obvious that you are expressing your POV about Street X. Well you have already added references, but its just that they are not of the same viewpoint.

Analysis of a particular fact is in the eyes of the beholder . Absolutely, this is what even i have been asking for. Please dont note your analysis of the some referenced material and say that its fact.Let the eyes of the beholder do it. As Abecedare notes below, please use exact quotes while using referenced material. Srikanth (speak) 19:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Srikanth, I found a text (few lines) in Wheeler's 1861 Madras in the olden time on page 40 in Volume 1 which talks about the Brahmins. It says that the brahmins belong to the Arian (Aryan) race. The page number is 13 on the book, but including the index, it is on page 40. Vadakalai Iyengars, and Vadama Iyers are also brahmins and they belong to the same Aryan race. The physical complexion part is I think mentioned in some other book by the same author. Am not able to find it today. But for now, I think you will be convinced with the source. I will call it a day now. Svr014 (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar's book with me. Though he does mention about sporadic migration of Brahmins into the Tamil country from outside, nowhere does he say that all Tamil Brahmins were Aryans. In fact, he clearly points the prevalence of Dravidian practices as uncle-niece marriages and Dravidian marriage customs among Tamil Brahmins. And then, if Vadamas belonged to the Aryan racial group, why is there a Vadama subsect called Thummagunta Dravida. Could you please explain?-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 13:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read History of the Tamils from the Earliest Times to 600 AD if you can decipher the meanings of all the aryan-like customs mentioned by Sri P.T. srinivasa Iyengar. I am a Science Scholar; a person in Anthropology, or Religion would be better able to guide and advice you. I look into scholarly sources for passing time. Not that important for some people. Please consult scholars in your field (Smartism) about Vadamas. Hope this fills the bill. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Iyengar article sources

Hello,

Here are the sources of the origin of Vadakalai Iyengars (an ethnic group related to Iyers). The sources are: 1) Author: Gilbert Slater; Work: The Dravidian Elements in Indian Culture. Page 158 2) Author: J.T. Wheelar; Work: Madras in the olden time. Page 22 3) Author: P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar; Work: History of the Tamils from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Pages 55, and 56

I will go ahead and restore the article with sources once you receive this message. Have a nice July 4th! Svr014 (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Thanks, Svr014 for the above message on my talk page. I am copying and replying to it here, since it concerns this specific article. I have added citations to Slater's and Srinivasa Iyengar's books to the article, however we need some further clarifications before we can remove the {{Failed verification}} and {{Verify source}} tags:

1. Can you specify the publisher, year of printing, and ISBN (if they have one) for the Slater and Iyengar's books ?
2. Can you provide specific quotes from Wheelar and Slater that support the statement, "Vadakalai Iyengar men and women are slightly different in phenotypical characteristics and complexion to the average South Indian" ?
3. Can you provide specific quotes from Thundy and Iyengar that support the statement, "... and this along with the social practices and customs of Vadakalai Iyengars are regarded as evidences of an "Aryan origin" ?

Once we have the complete publication information and the quotes we can verify if the cited references support the statements adequately and amend the article as needed. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare; here are the answers to your questions. They are as follows:

Answer 1: Iyengar's book was published (originally in 1929) by Asian Educational Services, and Slater's book was published (originally in 1924) by Ernest Benn Publishers. No ISBN for Slater's book, I guess, you have the ISBN for Iyengar's book in the source reference section.

Answer 2: Wheelar and Slater talk about Iyers and Iyengars combined using the terms Tamil Brahmins in depth. They assert that Iyengars (which includes Vadakalai Iyengars) and Iyers (which includes Vadama Iyers) "possess different physical features (which includes skin complexion and eye color) in comparison to an average Tamilian (who is part of South Indians)".

Asnwer 3: Thundy talks about Brahmins in general (which includes Vadakalai Iyengars) and Iyengar talks about both Iyers and Iyengars. The statements read in terms of "the sampradaya of (Vadama) Iyers and (Vadakalai) Iyengars are sort of similar. Both use the Aryan way of conducting prayers, daily rituals, duties (all of which include social practices and customs)in sanskrit. The rishi paramparai (family lineage) which started in the Northern regions of South Asia are more pronounced in the social practices and customs of Iyers and Iyengars" I had to rephrase some of the words in my own sentences as it will prevent any violation of copyright statutes in the USA.

Hope these answer your questions. Happy holiday! Please help me improve the article Iyengar. Thanks and have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information about the book edition; this is important since page numbers (and even some content) can change between editions, and so we need to know which exact edition and/or reprint was used. Also can you confirm if the title of the Iyengar book is "History of the Tamils from the Earliest Times 600AD" or "History of the Tamils from the Earliest Times to the Present Day" ? You listed the latter title in your original post, but I all the references I found, mentioned the former.

Sorry, but I could not parse the quotes you list above. Specifically:

• It's not clear which book you are referring to when you say "They assert that Iyengars ..."
• Which part of the quoted text is from the book and which part is your interpretation ?

I'll leave a message on your talk page, on how to format the quotes for easy redability. Can you read that and add the exact quotes again ? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Abecedare, I will be happy to give you the information in lucid terms. Slater (after 150 pages), in his book, talks about "the Aryan-like features possessed by Iyers and Iyengars" (with specific reference to Vadakalais and Vadamas). Wheelar talks about "the physical complexion difference between Tamil Brahmins and an average Tamilian". Tamil Brahmins clearly includes Vadakalai Iyengars and Vadama Iyers.

Thundy talks about "Brahmin (Aryan-inspired) customs and traditions in contrast to dravidians" in detail. He then specializes to brahmins in Kerala. P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar asserts that "the sampradaya (which means social practices and customs) of Tamil Brahmins (especially Vadakalai Iyengars and Vadama Iyers) provide strong basis for an Aryan origin and descent". "Both groups use sanskrit language (the language used by Aryans) in almost all the prayers, rituals, and religious practices." Hope this answers your questions. Svr014 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The text you have included between quotation marks, doesn't seem to appear in the cited references. Again, please give exact quotes without any interspersed explanation or interpretation (I cannot emphasize this enough!). I have left a message on your talk page on how to do so using the {{Quote}} template. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are the answers to your queries.

1) Slater (after 150 pages): talks about "the Aryan-like features possessed by Iyers and Iyengars." He refers to the physical complexion of Iyers and Iyengars.

2) Wheelar (after 21 pages): talks about "the difference in physical complexion between Tamil Brahmins and an average Tamilian." Implication: Tamil brahmins includes Vadakalai Iyengars and Vadama Iyers. Both these groups emphasize and use sanskrit in all of the religious duties and almost all prayers.

3) Thundy talks about Brahmins in general (who are of Aryan origin and descent). He then talks about brahmins in Kerala which assumes in good faith about Vadakalai Iyengars and Vadama Iyers.

4) Iyengar (after 50 pages): talks about "the sampradaya of Tamil Brahmins provide strong basis for an Aryan origin and descent". Again the words Tamil Brahmin includes Vadakalai Iyengars and Vadama Iyers.

Hope these answer your questions. Svr014 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Svr014, the problem I am having is that I cannot find the above quotes in the respective books. So lets try to nail this down.

1. Can you recheck that you have got the quotes exactly right, i.e., no errors in wording, spellings etc ? Also confirm that the publisher and year of edition is exactly as cited in the article.
2. Can you add the exact page number (instead of "after 50 pages" etc) in your above comment ?
3. Focusing on one case for now: Here is the complete text of the Wheeler's 1861 Madras in the olden time: Vol. 1, Vol. 2 and Vol. 3. Can you point out specifically (volume, chapter, page number) where it says the words, "the difference in physical complexion between Tamil Brahmins and an average Tamilian."

There are other problems with the appropriateness of the references, partial quotes, their interpretation and OR concerns, but to start with we need to at least settle on what are the exact words in the reference, and where they appear. Abecedare (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for letting me see the book again. I found a text (few lines)in Wheeler's 1861 Madras in the olden time on page 40 in Volume 1 which talks about the Brahmins. It says that the brahmins belong to the Arian (Aryan) race. The page number is 13 on the book, but including the index, it is on page 40. Vadakalai Iyengars, Vadama Iyers are also brahmins and they belong to the same Aryan race. The physical complexion part is I think mentioned in some other book by the same author. Am not able to find it today. But for now, I think you will be convinced with the source. I will call it a day now. Svr014 (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, does that mean that the exact quotes you were citing are not from this book at all ?! I am disappointed that I wasted so much time chasing down the sources, assuming that we just needed to get the exact wording and page number right. For now, I am removing the two sentences from the article, till we have clear cut and authoritative references for them. Abecedare (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are not being able to comprehend the basic information about brahmins. Iyengars are brahmins and most of them reside in Tamil Nadu. Wheelar's book talks about Brahmins in Madras which includes Iyers and Iyengars. Iyengars are also brahmins and the word brahmin includes Iyengar. I elucidated the following statement "Iyengars like other brahmin communities originated from the Aryan race". This statement is in accordance with the Wheelar source (Page 40 in Vol 1). I ask you to reinstate the neutral and correct statement I made. This is a request to you. Please try to understand the brahmin communities in India esp. brahmins in Madras which clearly includes Iyers and Iyergars. Svr014 (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read this. You will be able to understand brahmins, esp. Iyengars better from this article. Please restore the edit you made to my statement. It is correct in my opinion. Please do not discriminate against me because of some unprofessional reason. The word brahmin includes Iyerngars as Iyengars are also brahmins. Svr014 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Several points:

• Yesterday you made up quotes and page numbers from several references. You are now again misrepresenting what this source is saying. In particular it is not talking about "Brahmins in Madras" in the page you are citing
• The book does not even mention Iyengar, so it does not support your statements that, "Iyengars like other Brahmin communities ..."
• Most importantly, the 1861 book may be ok for contemporary British India history but is not a good source for ancient Indian history. That should be obvious from reading its one paragraph description of 3000+ year of Indian history, which you are citing:

From time immemorial India has been a conquered country. Wave after wave of the great Tartar or Turanian races of Central Asia, have poured in from the North, bringing with them noble languages, but rites so utterly barbarous a» to be almost beyond belief;—horrible institutions in which human sacrifices were offered to appease the wrath of ghosts and demons, and in which men and women herded together like cattle. The Brahmins next appeared upon the scene ; a people altogether different, and belonging, not to the Tartar, or Turanian race, but to the same great Arian race, as the Greeks, the Romans, and our noble selves. These Brahmins gradually civilised the Tartar inhabitants, divided them into castes, taught them the worship of Vishnoo and Siva, and made themselves the priestly sovereigns of the country. Such was the state of things when the Mussulmans,—Turks and Mongols,—poured in successive eruptions over the valley of the Punjab, and at last established a throne at Delhi.

Abecedare (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: For future reference, when citing page number you shouldn't count the number of pages from the book's first page; instead you need to look at the page number printed on the page. Abecedare (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I did not make up citations. I had excerpts from the books that had the key words and other information. Wheelar would have published other books as well. Please note that the book is about Madras in Olden Time. It talks about brahmins and Iyengars are also brahmins. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS POINT? The book clearly states the following "The Brahmins next appeared upon the scene ; a people altogether different, and belonging, not to the Tartar, or Turanian race, but to the same great Arian race, as the Greeks, the Romans, and our noble selves.". You may want to read both the articles Iyer and Iyengar in order to understand these two ethnic groups. Iyengars are classified as Pancha Dravida Brahmins like the brahmins in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Kerala. Please reinstate the statement I made in the origin which is neutral, authentic and appropriate. Please understand the demographics of the brahmin communities across India. Svr014 (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wheelar could have written other books, but it was you who claimed that you got the information from J.T. Wheelar; Work: Madras in the olden time. Page 22. Later you made up quotes from this and other books and repeated the claim, despite my repeated request to provide the exact information. It's unfortunate that you are not willing to admit and apologize for wasting all that time, but we can move past that if you don't repeat such dishonest conduct.

As for the current issue: If you find a reliable source talking about the origins of Iyengars, we can add that to the article. As I said above, the Wheelar book is (a) not a reliable source for the topic and, (b) doesn't say what you are claiming. Misrepresenting sources or original research is not an option. I would highly recommend that you discuss any proposed edits on the talk page instead of editing the article directly; you should also consult with your mentor to better understand wikipedia's content policies. Abecedare (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I did not make any dishonest claims. I got the sources from another article on WP. It is mentioned here (Iyer). I sincerely apologize if you did not get the exact information you were looking for. Please do not be angry at me. I need your help to improve the article Iyengar. Can you please help me find the latest reprint of Sri P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar's book "History of the Tamils from the Earliest Times to 600 AD". Is it available here? I just found the same edition online. Also, please tell me the method to add citations on WP from research papers published by scholars. This is my humble request. Svr014 (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting where you got the text from. As you have now seen, wikipedia article are not reliable sources since (as in this instance) they often contain incorrect information. That said, you should have not have made up the quotes from the books, since that was not a simple duplication of error from Iyer. Anyway, I'll drop this issue now as long as it is not repeated.

You can read parts of History of the Tamils from the Earliest Times to 600 AD on Google books if you wish, else you'll have to get it from a library or bookstore. There may be later reprints, but the book itself is quite dated and you should look for more recent and better articles and books.

You can search for article in this area using either Google Scholar or JSTOR (better, but not free). The articles themselves are rarely available for free, and you may have to purchase access or use a local library. Abecedare (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare, Thanks for your help in this regard. I need some rest now. I need to prepare for this upcoming week. Good luck and have a nice rest of the weekend. Svr014 (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding sources

Here I produce for your inspection the contents of page 55,56 and 57 from P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar's book which has been used as reference.

Spread of the Aryan cults in South India

Great must have been the consequences of Rama's victory and the extinction of Ravana's power in South India. The Aryans who had been pushing south of Janasthana even before Rama's time now spread in larger numbers further south. The number of Brahmarakshasas increased. This word, Brahmarakshasas, has acquired unsavoury associations in later usage. Absurd fables have been invented about their activities. But it originally meant either the progeny of Brahmanas who allied themselves with the Dasyus and the Rakshasas, like the sons of Visvamitra, who naturally became Brahmanas and formed the Visvamitras or Kausikas or those who became disciples of the Agastyas and were affiliated to their gotra. Even before these, the Bhargavas and their descendants have begun to spread in South India. These families constituted the nucleus of Brahmindom of South India. The Brahmanas of this part of India have their peculiarity, that in some respects they preserve the customs of the Vedic age intact and in others they have adopted South Indian customs alien to Aryavarta. On the one hand, they shave their heads so as to display a top knot as prominently as the ancient Vasisthas; they wear two clothes, called, in old days, the pavasta and vavri or the pavodhanam and nivi and whenever possible, avoid stitched clothes. In this latter respect, women are more particular than men. But, on the other hand, some anarya customs are very dear to Southern ladies, such as tying of the tali as the most important act of the marriage-rite and the wearing around the neck a bit of thread dyed in turmeric. Again the way in which the husband that is to be welcomed by the mother of the bride and bridesmaids is a relic of the old Dasyu rites. He and his bride are made to stand beneath the marriage-pandal, their feet symbolically washed in milk and balls of rice dyed in red thrown in all directions. These customs must have been introduced into the Aryan rite of vivaha by the Dasyu ladies whom the early Aryan immigrants married. Such old Dasyu rites were regarded as so sacred by these Dasyu wives that Apastamba, the law-giver of the South Indian Aryas and one of the latest of the Sutrakaras, has said that 'the knowledge which Sudras and women possess is the completion of all study'.

— page 55, 56 and 57, "History of the Tamils from the Earliest Times to 600 A. D." by P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar

-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 04:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. How do you propose we summarize and include Srinivasa Iyengar's views in this article ?

Side note: a significant fraction of the book are also accessible on Google books and can save us a lot of typing ! (I had read Chapter 4 there, while discussing the issue with Svr014 above). Abecedare (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion, but I'll just mention an uneasy feeling: although it seems that P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar (1863–1931) was a respected figure in his time, are we sure it's a good idea to rely on a book written so long ago? Much of Indian history has undergone upheavals since that time... Shreevatsa (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish to make some important observations here. Summarizing the text of the above pages:

* The chapter in the book concentrates on the events which were presumed to have happened around 500BC.

* The Bhargavas mentioned in the book were definitely Indo-Aryan migrants while the Brahmarakshasas referred to were Dravidians who were accepted as Brahmins. However, at the same time, one should note that the author places these migrations to a time period anterior to 600 AD and the Iyengar community itself (leave alone Vadakalai, Thenkalai divisions) did not originate until atleast the 11th century AD. So, what is the connection between Vadakalai Iyengars and the Indo-Aryan Bhargavas. It should also be noted that Mr. Iyengar theorizes on the possiblity of intermarriages on a large scale between the Indo-Aryan migrants and the indigenous inhabitants.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

to Svr014

Dear Svr014,

I have followed this discussion with great interest. I would like you to kindly clarify a few questions, since you seem to be convinced that brahmins are aryans:

The quote below states that the tartar or turanian 'races' arrived from central asia. Why do you think some genetic studies find that iyers and iyengars are similar to central asians? Is there a seperate 'aryan race'? What is aryan? If it is a race, please explain on what grounds would you call it a race? Please provide appropriate references.

The quote goes on to say that the brahmins belonged not to the turanian race; but to the great arian race as the greeks, romans and our noble selves. As someone trained in science, how ignorant or logical does this sound to you? Would it not sound typical of a white guy trying to promote himself as an 'aryan noble self'? And how much reliance would you place on articles of history?

Again, as someone trained in science, am sure you are aware that populations everywhere get replaced. Given wars, islamization, and movements, the current iranian or turkish or turanian populace are purported to have become more arab, less native. India too experienced repeated invasions and movements. So why do you think the current north populations should correspond to those of the ancient north? You say the sages came from the north. Please let me know with what level of surety can you say "what those sages looked like in the ancient times"? If you have references to show the sages were of 'aryan looks', please provide the same.

From time immemorial India has been a conquered country. Wave after wave of the great Tartar or Turanian races of Central Asia, have poured in from the North, bringing with them noble languages, but rites so utterly barbarous a» to be almost beyond belief;—horrible institutions in which human sacrifices were offered to appease the wrath of ghosts and demons, and in which men and women herded together like cattle. The Brahmins next appeared upon the scene ; a people altogether different, and belonging, not to the Tartar, or Turanian race, but to the same great Arian race, as the Greeks, the Romans, and our noble selves. These Brahmins gradually civilised the Tartar inhabitants, divided them into castes, taught them the worship of Vishnoo and Siva, and made themselves the priestly sovereigns of the country. Such was the state of things when the Mussulmans,—Turks and Mongols,—poured in successive eruptions over the valley of the Punjab, and at last established a throne at Delhi.

Regards, --= No ||| Illusion = 09:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Mayasutra

---

Dear Mayasutra,

Thanks for your post. I got the information about brahmins in Hinduism from a pal who is a Hindu Tamilian. She knew a lot about Tamil brahmins which included Iyengars and Iyers. She has a grandiose collection of history books. I concur that I do not know much about some religious topics personally as I am a Science Scholar. Also, caste, race, gender, and religion are very sensitive topics on WP. Given some experience, I would like to advice novice folks to exercise caution while trying to contribute to sensitive articles like race, caste, religion, gender, etc. Hope this explains my side of the story. Thanks and have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Dear Svr014,
Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, i know these topics are sensitive. My questions to you were based on:

1) The mentioning of this in the article:

"The Vadakalai Iyengars belong to the Indo-Aryan racial group while the Thenkalai Iyengars belong to the dravidian racial group [citation needed]".
"Many vaishnavite scholars concur to the understanding that many centuries ago some non-Brahmins (notably Mudaliyars, Goundars, and Chettiyars) were converted to Shri Vaishnavism ultimately forming the Thenkalai sect [citation needed]".

2) The following comments made by you (kindly provide actual references to susbtantiate them if you wish to mention them in this wiki article, kindly clarify on the usage of "aryan" as a 'race'):

a) Please note that the publication by P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar is on Hindu Brahmins which includes Vadakalai Iyengars and Vadama Iyers. I have given appropriate references for the 'Aryan Origin' (references 11 and 12).

b) Brahmins in general descended from similar set of rishis (all from the North). The Vadakalais and Vadamas have similar gothras and sort of different sampradaya.

c) I found a text (few lines) in Wheeler's 1861 Madras in the olden time on page 40 in Volume 1 which talks about the Brahmins. It says that the brahmins belong to the Arian (Aryan) race. The page number is 13 on the book, but including the index, it is on page 40. Vadakalai Iyengars, and Vadama Iyers are also brahmins and they belong to the same Aryan race. The physical complexion part is I think mentioned in some other book by the same author.

d) Slater (after 150 pages), in his book, talks about "the Aryan-like features possessed by Iyers and Iyengars" (with specific reference to Vadakalais and Vadamas). Wheelar talks about "the physical complexion difference between Tamil Brahmins and an average Tamilian". Tamil Brahmins clearly includes Vadakalai Iyengars and Vadama Iyers. Thundy talks about "Brahmin (Aryan-inspired) customs and traditions in contrast to dravidians" in detail. He then specializes to brahmins in Kerala. P.T. Srinivasa Iyengar asserts that "the sampradaya (which means social practices and customs) of Tamil Brahmins (especially Vadakalai Iyengars and Vadama Iyers) provide strong basis for an Aryan origin and descent".

1) Slater (after 150 pages): talks about "the Aryan-like features possessed by Iyers and Iyengars." He refers to the physical complexion of Iyers and Iyengars.

2) Wheelar (after 21 pages): talks about "the difference in physical complexion between Tamil Brahmins and an average Tamilian." Implication: Tamil brahmins includes Vadakalai Iyengars and Vadama Iyers. Both these groups emphasize and use sanskrit in all of the religious duties and almost all prayers.

3) Thundy talks about Brahmins in general (who are of Aryan origin and descent). He then talks about brahmins in Kerala which assumes in good faith about Vadakalai Iyengars and Vadama Iyers.

4) Iyengar (after 50 pages): talks about "the sampradaya of Tamil Brahmins provide strong basis for an Aryan origin and descent". Again the words Tamil Brahmin includes Vadakalai Iyengars and Vadama Iyers.

5) I found a text (few lines)in Wheeler's 1861 Madras in the olden time on page 40 in Volume 1 which talks about the Brahmins. It says that the brahmins belong to the Arian (Aryan) race. The page number is 13 on the book, but including the index, it is on page 40. Vadakalai Iyengars, Vadama Iyers are also brahmins and they belong to the same Aryan race. The physical complexion part is I think mentioned in some other book by the same author.

I repeat my questions again:

You say the sages came from the north. Please let me know with what level of surety can you say "what those sages looked like in the ancient times"? If you have references to show the sages were of 'aryan looks', please provide the same. Please provide any references from 'history' to show a non-nomadic "aryan" origin for central asians. On what basis would you link indo-european lingusitc groups as a race? On what basis can one say that the current speakers of a linguistic group are the original speakers of that lingusitic group? Kindly provide references to substantiate that. What is aryan? If aryan is a race, please explain on what grounds would you call it a race with appropriate references.

Thank You. --= No ||| Illusion = 15:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Mayasutra

Reply

Dear Mayasutra,

You are very welcome!

But on another hand, I do not understand why you are more eager to dig into a topic which was buried long ago. I am not interested in discussing this topic here on WP. Like I said, I got some insight and information from a Hindu Tamilian who also lives in the U.S. It took me nearly an entire day to get quotes from her which were not that accurate as she was in a stupor while giving them to me over telephone. Yes, they were long-distance calls within the U.S. You may want to look for scholarly articles on here. Some may be available in different formats which may or may not include PDFs. Also, WP is a public portal, and some information may not be as accurate as they need to be since some of the sources may have gotten the information incorrectly or the sources may themselves be biased. If you are in the U.S, you can visit public and private libraries that may contain books on History. You can also buy books on History from Amazon [http://amazon.com here] or at eBay here. Please think twice or even thrice before making a purchase as some books may not be quite captivating. Again, I do not want to talk about brahmins, or aryans here on WP to avoid possible misunderstanding and misinterpretation. So, please do not harp on these and other topics here on WP. I have no axe to grind--I just want to help you stay safe on WP. Hope this fills the bill. Thanks and have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Svr014,

Thankyou for the reply and suggestions to look up google books, amazon, etc. No worries. Am safe. No one has any axe to grind. It is requested that fact-based info be used in an article. All i request from you and other similar posters is this:
1) Please post info from proper articles, not from hearsay based on what a friend said.
2) Please provide exact page numbers, not "after page 150".
3) Please understand that it takes two to clap; and the current anti-brahmanism may be coming due to history (probably skewed up) as portrayed by brahmins themselves. Therefore kindly refrain from hearsay, or if you mention it, then please mention that so and so is "claimed" or "purported" to be as such.
4) There is no info to show that specifically mudaliyars, chettiars and Gounders became thengalais. While srivaishnava brahmins are undoubtedly a mixed group, there are also pointers to show that brahmins, including thengalis, were appointed as mudalis, pillais, etc. Am collecting info on it. It is going to take time.
5) You have written that Vadakalai Iyengars are the prototype brahmin community among Sri Vaishnavas. I found no info on it so far. If you can, please provide references. As such, it is possible that such type of comments may create unnecessary alienation between the two communities within the Srivaishnava community; and is totally unwanted. Hope i have conveyed what i have been wanting to convey to you so far. Thanks and bye. --= No ||| Illusion = 04:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Mayasutra

Dear Mayasutra,

I thank you for your post. Anyway, want to take a break from WP. Do not know when I will be back. Was new to WP while I was trying to contribute to Indian articles on WP. I am thinking of moving to Central Illinois or Southern Illinois in the coming months for landing in a new job. I do not want to talk about brahmins, or aryans and their related topics on WP for some time. Take care and God bless. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Tamil literation at B. K. S. Iyengar article

There is a discussion regarding inclusion or exclusion of the Tamil literation of B. K. S. Iyengar's name at that article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OTRS notice: Edit war

OTRS has received notice that editors are reverting each others' entries without trying to reach consensus. The lastest removal (which I reverted) was a quote from a reputable university publication.

Rather than engage in a war of reversals, editors should discuss the entry in question and try to reach consensus. If they find they are unable to do so, Wikipedia has mechanisms for arbitration.

Edit wars and reverting other's entries are not the way to go. I have added this page to my watchlist and will report any and all further disruptive behaviour to the administrators. I would suggest editors involved in the disagreement consult Wikipedia:Edit war.

For the record: I have no opionion(s) as to the subject matter of the entry Iyengar . Asav (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Anusharaghavan (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Dear Andre,

The differences between Vadalakai and Thengalai is clearly pointed here.

There are about 18 such points of differences with varying degrees of insignificance.

   *1. Regarding Lord's mercy. Next to the Caste mark, this probably is the only other difference most people are aware of

     Vadakalai View

     Some positive gesture is necessary on the part of the jeevatma to deserve the grace of God, because He can be deemed partial if He grants Moksha to all both deserving and undeserving.

     Tenkalai View

     Lord's grace is spontaneous. He can grant Moksha to anyone he likes.

   * 2. Regarding the status of Lakshmi (i) as to her being the means (ii) as to her being infinite (iii) as to her being Paramatma

     Vadakalai View
         o (i) She is the means for attaining salvation as much as the Lord Himself and also has the role of a mediator ( Purushakara)
         o (ii) She is infinite in nature (Vibhu) like the Lord Himself
         o (iii) She is also Paramatma as much as the Lord Himself 

     Tenkalai View
         o (i) Do not accept this position though they accept her recommendatory role as held by Vadakalais
         o (ii) She is atomic in nature like other Jeevatmas
         o (iii) She is a Jeevatma like any of us. 

   * 3. Regarding Kaivalya

     Vadakalai View
         o (i) Kaivalya is inferior to Paramapada
         o (ii) Kaivalya is not eternal
         o (iii) Kaivalya is situated Outside Paramapada 

     Tenkalai View
         o (i) Accepted
         o (ii) Kaivalya is eternal
         o (iii) Kaivalya is within Paramapada but in its outermost parts. 

   * 4. Regarding the means of Bhakti and Prapatti

     Vadakalai View

     Accept both as the direct means but Bhakti is more difficult and dilatory while Prapatti is easy and immediate

     Tenkalai View

     Do not accept any means because Jeevatma is so utterly dependent as to be incapable of adopting either Bhakti or Prapatti as a means.

   * 5. Regarding Prapatti

     Vadakalai View

     Prapatti has to be a positive specific act of surrender by the jeevatma to the Paramatma

     Tenkalai View

     No positive, specific act is necessary. All that is required is
         o (i) the knowledge of the Svarupa of the Jeevatma and
         o (ii) mental acceptance of the Lord's grace in granting salvation 

   * 6. Regarding sins

     Vadakalai View

     When a jeeva surrenders, the Lord forgives the sins committed by the jeevatma and grants Moksha.

     Tenkalai View

     The sins of a jeevatma is a source of joy for the Lord who relishes the same like a cow licking off the dirt on the body of its calf

   * 7. Regarding performance of Compulsory duties like Sandhyavandanam

     Vadakalai View

     As compulsory duties are laid down by the Sastras which are the Lord's commandments, non- performance will tantamount to transgression of His commands (Ajna adhilangana) and will render the Prapanna liable for punishment

     Tenkalai View

     To a highly evolved soul, non- performance of the compulsory duties is not an offence. But, they should continue to do them more for setting an example to the less evolved souls.

   * 8. Regarding the interpretation of the words "Sarva Dharman Parityajya' occurring in the Charama sloka

     Vadakalai View

     The Dharmas actually refer to the 32 Vidyas attaching to Bhaktiyoga which had already been given up by the jeeva due to incapacity and delay involved in observing them and the Lord offers to stand in their place

     Tenkalai View

     This is literally interpreted to mean ' First, give up your duties and then take refuge in the Lord'

   * 9. Regarding the Lord's grief at the suffering of the souls

     Vadakalai View

     One can have grief only when one cannot remove suffering of another. But, the Lord is capable of removing suffering. So, there is no need for Him to grieve. As Sri Rama , He shows to the World how a human would feel and how one should react on seeing the misery of others.

     Tenkalai View

     They hold that the Lord actually feels sorry on seeing the sufferings of souls and cite examples from Srimad Ramayana where Sri Rama is depicted as grieving over the misery of others.

   * 10. Regarding the Lord's being also atomic as well as gigantic in size as mentioned in the Vedas.

     Vadakalai View

     He is smaller than the atom in beings that are atomic in size. This is called 'Antar Vyapti' ( Immanence). He is also greater than the greatest in the sense He pervades and surrounds everything. This is called ' Bahir Vyapti'. ( Transcendence)

     Tenkalai View

     His being atomic in atoms and enveloping even the biggest are all done by what is known as 'Agatitha Ghatana Saamartya'- Special powers enabling accomplishment of even the impossible.

Anusharaghavan (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ramanujamuni (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)== This article suffers from a serious NPOV. ==

This article has a very inaccurate and negative bias against the Thenkalai Sampradhya. It is not only the major prevelant sampradhaya but also has more relevance to the local populations since the chantings are in the local language. The factual data indicating the temples following the tradition with region wise break is provided to prove the same. The Sampradhya is not only wide spread in area of practice but also in the number of Divya Desam temples following the same. The reason for using Divya Desam temple as the yardstick is that they have been praised by Alwars who lived atleast 1200 years ago and goes to prove the antiquity of the sect.

It is highly insensitive to tamil language as well as uses racially insensitive language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramanujamuni (talk • contribs) 01:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ramanujamuni (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)== References that cannot be cross checked are included and Racially offensive references are included. ==

The page 365 reference under item number 31 is not available for viewing. Falses inferences are made. The Fact that Tenkalai sampradhya is followed in 71 out of 90 divya desam temples has been deleted.

Very cunningly the same material has been referenced three times with no full view of the source.

The article talks only about Andhra and Karnataka sects ( the weavers, lingayats etc) and the repeatedly deleting the relavant information.

These shows an extremely serious Neutrality of Point of View issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramanujamuni (talk • contribs) 05:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{Edit semi-protected}} Requesting for semi-protection due to vandalism and regular edit wars. Another user has been contantly deleting valid reference sources(online books from renowned authors); and that user had also been providing "controversial statements & statistical data" without valid sourcing. Plz grant semi-protection status to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari7478 (talk • contribs)

Thengalai Iyyengars and their Guru Parampara Maliciously Defamed.

Open letter to Wiki administrators

I am new to wiki as a content editor. I am quite sound on the subject matter to which I am contributing. But I am in the process of learning the wiki editing procedures and policies. Knowing the robustness of wiki I am pretty sure many of them quite common sense procedures and can be picked up as we grow in the system.

One editor has virtually hijacked the topic called Iyengar and his deep rooted bias seems to be against the Thengalai Iyengars.

Thengalai Iyengars are Vaishnavaites who follow the Guru Pramapara, chant 4000 divya prabhandam and alwar pasuram which are in tamil language. These Pasurams are over 1200 years old and the divya desam temples in which these chantings happen even older. Of the 108 Divya Desam temples more than 71 follow the Thengalai sampradhya. A cursory look at the temple links and Thengalai Thiruman mark will reveal the same. It is open data and verifiable fact. The 25 temples from Kerala and North India have their own traditions which is neither Thengalai nor Vadagalai. The Thengalai also have 8 matts or centres with Gurus established from the days of Sri Manavala Mamunigal. This is also a verifiable fact.

Our beloved editor is preventing the addition of the content relevant to Thengalai Sampradhaya with remarks irrelevant. Where as he is putting only information which is not even worth the footnote when you consider them in full perspective. Now he wants the article locked for extended period so that the incorrect information can be preserved.

Let me illustrate it with an example everyone understands. Holocaust was an event in which millions of people suffered. Let us say someone hijacks the topic on Holocaust and provides only information such as Holocaust was a false, over rated event. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury you know very well such conspiracy theories exist on the net. Some of them may even have some weird group, academician justifying it. My argument is Holocaust conspiracy theories can at the best be a foot note the main article. But it cannot be the only information on the topic of Holocaust. The editor user Hari has ensured that by deleting all the relevant information.

Or another example – a wiki article about the Presidents of America instead of providing information fully relevant it is only about some presidents who were indicted in scandals or tried for impeachment.

Our editor has provided the same link from different websites over and over concerning Lingayats or some Christian tribals who converted who are less than 1% of the population in concern and highlighted it as if it is the main news. He has reinforced the use references from 60 years back from colonial days which looked down upon the use of local language of tamil, heaping smears on respected religious heads and gurus and has incorrect information such as only murugan was worshipped in Tamil books, As if all Christians were converted to Brahmins and vice versa. When details of vaishnava worship in tamil grammar and sangam literature are provided to counter the same he deletes them as irrelevant. Then there is a quote about the genetic composition of vadagalais from Andhra. That is again a very small 2% of the total iyyengar population since bulk of them live in Tamil Nadu.

Our editor is well versed with wiki procedures and ensures that they are followed. But the content in the article is similar to the examples I have outlined above. You don’t have to take my word for it. I am sure you have SMEs and you will be able to refer other material. But he is damaging the trust fibre on which wiki operates. He has to be put on the watch list immediately and his edits and articles reviewed to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia.

PS: I am still learning the different talk procedures but knowing the robustness of wiki system please read my request in the spirit of truth and wiki.

I am meaning threat implied by Mr Hari "U've already received two lvl-4 warnings.Careful. I need not even file a report. Your increasingly vandalising actions is making your login' eligible for deletion by wiki' admin

Ramanujamuni (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC) 110.33.13.7 (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to address Wikipedia administrators, as the talk page is not likely to be read by someone uninvolved in this dispute. Please consult the following page: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you do not feel that any of the suggestions offered there will be constructive, you can ask for arbitration, but please be aware that this is considered a last step within dispute resolution. Please consult this page: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests.

Furthermore, as a matter of record, the actions taken by OTRS and the administrator have not endorsed any particular party in this dispute, nor have they been taken on behalf of any one user. Thus, the belief that the page has been protected because another editor "wants the article locked for extended period so that the incorrect information can be preserved" is incorrect. The temporary protection was placed on the page due to my message on the Administrators' noticeboard, to which all involved parties have been alerted. I had previously warned that I would take this action under the subject line OTRS notice: Edit war above unless this dispute was resolved by Wikipedia procedures.

Finally, I once more ask all involved parties to try and find consensus within Wikipedia guidelines, i.e. agree to disagree and place only well-sourced and referenced material on the page, even if it reflects different points of view. The key to resolving this dispute - which is virtually impossible for outsiders to understand - is to stick to the principle Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and accept that there may be differing opinions regarding this subject. Asav (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is me(hari7478) replying to user-ramanujamuni. In all my edits, i stood by wiki's policies firmly. Ramanujamuni had violated wiki' policies in every instance.

The new user whi goes by the name "ramanujamuni", still does not even know the the basic "abcd" of wiki' editing. The main policy is Verifiability, not truth.

Thought this message might be extremely helpful. Please go through this with some patience. It is in the form of Question & Answers, The mistakes of "user-Ramanujamuni" are also quoted alongside. It is for all new wikipedia users, who might want know, what actuallky is valid in wiki'.

Q: What is the basis(basic policy) in Wikipedia editing? A: The basic policy of Wiki' editing is Verifiability, not truth -This is a link which you might check in detail. The short explanation is that, Wikipedia only relies on "Verifiability" from web "sources" compiled as "references"(with tags like in html), and attached at the end of each sentence in an article, in the form of "citation". Wikipedia is not concerned if the statements are true or not. Truth is a matter of the individual's perspective, which may vary from one to another. So "web sources attached as references, alongside each line in the article, in the form of citations" ,is what wikipedia needs. This is to check that the contribution of a user has been from another source in the 'net.

Q: What if you dont provide a reference source, citation? A: If a user does not provide a source as reference, then any of the user's contribution will get deleted, regardless of how true his contribution is. Wiki' editors are not supposed to edit with their own knowledge or learnt information. Wiki' users should only add statements from other web sources by giving references. However valid and true a user's contributions might be, if they dont provide sources as references alongside a sentence in an article, their contribution will be deleted. The sources provided must contain the statements you make in a wiki' article.

Q: What is a valid source for referencing in wikipedia and what is not a valid source? Sources that are Not Valid - Adding statements even by placing proper references, taken from blogs, discussion forums, one man maintained websites (if the person is a concerned party) are not allowed. Such statements will still be deleted.

Sources that are Valid- Books published & authored by renowned personalities uploaded in the internet are valid sources. Other common webistes are also good sources. Sources taken from online books & websites - the authors/editors of the sites should be third parties. For example, if someone has published a book consisting of sensitive issues like "ethnic origin of iyengars", then it should be from third parties(a non-iyengar). If the publishers of the online book/website are not renowned or if they are concerened parties , then additional references should be given for cross checks from third party authored sources. For example, G.S.Ghurye is a renowned author and his book is considered authentic by ethnographers and museologists. So statements taken from this book need no additional referencing. However the reference should be provided alongside each line.

Q: What is relevance in wikipedia? A: The contributions must be relevant to the sub topic under which it is written.
In the case of user ramanujamuni - the user added statements about "The population count of vadakalai & tenkalai", "number of temples held by the two sects" ,etc,etc under the ethnicity,genetics & origin section. These are irrelevant there. "Ethnicity, genetics and origin" should only contain facts about linguistic importance, racial origin & admixture(if any), practiced cultures indicating ethnic origins like kashmiri culture, etc.

Also "user-ramanujamuni" never provided references for your contributions. Those statements were from the user's own general knowledge, which is not allowed in wikipedia. Statements should be made from valid web sources, also by attaching the sources as references thereby. "No. of temples held by the subsects" should rather be mentioned in the divya desam page & not in iyengar page, esp' not under that subtopic. Also such sensitive data, comparative, controversial data about ethnic groups should be included in wiki' only if you provide sources as references. If not, the user's contribution will get deleted, however true it may be. No editing based on general knowledge. Editing in wiki' only based on reliable online sources attached alongside statements as references , in the form of citations

Q: Why were user:ramanujamuni's contrib's deleted? A: Because the user never provided online references. Also the person gave irrelevant info', not connected to that sub topic, as mentioned in the above answer. The user edited based on his general knowledge, which is invalid in wiki'. User-Ramanujamuni failed to provide sources as references.
Also statistical data about "population count" and "temples managed" should be taken from & attached with reliable online sources as references, such as "govt surveys" etc. Also that was not connected to "ethnic & genetic origin".

Q: Why should my(hari7478) contrib's stay? A: My edits are valid under wiki' norms, regardless of whether it is agreeable for some group of ppl or not. I had provided online book sources as references and quoted from there. I also attached the sources in the form of references alongside. They are mostly from neutral party authors(non-iyengars, such as foreigners,north indians,lingayats etc). Additional references were added for cross checking except "Geoffrie oddie" & "G.S. ghurye" book data. Because these authors are renowned foreigners and their works are refered by museologists & ethnographers during researches. Even if the some pages are not available for viewing , isbn numbers for the books are added in the bottom of the iyengar article, which are confirmations about the authenticity.
However "user-ramanujamuni" might rate these sources, these are valid third party sources - as classified by wikipedia.

Q: When, could user-ramanujamuni delete my(hari7478) contributions & when, can his contrib's stay? A: If user:ramanujamuni can provide statements from more number of authentic sources than mine, such as online book sources and other web sources by more renowned authors(should be third parties), which should contain statements like tengalai have not - amalgated or admixed or brought non-brahmins within their fold, then his contributions might stay. Even then it would be put as "While some believe like this(my contributions), others believe like that(ramanujamuni's contributions)". Mine can be deleted only if the other user provides extremely authentic online book sources(from more famous authors), with many additional sources as reference for cross checking, than those i've provided. Until then my edits will stay, and user-ramanujamuni's edits cannot.

Q: What about doctrinal & philosophical diff\erences? A: Those are already mentioned far down in the page under the another topic, and are not relevant in the genetic, ethnic section. They are mentioned from a famous classic "Castes & Tribes in southern India" by Edgar Thurston & other references. Allthough there is no online viewing, isbn numbers are provided for authenticity of the contenets, so that admin users check with it. It is the most famous work abt india as held by ethnographers. I have not provided all sources here. My contrib's are minimal while there were many users who had provided data.

Q: User-Ramanujamuni's accusations about me A: 1. Ramanujamuni accused me of providing same source multiple times. It is allowed. Because each sentence should have reference at its end, after a full stop. If four different sentences are taken from the same source, then the reference for the same source should be mentioned 4 different times alongside each line sentence's end. It is valid editing.

2. Ramanujamuni accused me of suppressing contents. I did not suppress the book page windows. The publishers of the books had only given snippet(reduced) viewing, and a common user cannot supress or expand. It shows "user-ramanujamuni" does not have any idea even about the internet. If every online book is given free viewing, then how will the publishers sell & make money? The supressed view was because of their providing & we cannot control it by expanding. It is the publishers doing. Not mine.
Also even in the full page views, i did not mention everything, but only handpicked some selective statementsa because, only they are relevant(as mentioned under relevance question) under the section "ethnicity, genetic & origin". Other statements dont deserve a place under that sub topic.

3. The contributions of mine are direct interpretations from the articles without any own research. They were also reviewed by other experienced users , long back & they have allowed it to stay (although there were slight changes, that they did). If the facts are too uncomfortable or unagreeable for anybody or any specific group, it cant be helped. A fact is a fact. Also ,i've provided the references alongside each sentence. However "ramanujamuni" might rate them, only they stand as valid under wiki' norms. Please learn wiki' policies first, about source article authenticity.

Comment: I've provided proper explanation for everything in an orderly manner. Here are user-ramanujamuni's violations.

Vandalism 1 : Wikipedia's basic policy is Verifiability, not truth. User Ramanujamuni's policy is just opposite like (Truth-in his own perspective and not verifiability). The user never provided any source as reference.
Vandalism 2 : user-Ramanujamuni removed existing "source-references". However he might rate them, as per wiki - they are "online book sources from either famous authors, or third party authors". He removed them & falsely accused them without valid proof from his side.(Only, if he provides more authentic online book sources or any other reliable web sources, would have been valid proof on his side).This is another vandalism.
Vandalism 3 : user-ramanujamuni contributed info' without providing ref' sources that should be more authentic than mine(authenticity as defined by wiki' policies). user-Ramanujamuni contributed based on his General knowledge, which is not allowed in wiki'(however true it may be). Only verifiability matters here. This is why i gave him warnings. It is normal to give them, before going for a report.

Conclusion:I'll be out of this tussle very soon, as i've planned to refer this thing to highly experienced (more exp' than mine) wiki' users, who have complete knowledge about iyengars. Those users had also won accolades & barnstars for their good editing, from wiki' administration. Soon i'll ask them to take over this article. But they will tell the same as i did. Those users have seen my edits , and have allowed them to exist over the past 7 months(as it is now in its current form). Anyhow "user-ramanujamuni" may try to sort it with them. This will happen soon. He will then know, if my edits are valid or not. Even if not today immediately, I'll refer to them very soon.

Nobody should not have any more doubts. Even if anybody has a doubt, it might be because you might have skipped some info' here. Go through it again & again. Also plz remember that this is not the only article were i'm editing. I edit in a wide range of articles. But it is obvious that "user:ramanujamuni" came into wiki', for this purpose(egregious edits - as defined by wiki' rules) , as he was too uncomfortable with the contents. Such one tick pony ids , created for such purposes only, sometimes might be brought for scrutiny (under scrutiny by wiki' admin'). Thank You.

I insist again & again & again. Wikipedia's prime principle is Verifiability, not truth. However "true & valid" a user's contribution might be; if the user does not provide source references, the user's contribution will be deleted. Wikipedia does not want information from the general knowledge of any user. Wikipedia only wants "sources as references" for verifiability. "User-Ramanujamuni" still does not understand this basic policy of wiki' , because of which he is making false accusations on me. User-ramanujamuni is warned for making false accusations on me & the sources provided, in unconventional ways. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why there is a POV issue in the ethinicity subsections.Registering a complaint on 3rd March 2011.

The article confuses the term Sri Vaishnava (one who practices SriVaishnavam or those who are followers of Vishnu) which is a sampradhya aka a religious tradition or religious sect with Iyyengars a term with caste connotations which is more used in the context of Brahmin.

The sources have been virtually quoted out of context as if to indicate Tenkalai iyyengars have been evolved out of admixiture. This is patently false and shows a confusion for the term Sri Vaishnava vs. Iyyengars. The various ethnic group quoted as Tenkalai non brahmans do not represent the core group.

This is where the POV issue comes, because the very same historical sources speak of Tengalai as the dominant group controlling all existing temples and vadagalais as usurpers attempting to wrest control in various temple, and Vadagalais as appealing to the British for clemency and protection as they are numerically weak and oppressed. If they were the original srivaishnavas such meek representations do not come into picture.

Also regarding higher D alle ( google search shows aHigh frequency of the D allele of the ACE gene in Arabic populations) - please dont imply next the vadagalais are of Mediterranean descent. As recently as last year the Institute in Hyderabad clearly brought out a report saying the genes proves there are no aryan migration, only two sets one about 60,000 years ago and another around 40,000 years ago. Everyone is of indigenous descent.I can get the links, I need to learn the referencing procedures.

This article therefore fails to meet the NPOV requirement badly.

Also my reply to the warring editor - verifiability not truth means no original work - please do not take as to provide inaccurate pointers or clearly not truth perspective.

Since I am not so well versed in the Wiki processes and have been badly scarred at the very entry into editing at wiki I am not taking chances. I will learn slowly, the correct process to edit, include reference. It will take time with my other commitments.

TILL then I am recording my view that POV issue persists. I am appealing to senior editors or administrators to help me navigate the maze of wiki processes and get the above issue sorted. It is going to take me some time to read, absorb and work through them.

And my dear friends I dont intend to be a one tick pony. Srivaishnavam is my core strength and I intent to work in this area.

Ramanujamuni.

Ramanuja 06:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramanujamuni (talk • contribs)

Since this subject is far too intricate for me to understand, I suggest you consult The India WikiProject and/or The Wikipedia mentor/Adapt-a-user program to get advice or assistance regarding the practical sides of formatting, including references aso. You guys obviosuly know a lot about Iengyar, and it would be beneficial to all readers if you collaborated on the subject to make it readable for everybody! PS: Please sign your comments on the talk page by clicking on the four tildes (~~~~) beneath the text edit box. Good luck! Asav (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My(user-hari7478) reply to "user-ramanujamuni", clarifying my stand , and i'm pointing out his new errors. I've, well explained it below. No future arguements plz. Stop it here.

• If a web article says "there is no aryan migration into india", then it should be mentioned in the "India" page or some other corresponding page in relevance. That data cannot be relevant here. Also, aryans need not necessarily be migrants. Aryans are also believed to have originated in north india. Check this wiki' article link - Out of India Theory. A notable proponent for this was Friedrich Schlegel (1772–1829). Please check this too - Āryāvarta. Aryavarta (abode of aryans) was referred to the region above vindhya mountains (north india), since ancient times. The word "Arya" itself is a sanskrit word of north indian origin. So aryans are also possibly believed to be north indians by origin. Also i've provided sources to prove that poet kamba referred to vadakalai as prakrit & tengalai as tamil, during his times,indicating that vadakalai once spoke prakrit. Prakrit is officially classified as a language under the Indo-aryan language family, & so are all north indian languages classified (officially). Please check the indo-aryan article in wiki'. Hence "Ethno linguistics" are also involved here. So user-ramanujamuni's claim about "no invasion, proved from hyderabad labs, etc" need not necessarily contradict my contributions.
  
  

• Also did those labs in hyderbabad(as mentioned by ramanujamuni) run extensive genetic tests on both iyengars?? Do those results mention about the two iyengar subsects(subsects in specific) anywhere?? Again, are they subsect specific?? If not, then it cant be relevant here. Even if there had been a general test run on iyengars, who knows about the subsects that were tested?? The tested individuals could have completely belonged to one specific subsect. Who would know?? Whatever, that is of no relevance here in this page. As mentioned, it belongs to the aryan article , or "india" article. Also , plz bear in mind about the out of india theory article , that i've mentioned above. So, yet again a mistake from user-ramanujamuni.
  
  

• user-Ramanujamuni had again deliberately misquoted in his above message, about a source. The authors of those sources have not called vadakalai as usurpers. The author says "Tengalais consider vadakalai people as usurpers and insurgents". The author only explains the "tengalai's stand about vadakalais". So, it is not the author's opinion. Also, that source had mentioned about "some court-case involving a british judge" , i agree. But that was with regard to a one "Srirangam temple administration issue" only. So, it can only be mentioned in the srirangam temple wiki article. It does not belong here. Definitely not relevant in the ethnicity section, or even in this article.

• That specific part of the source "about dominance by tengalai sect" only describes about control & dominance(about administration) in srirangam temple (due to their high population in that area), and not in general. Also, I had already mentioned in my previous message that, statistical data needs authentic verification from govt surveys. First of all, temples - need not necessarily mean "divya desa temples". Many newly built temples are there now, which are controlled by vadakalai sect. Also ,temple administrations frequently change (like vadakalais taking over a former tengalai temple & vice versa). This is why, you need to provide recent govt' surveys or other authentic surveys for cross checking, while contributing statistical data. However temples controlled & population count have nothing to do in the "ethnicity section".

• Next comes the issue, about population count. What have they got to do in the "ethnicity & genetic section"?? How many times am i going to explain?? "user-ramanujamuni" is just toying around with this talk page. I had already provided sources for non-brahminical presence within tengalais. Well, the tengalai sect have been more social & less orthodox(corresponding to brahminical customs)- well sourced. The popularity of tengalai sampradaya among subordinate classes(non-brahmins) of tamils was known. Now again what has that got to do in the "ethnicity section"? Check the next point plz. It is an important continuation of this point.
  
  

• Have provided a link-source regarding "author:Kathleen gough"'s article in that section , which clearly mentions "vadakalai are ranked above tengalais." It is an authentic cambridge university publication, from a famous author. It should not be removed. I included that source alongside the first line in the ethnicity section(describing about the presence of the two subsects in the order)in the Iyengar page. I still never mentioned that line explicitly. I only added that source, for proving the presence of the two subsects in the order.
  
  

• Plz understand the term "relevance" in wikipedia. Also, there might be some areas which even i might not agree with. But still i allow those info' to stay , because i stick to the wiki' norm of "reliable verifiability". And I'm rather only providing additional references from here on. I dont want to contribute further data, as i feel the article is already sufficient. I'm only going to provide sources in addition.
  

Now everything had been well explained here, by me. No more arguements please.

• About user:ramanujamuni's complaints and his former edits.
  

User-ramanujamuni never stuck to one specific complaint. He kept on changing his complaints time & again. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Logicwiki.

Thank You for placing the templates in the page lead. The section that contained the weasel word "Tamil Iyengars(Original Iyengar)" was contributed by a user - "User:Able562" , many months ago. That user is now inactive, i believe.

Users are requested to contribute by bearing in mind "relevance to the specific heading".

Other viewers are please requested to view my previous message before reading this one. Hari7478 (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Iyengars are genetically close to lygayat and tanjore kallar as per genetical study. How kashmir origin come? can oyu please expalain me! 77.110.82.173 (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

About the reverts in the ethnicity section.

Reason as to why user sa narasimhan's edits were reverted, are listed here. A message to user:sa narasimhan.
1. You had deleted existing contents that were well sourced. Those sources were highly authentic(from renowned authors & publications, university publications, govt' publications, etc).
2. Your contributions were completely sourceless in his first edit, and now mostly sourceless in his last edit. The section is about "Ethnicity & Genetics". "An individual revering another" has no relevance in that section or in the whole article. Please learn what is relevance to a topic in wikipedia. Also you had provided "sources from concerened party websites" for a sensitive data. Such data would need neutral party sources(non-Iyengar sources in this case) & additional sources for cross checking. Even if you could provide them, you have no authority do delete the existing sources.
3. In the philosophy section, you had evidently violated wiki' npov policies. Your line "Thus the tenkalai sampradayam can be stated as the true inheritor of Ramanujacharya" is a high level violation of wiki' npov policies. And , you hadnt provided sources for any of your contributions in that section. Info' about Ramanand belongs to the "Ramanand wiki' page" and not here. Again please learn what relevance means. By the way, Wikipedia's prime policy is Verifiability, not truth.

Some facts might not be favourably disposed towards an individual or a group of people. If you are one of that kind, then, this is not the place to impose your views and theories. To do that, you may start your own blog and give your own version. But wikipedia is not the place for that. In the case of "Sensitive & controversial data", sources should be "univ' publications, govt publications, renowned neutral party author, a foreign author etc. Extremely controversial ones need additional sources for cross checking, in case the author is not so famous. References from blogs, discussion forums , etc are clearly prohibited.
The sources you provide must contain the statements you make in a wiki' article. If you provide statements from more number of authentic sources than the existing ones, such as online book sources and other web sources by more renowned authors(third party sources, govt sources, famous non-indian authors, multiple sources from renowned non-iyengar authors), which should contain statements like "tengalai have not - amalgated or admixed or brought non-brahmins within their fold", then your contributions might stay. Even then it would be put as "While some believe like this(my contributions), others believe like that(your contributions)". The existing version can be changed only if you provide extremely authentic online book sources(from more famous authors), with many additional sources as reference for cross checking, than those that exist presently. Until then the current edits will stay, and your edits cannot. Remember that wiki's prime policy is Verifiability, not truth. If you repeatedly indulge in such vandalising reverts, then your actions will be informed immediately in the "arbitrators notice". And stop experimenting in main page, and dont include polemics there.

I'm not making any claims here. Do you even know anything about wiki' editing?? The prime policy is "Verifiable, not truth". Every one of my contributions are well sourced with neutral party sources(Govt' publications, university publications, aqdditional neutral party sources for cross checking) etc. What is biased here?? Everything is well sourced. And when did i malign any sampradaya?? Did I use any abusive phrase? Absolutely not. If the facts are too unacceptable for you, i cannot help it. I'm an experienced editor here, and i'm working on a wide range of global articles. You happen to be a one tick pony who had started with an all out warring.

By the way, wikipedia avoids tertiary sources(another wiki page as a source is avoided). Please try to understand what is relevance in wikipedia. Info' on Ramananda has no relevance in an iyengar page.
Evident violation of npov when user:sa narasimhan mentioned "Thenkalai Iyengars are the true inheritors". Check these links here. They say otherwise, and they are neutral party sources.Check here [1][2][[3]

Your arguements are baseless. Again i'm insisting that this is wikipedia. Govt' sources, univ' publications, renowned foreign authors & their publications are too authentic to be omitted from here. A "concerned party source" is never considered as reliable under wiki' norms. I've well explained the facts here. Go through it again. Hari7478 (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thengalai Iyyengars and their Guru Parampara Maliciously Defamed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iyengar#Thengalai_Iyyengars_and_their_Guru_Parampara_Maliciously_Defamed. Open letter to Wiki administrators I am new to wiki as a content editor. I am quite sound on the subject matter to which I am contributing. But I am in the process of learning the wiki editing procedures and policies. Knowing the robustness of wiki I am pretty sure many of them quite common sense procedures and can be picked up as we grow in the system. One editor has virtually hijacked the topic called Iyengar and his deep rooted bias seems to be against the Thengalai Iyengars. Thengalai Iyengars are Vaishnavaites who follow the Guru Pramapara, chant 4000 divya prabhandam and alwar pasuram which are in tamil language. These Pasurams are over 1200 years old and the divya desam temples in which these chantings happen even older. Of the 108 Divya Desam temples more than 71 follow the Thengalai sampradhya. A cursory look at the temple links and Thengalai Thiruman mark will reveal the same. It is open data and verifiable fact. The 25 temples from Kerala and North India have their own traditions which is neither Thengalai nor Vadagalai. The Thengalai also have 8 matts or centres with Gurus established from the days of Sri Manavala Mamunigal. This is also a verifiable fact. Our beloved editor is preventing the addition of the content relevant to Thengalai Sampradhaya with remarks irrelevant. Where as he is putting only information which is not even worth the footnote when you consider them in full perspective. Now he wants the article locked for extended period so that the incorrect information can be preserved. Let me illustrate it with an example everyone understands. Holocaust was an event in which millions of people suffered. Let us say someone hijacks the topic on Holocaust and provides only information such as Holocaust was a false, over rated event. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury you know very well such conspiracy theories exist on the net. Some of them may even have some weird group, academician justifying it. My argument is Holocaust conspiracy theories can at the best be a foot note the main article. But it cannot be the only information on the topic of Holocaust. The editor user Hari has ensured that by deleting all the relevant information. Or another example – a wiki article about the Presidents of America instead of providing information fully relevant it is only about some presidents who were indicted in scandals or tried for impeachment. Our editor has provided the same link from different websites over and over concerning Lingayats or some Christian tribals who converted who are less than 1% of the population in concern and highlighted it as if it is the main news. He has reinforced the use references from 60 years back from colonial days which looked down upon the use of local language of tamil, heaping smears on respected religious heads and gurus and has incorrect information such as only murugan was worshipped in Tamil books, As if all Christians were converted to Brahmins and vice versa. When details of vaishnava worship in tamil grammar and sangam literature are provided to counter the same he deletes them as irrelevant. Then there is a quote about the genetic composition of vadagalais from Andhra. That is again a very small 2% of the total iyyengar population since bulk of them live in Tamil Nadu. Our editor is well versed with wiki procedures and ensures that they are followed. But the content in the article is similar to the examples I have outlined above. You don’t have to take my word for it. I am sure you have SMEs and you will be able to refer other material. But he is damaging the trust fibre on which wiki operates. He has to be put on the watch list immediately and his edits and articles reviewed to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. PS: I am still learning the different talk procedures but knowing the robustness of wiki system please read my request in the spirit of truth and wiki. I am meaning threat implied by Mr Hari "U've already received two lvl-4 warnings.Careful. I need not even file a report. Your increasingly vandalising actions is making your login' eligible for deletion by wiki' admin Ramanuja 03:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Ramanuja 10:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramanujamuni (talk • contribs)

Why there is a POV issue in the ethinicity subsections.Registering a complaint on 3rd March 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iyengar#Why_there_is_a_POV_issue_in_the_ethinicity_subsections.Registering_a_complaint_on_3rd_March_2011. Why there is a POV issue in the ethinicity subsections.Registering a complaint on 3rd March 2011. The article confuses the term Sri Vaishnava (one who practices SriVaishnavam or those who are followers of Vishnu) which is a sampradhya aka a religious tradition or religious sect with Iyyengars a term with caste connotations which is more used in the context of Brahmin. The sources have been virtually quoted out of context as if to indicate Tenkalai iyyengars have been evolved out of admixiture. This is patently false and shows a confusion for the term Sri Vaishnava vs. Iyyengars. The various ethnic group quoted as Tenkalai non brahmans do not represent the core group. This is where the POV issue comes, because the very same historical sources speak of Tengalai as the dominant group controlling all existing temples and vadagalais as usurpers attempting to wrest control in various temple, and Vadagalais as appealing to the British for clemency and protection as they are numerically weak and oppressed. If they were the original srivaishnavas such meek representations do not come into picture. Also regarding higher D alle ( google search shows aHigh frequency of the D allele of the ACE gene in Arabic populations) - please dont imply next the vadagalais are of Mediterranean descent. As recently as last year the Institute in Hyderabad clearly brought out a report saying the genes proves there are no aryan migration, only two sets one about 60,000 years ago and another around 40,000 years ago. Everyone is of indigenous descent.I can get the links, I need to learn the referencing procedures. This article therefore fails to meet the NPOV requirement badly. Also my reply to the warring editor - verifiability not truth means no original work - please do not take as to provide inaccurate pointers or clearly not truth perspective. Since I am not so well versed in the Wiki processes and have been badly scarred at the very entry into editing at wiki I am not taking chances. I will learn slowly, the correct process to edit, include reference. It will take time with my other commitments. TILL then I am recording my view that POV issue persists. I am appealing to senior editors or administrators to help me navigate the maze of wiki processes and get the above issue sorted. It is going to take me some time to read, absorb and work through them. And my dear friends I dont intend to be a one tick pony. Srivaishnavam is my core strength and I intent to work in this area.

Ramanuja 03:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ramanuja 10:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramanujamuni (talk • contribs)

Editor Hari hiding under verfiability not truth cover

We are talking about a question of faith and there are no proofs just practices. So what gets written down in the history books is being twisted out of context, quoted from footnotes while the whole subject matter is being given a miss.

The bitter history of disputes between Thenkalai and vadagalai being fought on courts, streets and elsewhere is not even mentioned here.

I am still collecting the sources and material for the editing. WIll be soon back.

Till then dont delete my observations.

Have not right to delete talk page discussions.

Ramanuja 11:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramanujamuni (talk • contribs)

Reply: I did not delete your talk page discussions. It was archived by BOT and admin' users. Check my contributions. I never removed your opinions from here. It was archived by a one "MiszaBot"(an auto-bot wiki function).I'm suspecting that , user:ramanujamuni is trying to take advantage of the present disruptive situation here. The above messages of ramanujamuni are copy paste messages of the already archived ones(archived by wiki bot functions). The user is just trying to show his dominance in the talk page by re-pasting archived messages, after my answers to his message, and thereby making this discussion page inconsistent. Hari7478 (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Revisions on June 24, 2011: Edit war warning

I rolled back the revert made anonymously by the IP address 219.64.188.172. This article

• is already marked as lacking references. Reinstating unsourced claims or facts is not encouraged.
• has already been the subject of an edit war, which seems to have been resolved for the time being. Further reverts without trying to obtain consensus on this talk page is highly discouraged.
• Furthermore, I have taken notice of the fact that the above mentioned revert is the only contribution made from the IP address 219.64.188.172. While contributing anonymously is allowed, please do so in a more constructive way.

Please refer to my earlier warnings and recommendations regarding dispute handling. Thank you. Asav (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protected

The page has been protected due to the continuous reverts and edit warring. Editors are encouraged to discuss at the talk page and arrive at a consensus on content. If that doesn't prove successful, please take it to WP:DRN. If that fails, please follow the process listed at dispute resolution. The current protection is not an endorsement of the page as it stands. —SpacemanSpiff 05:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

AHANA & ESHA Iyengars?

Probably Piyengars - Punjabi Iyengars!!!

Iyengars are Shrivaishnava Brahminswho follow Patriarchal system. When an Iyengar girl marries a non Iyengar.She technically leaves the Kula.(Family)Her Gothra is changed to that of her husband.if he fails to have one,she ceases to be an Iyangar. Her kids will not bear any Gothra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.17.58 (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

About the recent disruptive edits in the page.

The page is now under full protection, and none of us can edit it right now. Before the page was protected, "user s a narasimhan" gave some disruptive edits, which presently stays, due to protection. However the protection does not endorse the current version as the template clearly says.Listed some of the inappropriate contributions made by s a narasimhan:

"User:S A Narasimhan" had deliberately provided a controversial and unsourced information, saying that it is only "munitrayas" who's genes are similar to punjabis. His contributions were false and unsourced. Actually the test is taken from vadakalai individuals belonging to "Kurnool District(incorporating ahobilam)" of Andhra Pradesh where all vadakalai are from ahobila mutt. Whatever, the sources only speak of "Vadakalai individuals tested", and has no mention about "Mutt or Munitraya".

The user is calling for discussion and consensus. But he fails to discuss anything here, and is repeatedly committing vandalism, by providing unsourced data, whichis extremely controversial and discriminatory. In one line, he had mentioned "one considers the other to be superior/inferior", with regard to language, which is highly prohibited in wikipedia. As always his edits were unsourced. And who said "Mutt follows tamil in daily rituals, while munitrayas dont". The munitraya sampradaya itself traces its origin to 16th century only. howevern, source - is what matters here.

The user is being a prolonged troll, and is repeatedly disapproving of "source material" authenticity, while he insists on editing based on "debates, empathy, or some deal, etc", and is opposed to "Verifiabily" policies. How can such edits be possible here?? Any experienced wiki' user will reject his claims.

Here edits are only upon verifiability; And not on "debates involving deductive reasoning, based on an individual's observance". Because truth is a matter of an individual's perspective. "Verifiability from neutral party sources" is all that is wanted here. If this is not accepted by any user, then wikipedia is not the place for him/her. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Your behavior here is definitely not helpful. If you would like to resolve the issue, then stay away from personalities and simply list what content you would like to add, along with the complete sources and why those sources are reliable. If you continue to add walls of text like above, you are not going to be taken seriously either. This issue has been going on for years out here and it needs resolution once and for all —SpacemanSpiff 12:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Mysore Iyengars

Mysore Iyengars are Iyengars who identified themselves with erstwhile State of Mysore.They were also called as Ashtagrama Iyengars as they inhabited 8 chief villages-Hulikal,Maadhihalli,Bylahalli,Kyathanpalli,Magge,Koratikere,Ramanathapura and Saaligrama(also Kaniyar).Saaligraama was the first village through which Ramanujacharya was supposed to have entered Karnataka(Melunadu) They speak Ashtagrama Tamil which is a distinct dialect containing varying proportions of Tamil and Kannada.Most of them belong to Vadagalai sect and are disciples of Parakala Mutt,Mysore. They are various theories speculated about their origin. 1.One theory claims that they were native Smartha or Jaina Brahmanas who accepted Shrivaishnavism when Ramanujacharya came to Melunadu. 2.This theory claims that they were Brahmana followers of Ramanujacharya from Tamil Nadu who settled in these 8 villages and married native Sankethi Brahmins. There is very little research done on Mysore Iyengars. They were popular in recent times as the "Bakery Iyengars" as they pionereed the Bakery Industry in South India.Although,Mysore Iyengars are Strict Vegetarians who do not consume Onion and Garlic like rest of the Iyengar Community.Poverty and Land reforms forced them to leave Agriculture in their Native villages learn baking techniques from Kerala and establish the Bakery business in Leading Cities in South India. Iyengar Bakeries are known for hygeine and non usage of Saturated Animal Fat in their products.They do use egg and onions in their products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.17.58 (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

The article continues to be nothing but an edit war. Before the prior protection I asked you all to present reasonable text with references and discuss here. That did not happen, but the reverts resumed immediately after the protection expired. Discuss and resolve all issues or take it to the various noticeboards available. —SpacemanSpiff 19:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin: can you fix category to "Brahmin communities" but not the too-general "Brahmins"?

Greetings, I'm cleaning up Category:Brahmins, and part of that is shifting all articles specifically for communities down to Category:Brahmin communities. Can you please remove "Brahmins" as a cat and if needed substitute "Brahmin communities? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 65.219.4.7, 5 August 2011

To begin with, putting Kamal hasan in iyengar page is such a shame. He is a known atheist with anti-brahmin sentiments.

This page is heavily biased and seems to contain anti-iyengar views. Bashes both vadakalai and thenkalai. For example, it is quoted that there is genetic difference between Vadakalai and Thenkalai. The references cited are not reliable. For example, one such reference considers vadama and vadagalai to be of same group (Vadamas are Iyers not Iyengars). It is the main-stream view of all iyengars that the split came very late (probably in 16th century). Any other notion would imply that one group didn't belong to Ramanuja Sampradaya (iyengar). It seems to me that the author implies that the Vadagalai group does not belong to Ramanuja sampradaya (iyengar). The "Kashmiri origin" mentions is also a random reference with absolutely no connection to the main stream iyengars in Tamilnadu. I can provide 100 references that the split came recently and there is no racial connection. Indeed Ramanuja did convert some people and brought it into Vaishnava fold. But they are present in both sects.

Caste Distinctions. It seems to me that the author is a Vadama when he proudly claims that "It is noteworthy that Ramanuja, the founder of Srivaishnavism, was born a Vadama.[28][29]" Why is it noteworthy. Anything in wikipedia is noteworthy. Seems to have a personal agenda. The same author didn't find it noteworthy that most of the alwars came from very low castes.

Active and Passive voice Shri Vedanta Desika, the Vaishnavite Acharya and philosopher, founded the Vadakalai sampradaya[24] based on the Sanskritic tradition. The Thenkalai sect was founded by Pillailokacharya,[33] while Manavala Mamuni is considered the sect's most important and famous leader.[34]

No "Sri" for Manavala Mani or Pillailokarcharya

Ref [35] and [37] talk about people in Andhra that converted to thenkalai. They do not even 0.5% iyengars. Making it as

I would request the admins to find neutral editors and contributors to take forward this page. Simply citing a lot of random references do not justify what is written.

65.219.4.7 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Edit requests are handled by admins who are not involved with this page, so they need to be as precise as possible: "Change the following text, '.....', in the third paragraph to '....'." Something like that. Complaints that parts of the text are inaccurate or biased, whether justified or not, are not particular enough for someone unfamiliar with the subject to make a change. --RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

heavily biased article

To begin with, putting Kamal hasan in iyengar page is such a shame. He is a known atheist with anti-brahmin sentiments. This page is heavily biased and seems to contain anti-iyengar views. Bashes both vadakalai and thenkalai. For example, it is quoted that there is genetic difference between Vadakalai and Thenkalai. The references cited are not reliable. For example, one such reference considers vadama and vadagalai to be of same group (Vadamas are Iyers not Iyengars). It is the main-stream view of all iyengars that the split came very late (probably in 16th century). Any other notion would imply that one group didn't belong to Ramanuja Sampradaya (iyengar). It seems to me that the author implies that the Vadagalai group does not belong to Ramanuja sampradaya (iyengar). The "Kashmiri origin" mentions is also a random reference with absolutely no connection to the main stream iyengars in Tamilnadu. I can provide 100 references that the split came recently and there is no racial connection. Indeed Ramanuja did convert some people and brought it into Vaishnava fold. But they are present in both sects. Caste Distinctions. It seems to me that the author is a Vadama when he proudly claims that "It is noteworthy that Ramanuja, the founder of Srivaishnavism, was born a Vadama.[28][29]" Why is it noteworthy. Anything in wikipedia is noteworthy. Seems to have a personal agenda. The same author didn't find it noteworthy that most of the alwars came from very low castes. Active and Passive voice Shri Vedanta Desika, the Vaishnavite Acharya and philosopher, founded the Vadakalai sampradaya[24] based on the Sanskritic tradition. The Thenkalai sect was founded by Pillailokacharya,[33] while Manavala Mamuni is considered the sect's most important and famous leader.[34] No "Sri" for Manavala Mani or Pillailokarcharya Ref [35] and [37] talk about people in Andhra that converted to thenkalai. They do not even 0.5% iyengars. Making it as I would request the admins to find neutral editors and contributors to take forward this page. Simply citing a lot of random references do not justify what is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.4.7 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

About the recent edits on autosomal DNA

A user "Able562" had added info' on autosomal dna of tamil brahmins. The sub-section added by "Able562" along with it's source, does not say a word about iyengar brahmins. It simply concerns "tests run on tamil brahmins in general" and belongs to the "Tamil Brahmin" wiki' page, not here. No proof of tests run on Iyengars(srivaishnava brahmins) in specific. The 14 genetic samples could be from any tamil brahmin caste, and might not even involve one iyengar brahmin sample. Removed the irrelevant addition made by that user. Just thought of leaving a note about it here. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Malicious content removed

I removed some malicious content that seemed to insinuate that vadakalai iyengars are Brahmins and thenkalai iyengars are not. Since this is far from truth, making such negative statements in a public place such as wikipedia is not acceptable. Hence I removed it. I will continue to watch this page for any such attempt to spread contempt and ill-will. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varadhanskm (talk • contribs) 03:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry removed content posted by mistake. Still learning wiki editing. Apologize).

Varadhanskm (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hi

 In the vadakalai Iyengar sub-section, the following is stated: 

"It is widely accepted that the Vadakalais share the same origin with Vadama Brahmins.[17][28] It is noteworthy that Ramanuja, the founder of Srivaishnavism, was born a Vadama.[29][30]"

Whereas in the thenkalai iyengar sub-section, the following is stated: "The Thenkalai society has also accepted a significant proportion of the non-Brahmin population into its fold.[36][37][38][39] The Thenkalai sect seems to be liberal in its outlook, and so shapes the doctrine of the system as to make them applicable to non-Brahmin castes"

While most of these statements are indeed true, it presents a skewed perspective of truth. For example, most thenkalai iyengars are also vadama. Taken together, these statements amount to saying that "Vadakalai iyengars are Brahmins whereas thenkalai iyengars are not". This is far from the truth. Both vadakalai and thenkalai iyengars are Brahmins. In addition, there are many non-Brahmins who follow both sects.

The cited references [36][37][38][39] only confirm the fact that thenkalai sect of vaishnavism accepted many non-Brahmins into the fold. Whereas the term "Iyengar" has come to refer a community of Brahmins in general, there also can exist a community of "Sri Vaishnavas" who can be Brahmins or not. There seems to have been a confusion between the terms "Iyengar" and "Sri Vaishnavas". The term "Sri Vaishnavas" has a rather universal definition, containing within it people from all castes. The term "Iyengar" generally refers to Brahmins who follow Sri Ramanuja (as stated in the beginning of the article itself). So stating that thenkalai iyengars accepted non-Brahmins into the community introduces the inconsistency with the beginning of the article. In the beginning, it is stated that iyengars are Brahmins. In the middle it is stated that thenkalais accepted "non-Brahmins" into their fold. Both these cannot be true. Either state that thenkalai iyengars are not Brahmins and simply remove them from the whole discussion (which would be atrocious) or remove the Non-Brahmin comment.

The whole problem is due to improper citation i.e. not stating what the reference states. In other words, stating something that you want to state using some reference that says something tangential but not exactly the same thing. In none of the references cited ([36][37][38][39] ), I am able to find the word "Iyengar".

Hence, I request the the following edit be made to the thenkalai iyengar section: Remove content about Brahminism, especially the lines: "The Thenkalai society has also accepted a significant proportion of the non-Brahmin population into its fold.[36][37][38][39] The Thenkalai sect seems to be liberal in its outlook, and so shapes the doctrine of the system as to make them applicable to non-Brahmin castes."

If that is not acceptable, then, clearly state what the references state: The thenakalai "sri vaishnava society" has accepted Non-Brahmins into its fold.

Varadhanskm (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Gandhi Rajagopalachari.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gandhi Rajagopalachari.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

needs to be completely rewritten

Dear Editor, I echo the previous notes in the talk page. There is really not much information in this article except for emphasizing on vadakalai thenkalai differences and even citing random and quite misleading references on DNA studies to apparently show the other community in (what they perceive to be) poor light. I suggest taking the vadakalai thenkalai differences to the end of the page rather in the beginning. There are so many common things that will be useful and interesting to know for the general public. The common things can start from Alwar Acharyas who gave life to hinduism that was threatened by Budhism and Jainism, the acharyas that endured persecution of Saivite Chola Kings, the so called vadakalai and thenkalai acharyas who together saved Srirangam and hence vaishanvism from Muslim invaders. The 108 great temples and other temples of historic significance. The current Acharyas and Mathas. Then we can capture multiple views on Vadakalai and Thenkalai..how the split happened etc.

I am new to Wiki editing. If someone can guide me about the process, I can take more responsibilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.116.64 (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The prime policy of wiki editing is Verifiability, not truth. Details on "src's and its authors"(neutral party/non-iyengar src's) had been extensively discussed in the talk page about a year ago, which have been archived. The info' had also been reviewed and modified by some other experienced users(both Indian & non-Indian editors). Suspecting the "User-IP" to be a troll from the past, as the page had previously encountered similar edits from a "Santa Clara resident of Indian origin". The user is just echoing the claims of the above Ips in the talk page, one of whom have been banned for sockpuppetry while another was given a temporary ban for harrasment/personal attack. Most of them had indulged in edit warring simply due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons due to which the page was given full protection on several occassions in the past. The new users/Ips seem to be no different, but simply one tick ponies who intend to make edits in the sensitve areas based on the "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" reasons which is evident from the above comments, especially the "section needs to be moved to the last" one. This page has seen some extreme edit warring incidents but the edits have stayed. Don't want to feed the troll(suspected to be from the past) again. Hari7478 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Authentic sources such as govt articles &/or books authored by foreign/non-Indian/non-Iyengars are the most trustworthy for wiki' editing as per wiki' norms, in case there multiple issues. Also, additional refs for cross checking are certainly deemed more authentic, especially when they are cited from government websites. Read wiki' editing policies as to what counts as a reliable source, before making edits. By the way, Monier Monier-Williams and Kathleen Gough are highly renowned authors, as believed by wiki's senior editors, who make edits in articles relating to Hinduism & hindu castes. Hari7478 (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

grossly inaccurate statements on ethnicity that defies logic

Statement 1 "The Vadakalai Iyengars (Uttara Kalārya,Sanskrit: उत्तर कलार्य)[17] are believed to be an Indo-Aryan people who once migrated from North India" I couldn't verify this statement in the cited links. This is not verifiable and needs to be removed.

Statement 2 "According to genetic studies, the Thenkalai gene frequencies are distinctly different from that of the Vadakalais."

I looked at the cited work and here is the abstract of it

"The data on cleft chin were collected on 380 unrelated individuals belonging to two endogamous of Sri Vaishnava Brahmans of Tirupati Andhra Pradesh" First, any statistician will agree that making a sweeping claim on the entire population (which is in the order of millions) based on a sample size of 380 people is bad statistics (guess what, the error margin here >50%). Second, the people in the study is not from Tamilnadu where most (>95%) Thenkalais live and therefore the study cannot be qualified with any degree of error. Third, the purpose of this study is not even remotely connected to the subject matter in discussion and cannot be used as a reliable proof for this wild claim.

If this statement must be included, it should be represented as follows:

"According to genetic studies conducted in Andhra with a sample size of 380, the Thenkalai gene frequencies are distinctly different from that of the Vadakalais."

I encourage the Wiki administrators and Wiki readers to understand this issue and help in achieving a fair and balanced view. I will continue to edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastnfurios (talk • contribs) 09:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Fist of all, all of these sources weren't provided by me, nor did i make "all" of the first edits in the section. By the way, it doesn't matter if the genetic samples are collected from Tamil Nadu or Andhra Pradesh, unless somebody has sources to prove that either Vadakalai iyengars of "TN & AP" show differences in genetics. Until then, they'll always be termed as one.

While i have reasons to believe that the Ip-"8.19.13.19", here are a list of edits & comments that given by the IP, and the reason as to why i had to revert them, and why i had kept the existing version:

• . [4] - Here the user had mentioned that "7 out of 12 alvars were non-brahmins". This data has no relevance in the Vadakalai or Thenkalai sections, "unless the user has sources to prove that the alvars belonged to either of these sects or were Iyengars by origin". Also, only the front page cover of the src is available for viewing and not the actual contents. Unless the user is within the "wiki' trusted list of senior editors, or huggle whitelist(in which i am) or any other trusted list", the offline sources cannot be accepted from that user as it could still be a lie. And, please learn what "relevance" means in wikipedia. the Hindu god Krishna was born a "kshatriya" but all indian brahmins do worship him. Now should this be added in the "BRAHMIN" wiki' page, under the genetics section that too. Give me a break.
  
  

• . [5] - Here the user had provided some info' along with a source which goes as "Thenkalai give equal importance to vedas and prabandhams". His source was an online book(authored by an indian author never heard of) and the contents could indeed be viewed under a snippet view. But I had provided two sources, one from Monier Monier-Williams(a famous british writer & a professor @ oxford univ'), and another from a website maintained by the "government of Tamil Nadu, India" to support my claim that "Thenkalais follow the tamil prabandhams". Regardless of how trustworthy these sources are to the other user, the src's are the most trustworthy as per wiki' verifiability norms(two highly reliable sources for cross checking). So, i had obviously deleted the other user's contributions by giving the same edit comments for my reverts. This, by all means, is a valid revert in wikipedia.
  
  

• . In one of the Ips edit comments he had mentioned "If he wants to put vadakalai first, no problem. But with my text edits retained." I'm sorry. That's not the way how we make dits in wiki'. This is no place to strike a deal.
  
  

• . All of the other sources provided by that user, including the one authored by "Patricia Mumme"(who doesn't even have a wiki' page on her) & another "Govt of India" survey, weren't available for online viewing, and all i could see was the front page cover of the online book. Unless the user is within the "wiki' trusted list of senior editors, or huggle whitelist or any other trusted list", the offline sources cannot be accepted from that user as it could still be a lie.
  
  

• . [6] - According to the book "Aryans in South India" Vadagalais are listed as an aryan ethnic group. But someone had previously deleted the source. I'll re-add it once the protection expires. And this one here - [[7]] says that "these vadakalais or vadamars must have introduced the sanskrit and patriarchal system of north india" under the chapter "THE ARYO INDIAN THEO ARISTOCRATIC" , and this was contributed by another senior editor in the vadakalai page. This src was also deleted, which will be re-added once the protection expires. Additionally, the online book "History of Madras" by James Talboys Wheeler speaks of "Brahmins being aryans and their timeline of migration to Southern India". The only two brahmin communities in "Madras" are Iyengars & Iyers, and this could be cited as a source to all sub-sects of madras brahmins. But there are adequate sources to prove that thenkalais have incorporated non-brahmin castes into their fold. Unless the user can provide similar sources for the vadakalai sect, the "James Talboys Wheeler book - "History of Madras", can be used to additionally support the other sources about vadakalai ancestry. Also, reg' the info' on genetic diff' between the two sects, every particular data needn't exactly adhere to the subject given in the extract. It is the exact words that rather matter, and it was provided by another senior user in another page.

So, if the user continues to make the same edits, i must make the same reverts, as all of my reverts are very much in line with wiki' editing policies and i've explained them in my above comments. And, please stop finding silly reasons to delete a content. I don't intend to feed a troll. I've repeatedly posted these comments over years, and the edits have stayed. Hari7478 (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The user-IP's comments have been deleted as he had modified my comments by posting his reply in between my lines. Please post it below my comments. Donot insert your views in between my statements and confuse the other users. Post it below. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rebuttal:

[user]:Fist of all, all of these sources weren't provided by me, nor did i make "all" of the first edits in the section. By the way, it doesn't matter if the genetic samples are collected from Tamil Nadu or Andhra Pradesh, unless somebody has sources to prove that either Vadakalai iyengars of "TN & AP" show differences in genetics. Until then, they'll always be termed as one.

[FnF]: Very convenient, illogical answer. It is important because of the lingusitic diversity. Vadakalai/Thenkalai iyengars are not homogeneous among themselves as evident by classification such as hebbar, mandyam and chozhiar. By extending your logic, all muslims are ethnically and racially the same. Even if they are indeed the same, the science of statistics on methods of polling and sampling doesn't agree with your view. And you have conveniently avoided the small sample size. And the article needs to mention Andhra everytime the work is cited.

[user]: [1] - Here the user had mentioned that "7 out of 12 alvars were non-brahmins". This data has no relevance in the Vadakalai or Thenkalai sections, "unless the user has sources to prove that the alvars belonged to either of these sects or were Iyengars by origin". Also, only the front page cover of the src is available for viewing and not the actual contents. Unless the user is within the "wiki' trusted list of senior editors, or huggle whitelist(in which i am) or any other trusted list", the offline sources cannot be accepted from that user as it could still be a lie. And, please learn what "relevance" means in wikipedia. the Hindu god Krishna was born a "kshatriya" but all indian brahmins do worship him. Now should this be added in the "BRAHMIN" wiki' page, under the genetics section that too. Give me a break.

[FnF] I am not going to try and prove that 7 alwars were nonbrahmins. This must be known to this user who is a great expert in this area.

[user]: [2] - Here the user had provided some info' along with a source which goes as "Thenkalai give equal importance to vedas and prabandhams". His source was an online book(authored by an indian author never heard of) and the contents could indeed be viewed under a snippet view. But I had provided two sources, one from Monier Monier-Williams(a famous british writer & a professor @ oxford univ'), and another from a website maintained by the "government of Tamil Nadu, India" to support my claim that "Thenkalais follow the tamil prabandhams". Regardless of how trustworthy these sources are to the other user, the src's are the most trustworthy as per wiki' verifiability norms(two highly reliable sources for cross checking). So, i had obviously deleted the other user's contributions by giving the same edit comments for my reverts. This, by all means, is a valid revert in wikipedia.

[FnF]: Thenkalais following tamil prabandhams doesn't negate the fact that they follow vedas too. If the so called world renowned authors are comparing these issues, they surely must have mentioned that thenkalais don't follow vedas. Can you provide source for this statement? I have provided sources that they follow both. By logic, this doesn't negate the statement of the "world renowned" authors.

[user]:In one of the Ips edit comments he had mentioned "If he wants to put vadakalai first, no problem. But with my text edits retained." I'm sorry. That's not the way how we make dits in wiki'. This is no place to strike a deal.

[FnF]] This process is called building a consensus. The purpose is not to strike any deal but to make a progress on removing the inaccurate statements. This is also to prevent you from removing completely sourced information under the guise of this issue. And please do not patronize me.

[user]:All of the other sources provided by that user, including the one authored by "Patricia Mumme"(who doesn't even have a wiki' page on her) & another "Govt of India" survey, weren't available for online viewing, and all i could see was the front page cover of the online book. Unless the user is within the "wiki' trusted list of senior editors, or huggle whitelist or any other trusted list", the offline sources cannot be accepted from that user as it could still be a lie.

[FnF] Popularity doesn't mean accuracy. By using the same logic, the content on genetics should be removed because the author is not popular "who deosnt even have a wiki page". Laughable indeed!! ---

[user]: [3] - According to the book "Aryans in South India" Vadagalais are listed as an aryan ethnic group. But someone had previously deleted the source. I'll re-add it once the protection expires. And this one here - 4 says that "these vadakalais or vadamars must have introduced the sanskrit and patriarchal system of north india" under the chapter "THE ARYO INDIAN THEO ARISTOCRATIC" , and this was contributed by another senior editor in the vadakalai page. This src was also deleted, which will be re-added once the protection expires. Additionally, the online book "History of Madras" by James Talboys Wheeler speaks of "Brahmins being aryans and their timeline of migration to Southern India". The only two brahmin communities in "Madras" are Iyengars & Iyers, and this could be cited as a source to all sub-sects of madras brahmins. But there are adequate sources to prove that thenkalais have incorporated non-brahmin castes into their fold. Unless the user can provide similar sources for the vadakalai sect, the "James Talboys Wheeler book - "History of Madras", can be used to additionally support the other sources about vadakalai ancestry. Also, reg' the info' on genetic diff' between the two sects, every particular data needn't exactly adhere to the subject given in the extract. It is the exact words that rather matter, and it was provided by another senior user in another page.

[FnF] Again random facts to digress form the issue. Where is the work of these so called "world renowned" authors stating these facts. ---

[user]: So, if the user continues to make the same edits, i must make the same reverts, as all of my reverts are very much in line with wiki' editing policies and i've explained them in my above comments. And, please stop finding silly reasons to delete a content. I don't intend to feed a troll. I've repeatedly posted these comments over years, and the edits have stayed.

[FnF] I am not threatened by this user's bullying and I will continue to edit this page until truth is captured. If you are indeed not run by any hidden agenda, take a scientific and dispassionate view and let the valid arguments begin. It is not your article and if it has stayed for a while, it doesn't mean it is valid.

Reply to the above comments: This be my last comment under this post. There are still artciles with refs that state that hebbar iyengars are indeed mainstream TN iyengars who migrated into Karnataka, during ramanuja's visit to Mysore. So, again, unless there are sources to prove that Vad' and/or Ten' Iyengar sects of TN are different from those of the other states one shouldn't assume them to be different - It is called "original research" in wiki' which should be avoided. Again, there are sources from which it can be said that the two sub-sects are ethnic groups like this one[8]. If someone simply believes the two to be religious groups(only), i can't help it. So, the very comparison with muslims(inc' Turks, persians & arabs - indeed 3 diff' ethnic groups) is not agreeable. By the way, linguistic diversity doesn't mean "ethnic differences" unless you have a source that would comprehensively list out "ethnolinguistic" differences. Again, original research, with one's own knowledge is not allowed here.

Reg' thenkalai following prabandhams/both - You said "your claim doesn't negate the statement of the world renowned authors". Are you trying to say something like this - "according to article 1 & 2= X follows A; according to article 3= X follows A & B; since articles 1 & 2 don't say X doesn't follow B, there is no contradiction". Is that what you are trying to say? I'm sorry, as it's a violation of "WP:No original reasearch" and I suppose it even violates "WP:SYNTH".

The section is about ethnicity & genetics, and the worship of alwars is completely irrelevant in that section. Especially terms like "ironically & ...as contrary to the vedas" are certainly "original research". And, there is no question about "my knowledge on alvars". It is just hearsay. There is nothing to prove that they had existed, as there are some foreign authors who even believe that it was "Nathamuni" who composed all the 4000 verses(i could provide the sources), although there are sufficient sources to counter them. Once again, i request you to speak with regard to sources, and not on one's own knowledge.

While i can provide diffs of some edits of yours(in various pages) which might be "POV edits"- in my opinion, this calls for additionally verifiable online sources for cross checking with the offline ones already provided by you, when the data is challenged. However, we have other users who are trying to moderate, and so i'm planning to list out my refs here in the talk page, if asked for.

There is no need to remove the contents of genetics, as they are always published by genealogists and not by popular authors.

Regarding authors - popularity indeed doesn't mean accuracy. If this is to be taken as a valid point, apparently every genuine wiki' article content would always be challenged. There are certain norms about "Verifiability in wiki'" and that is all that matters here. By the way, statistical data such as population count/no. of temples managed, need to be supported with recent gov't surveys, as they are always changing, and not by a census that was taken 50+ years ago. Even this is mentioned in wiki'. Nevertheless, nothing could be verified from the source as there is no preview. Finally, sources that are unagreeable to a few should not be called "random fact". Hari7478 (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)