Wikipedia

Talk:Puthandu/Archive 1

< Talk:Puthandu
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Ms Sarah Welch in topic Removing sourced content
Archive 1

Tamil calendar

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm proposing that this article be merged into Tamil calendar. The info about Tamil New Year should probably be made into a section of the Tamil calendar article. Both articles have a list of months and their corresponding Gregorian dates but the two lists are not identical. It's not something I'm remotely qualified to write about so rather than blunder it up I'll leave it to someone who knows more than me. --squirrel 14:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Tamil calendar

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This should not be done as a tamil calendar should only be on the tamil calendar same way, Puthandu (tamil new year) should seperate and focusng on that. Only there should be this link and the tamil calendar article on the disambiguation tamil article. Therefore I strongly disagree with this decision as this is wrong. Please reconsider about it after what I have wrote.Pendotigers 22:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We need more information about Tamil New Year. This has to be an article in its own right. Can be modelled on Ugadi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.69.166.114 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Can somebody include the English and Tamil greetings: இனிய தமிழ் புத்தாண்டு நல்- வாழ்த்துக்கள் Iniya Tamizh Puthaandu Nalvazthukkal

Tamil calendar, Tamil New Year and Puthandu

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tamil calendar refers to the calendar which is the shared cultural heritage of all Tamils. Tamil New Year is the celebration of the new year and is therefore forwarded to the Puthandu page. The Tamil calendar page should be limited to explaining about the calendar and its significance, while the Puthandu page should elaborate about the significance and celebration of this festival. Hope people can understand this and help expand the Puthandu page. OKtuck (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Atheistic or Secular ?

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

It says here that the DMK government abolished the new year due to atheistic political reasons. Is this true? Can someone please verify this? Because the Indian Constitution is a secular one. An decision made on ateistic/religious grounds can be challenged in court. Or can it be changed to read "to maintain the secular nature of the new year" or something like that? Kuamudhan (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Karunanidhi's decision to change the date of the new year on allegedly secular grounds is not universally accepted. The Sri Lankan Tamils do not follow it. Opposition parties in Tamil Nadu reject it. The issue is before court. Unless, there is finality to the issue, we need to keep the current article with reference to the new year in April - which is time honored Tamil tradition. The state can not interfere in matters of tradition unless the social good is involved. Caste can be outlawed. But not the calendar!

--Dharman Dharmaratnam (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


I suggest that the ideological supporters of the DMK stop unilaterally reverting the text in this on line encyclopedia without providing a rationale for doing so in the discussion page. The original write up with citations is objective, neutral and presents tradition as having existed for the past many centuries. It should not be changed without discussion and a consensus.

--MrinaliniB (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute on the content of this page. The issue pertains to whether the Tamil new year is in April as celebrated down the centuries or in January as legislated last year by the current state government in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

Different points of view need to be discussed in this 'discussion' page and then resolved through consensus. If individuals without a Wikipedia account such as the person with the IP number 125.17.14.100 unilaterally reverse the hard work of Wiki editors such as MrinaliniB without providing due reason on this discussion page, it would be construed as vandalism.

The Tamil new year has been celebrated for centuries in April. The state government in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu decided last year to shift the Tamil new year to January. The opposition in that state refused to accept it. The issue was referred to the Madurai bench of the High Court which rejected the petition. However, the petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court in New Delhi which directed the Madras High Court to re-hear the case.

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka continues to follow the traditiona Tamil new year in April. The Tamil new year in April coincides with the celebration of the new year in many other states of India such as Assam, Bengal, Punjab, Kerala and Orissa. It is also observed in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Burma. One can not censor the historical narrative on this page arbitrarily as is done by the IP number 125.17.14.100.

The wikipedia entry needs to present both viewpoints which MrinaliniB has done.

--Dipendra2007 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dipendra 2007 mentioned that IP # 75.142.230.243 had introduced a consensus version reconciling the two different points of view. I tend to disagree. I reviewed his/her changes and he/she seems to downplay any reference to Hinduism. The fact remains that the first of Thai was never the Tamil new year in Tamilian tradition. It was a farmer festival and a harvest festival. Those of us who belonged to the maritime castes never really observed Pongal in a major way. Karunanidhi of the DMK party tried to make it the new year to detach Tamilian identity from the remainder of India but the move flopped. See this link

http://expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Not+many+takers+for+Tamil+New+Year&artid=pDuojIhQU1o=&SectionID=vBlkz7JCFvA=&MainSectionID=fyV9T2jIa4A=&SectionName=EL7znOtxBM3qzgMyXZKtxw==&SEO=

Jayalalithaa had promised to reverse the decision of the Karunanidhi administration when she gets into power. I agree with IP# 125.17.14.100 that the AIADMK and the MDMK MLAs voted for the initial bill in February last year. But the two parties since revised their position and have opposed it. One can argue that this was duplicity. But the fact remains that the Tamilian opposition parties do not support it today.

So while Pongal remains a vibrant harvest/farmer festival, it has not cut ice with the vast majority of Tamilians as the traditional start of year. The two issues are different. Its not about secular vs Hindu. The Tamilians in Mauritius fought hard to obtain Government recognition of April 14 as Tamil new year in that country. The Tamilians in Singapore are making strenuous efforts to revive April 14 as New year in the traditional lives of the Tamilians there. And the Tamil Tigers in Eezham refuse to accept the Karunanidhi decision.

In short, the decision is open-ended and the current entry needs to reflect the entire spectrum of opinion. We can not be too ideological. I invite the opinion of IP # 125.17.14.100 on this talk page. We also need to hear him/her

--Tolkaapiyanaar (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the latest edits of # 75.142.230.243 are a somewhat acceptable reconciliation of the two viewspoints i.e. the DMK-led vs the traditional Tamil Hindu perspective shared by many of us in this discussion thread and elsewhere.

I agree with Tolkaapiyanaar that # 75.142.230.243 replaces any reference to the word 'Hindu' with the term 'Tamil' when it comes to the calendar. The Tamil calendar is Hindu in inspiration just as Pope Gregory helped redefine the calendar used in Europe and North America.

We turn to the Panchangam when it comes to defining both the traditional Tamil New Year in April i.e. Chitterai 1 or the Tamil farmer festival/Thai Pongal in January or Thai 1. The Panchangam is as religious as it gets and is used to define the start and end of all Tamil months, Thai included.

This said, the current version of the Wikipedia text on the Tamil new year as revised by # 75.142.230.243 seems broadly ok. I propose that we freeze any edits for a few days. Should we propose changes, let us do so on this discussion page and await comments before unilaterally making changes. That would be the consensus way to move ahead. After all, we are all Tamils despite Karunanidhi's move which many of us consider offensive!

--Dharman Dharmaratnam (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

IP Number 125.17.14.100 is back once again reverting editorial changes that we had worked so hard to synthesize. He removes footnotes that conclusively indicate the opposition of the AIADMK and MDMK parties to the current law introduced by the DMK state administration. The Tiruvalluvar era may have been in existence for a while. But the DMK had abolished the earlier 60 year cycle of years in use and replaced it exclusively with reference to the Tiruvalluvar era. Anyone who has studied Tiruvalluvar's work would know that it is a post-Sangam work and is possibly quite late. To argue therefore that it is more than 2,000 years has no conclusive literary evidence.

There has to be discussion on contentious points on this page before they are introduced on the main text. --MrinaliniB (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is one of many evidence for 125.17.14.100 that Jayalalithaa of the AIADMK and Vaiko of the MDMKK refused to accept the change proposed by Karunanidhi of the DMK!

http://news.webindia123.com/news/articles/India/20080412/930922.html

DMK working to segregate Tamil people using religion

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Are there studies or news articles regarding Karunanidhi's or DMK's plan to segregate people based on religion? Tamil new year is for the people of Tamil origin. This notion that it is a new year for Hindus but not for Buddhist, Jew, Christian, Muslims, atheist, agnostic or any other religion or belief is news to me. I don't see any reason other than segregation or for topic diversion one would make this a issue. Unfortunately I don't live in India so I don't have any idea on the state of affairs in Tamil Nadu. Can any one please research this angle and put any references if you find one.

Hello. I suggest you go through each of the footnotes provided at the end of the article. This would give you a sense of the politics of the legislative enactment which remains controversial. National parliamentary elections in India would be held in the next three months. Given the anti-incumbency factor, it is likely that the DMK may not fare well at the Tamil Nadu segment of the national elections. It would need the support of the Congress party to retain power in Tamil Nadu state itself. The state elections itself would be held in 2011.

The DMK is part-heir to Dravidian politics that commenced largely under Periyaar. Periyaar in many ways suggested a break with Tamil classical tradition - be it the Tamil calendar or even the Tamil alphabet. But the AIADMK retains a pan-Indic sensibility which explains its continued support for the return to the traditional calendar that commences in April each year.

But please realize that Tamilian identity is not confined to Tamil Nadu. Sri Lanka has had a vibrant Tamilian presence for 2,200 years. Jaffna was the epicenter of a separate Tamil kingdom since 1215 AD. And those chaps are very traditional - even more than in my own Tamil Nadu!

Best regards

--Tolkaapiyanaar (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know what was Karunanidhi doing during his previous tenures. Why didn’t he change the New Year then? I would appreciate if the “IP number-friend” could throw some light on this.

The Dravidian-Missionary nexus is well established in Tamilnadu and this combine is working together to alienate the Tamils from the Hindu fold. That is why the Chief Minister Karunanidhi had promulgated this ‘Thai-Tamil New Year’ ordinance and that is why the Christian forces propagate the stupid concept of “Thomas-Christianity’ (Adi Christhuvam) and try to ‘babtise’ Thiruvalluvar in the process, saying that Thiruvalluvar was the disciple of Thomas and his Thirukkural contains a lot of teachings from the Bible. As a continuation of this fraudulent concept, the Mylapore diocese is planning to produce a movie on the so-called St.Thomas and the Chief Minister, despite having a good knowledge on Thiruvalluvar and Thirukkural, had presided over the inauguration of the film. This idiotic concept of Thomas Christianity says that Shaivism and Vaishnavism are byproducts of “Adi Christhuvam”. Do we need any more examples to establish this farce and the nexus?

The Chief Minister made the announcement of changing Tamil New Year during the ‘Sangamam’ Festival last year in Dec 2007-Jan 2008 and enacted the Law subsequently. The opposition (AIADMK & MDMK) without any application of mind and due to fear of votes and anti-Tamil image stupidly supported the legislation. Later on these parties reconciled after seeing the huge celebration of Tamil New Year by the people of Tamilnadu on 13 April 2008 (Chiththirai-1). Even though the DMK government prevented the Temple celebrations through the HR&CE Department, the other temples, which do not come under the purview of HR&CE, celebrated with gaiety and fanfare as per the religious norms.

And this month again the Tamil people celebrated only Pongal (not Tamil New Year) on Thai-1 (January 14) and just ignored the government’s call for the celebration of New Year. All the political leaders except Karunanidhi, Ramadoss and Thirumavalavan greeted the people only for Pongal and not for New Year.

The Tamil speaking Christians celebrate only the Christian New Year of January-1 and the Tamil speaking Muslims celebrate only the Arabic New Year. They simply don’t bother about Chiththirai-1 or Thai-1. The Tamil Hindus (including the DMK cadres) have been celebrating and will be celebrating Tamil New Year only on April-14 (Chiththirai-1).

The Christian missionaries are behind the legislation of the DMK government and it has been done with a motive of taking the Tamil New Year to January, which has the Gregorian New Year too. By this way, they could merge the so-called Thiruvalluvar calendar with the Gregorian calendar and nullify the Tamil-Hindu calendar. This will also help the missionaries to Christianise Thiruvalluvar and if allowed, they will replace Thirukkural with Bible! It must be noted that the so-called cultural festival ‘Sangamam’ is the brainchild of Dravidian Kanimozhi (DMK) and Christian Jagat Gaspar Raj (Thamizh Maiyyam). Do we need any more examples for Dravidian-Church nexus? Let us not fall into this dangerous trap, which is being laid in the name of Tamil.

Let us be very clear. Tamil is Hindu and Tamils are Hindus. The Tamil and Hindu traditions are one and the same. No one on this earth, whether it is Maraimalai Adigal or Kalaignar, has the authority to change it.


Dhraavidan (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

125.17.14.100 mentions that 'secular' Tamils (what ever that means!) celebrated the new year on January 14. If one had read the Tamil Nadu press or watched Tamil Nadu television, hardly anyone celebrated the Tamil new year on January 14 except for the DMK and affiliated parties. What was celebrated was the harvest festival - which is very different! The new law merging the two came into effect this year and is unlikely to remain on the statute books for long.

We need rigorous evidence of a broad based celebration of the ethnic new year in January - as opposed to the farmer festival or harvest festival - before such subjective points of view can be included on the whims of an anonymous IP number.

He likewise deletes information supported with a media reference that the heads of the opposition AIADMK and MDMK parties in the Tamil Nadu legislature had criticized the decision of the DMK to change the date of the traditional new year. One can not arbitrarily delete key pieces of information supported by evidence.

Regardless, the harvest festival in January is just as rooted in the Hindu calendar as is the traditional new year in April. Both have religious origins!--Dipendra2007 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The one page to express disagreement and resolve disputes over content is this one - not the main text itself. The 'IP numbered editors' should suggest new wording here before introducing it in the main text.

There is one statement in the encyclopedia entry which indicates that the leadership of two major political parties in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu (AIADMK and MDMK) condemned the change in the date of the Tamil new year. This statement was supported with a newspaper link and should not be deleted.

IP 125.17.14.100 can not just delete information that he does not like and introduce wording according to his whims and fancies. At one point, he claims to remove a pro-Brahmin and anti-Tamil stance. Who is Brahmin and who is not Brahmin here to begin with?? I for example am not Brahmin but like the wording of the text - except for the subject header which can be changed to Tamil New Year instead!

Such casteist comments on his part are not welcome. This is an international encylopedia on line. It is not a DMK journal!!

It is important to describe the bill as the Tamil Nadu bill. There are Tamils who live outside Tamil Nadu who are not bound by such legislation which stands contested within that state itself! --Nedunchezhiyan (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversy coverage

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article focuses mostly on the controversy aspect of the TN Government Bill and relies on weak sources, in my opinion. Sundar \talk \contribs 04:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sundar,

This entry had been extensively debated and discussed in 2009.

Why not you address the issue of tone and citations in the sub-section below the sub-header absence of literary evidence in support of the move through cautious edits? That might help.

However, the main descriptive text above that particular subsection is very well cited and balanced. The Government viewed this as the traditional Tamil new year as demonstrated in successive annual Government gazettes of public holidays in Tamil Nadu/Madras Presidency from the colonial era onwards until 2008. In Sri Lanka, it remains a very big event for Tamils there and continues to feature in the Government gazette of public holidays. The same holds for Tamils living overseas.

The question of the Tamil calendar is a separate entry in itself and can not be confined to the new year!

We could have a separate section on the controversy surrounding the new year if you think it appropriate. My preference is that we even perhaps consider deleting or atleast shorten the section below the sub-header absence of literary evidence in support of the move. We need you as an editor in that sub-section downwards. But if you wear the editor hat,should you perhaps not play the role of administrator for this entry? A thought for your consideration.

Best regards--Nakirar (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nakirar, I do agree that the calendar coverage shouldn't be confined to the new year alone. Sundar \talk \contribs 09:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A compromise

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Here is the position - There are two dates claimed as Tamil new year now. One has the weight of an official proclamation in the state of Tamil Nadu and other the weight of tradition. Trying to cover it in a single article would only create a confusion and edit wars. I propose the following:

a) Let the current article titled "Tamil new year" or "Puthandu" refer to Chithirai 1. b) create a new article for "Tamil Nadu New Year" for Thai 1; document thiruvalluvar era there. Tamil Nadu is only a part of the Tamil speaking world and TN Government's proclamations have legal binding on only people of TN - not the diaspora in other states and countries. If others insist on following chithirai 1, TN Govt cannot legislate the issue. the two aricles should have brief sections of the other article and should have Error: no page names specified (help). article links to each other.

--Sodabottle (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


Dear Sodabottle

Thank you for your intervention. Are you a Sri Lankan Tamil?

I hear your suggestion with respect. What you do propose to include in the separate article on Karunanidhi's new year? He legislated in 2008 that the new year be shifted from Chitterai to Thai to coincide with the harvest festival of Thai Pongal. But how many Tamil Nadu residents celebrate Thai Pongal as a new year (as opposed to a vibrant harvest festival which it has always been)? Do we have empirical evidence? The citations? The residents of Tamil Nadu undoubtedly celebrate Thai Pongal as a farmers festival and a harvest event. But how many celebrate it as a new year as well?

In other words, what would we include in that separate article you propose? The issue of Karunanidhi's diktat is currently before the Chennai High Court and has been there for many months. The Indian court system is not exactly the fastest in adjudicating disputes. How the courts decide, not to mention how Karunanidhi's successor decides (Stalin, Azhagiri, Jayalalithaa), would determine whether the official proclamation remains or not.

Media reports indicate that Tamils in Bangalore and Pondicherry celebrated the April new year with gusto. So did those in Singapore, Malaysia and Sri Lanka (including the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora in Toronto and London). Jayalalitha of the AIADMK and Vaiko of the MDMK wished the people of Tamil Nadu for the new year today. Many in Tamil Nadu celebrated the new year today. I am not sure therefore that Karunanidhi succeeded in transforming Thai Pongal in January from a harvest festival to a new year event as well. Can you provide me with the supporting evidence, the citations? If not, how do you proceed to draft the separate article? It would remain perhaps one paragraph in length!

Happy Puthandu. --Dipendra2007 (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


I am a Tamil Nadu Tamil and not a diaspora Tamil. We (generally) are not attached to Tamil tradition as the diaspora is. It is easy to change our ways. Consider my points
  • The matter is sub judice - so till then status quo prevails. that is how indian law works. The courts have refused to stay the legislation. So "officially" for Tamil Nadu, thiruvalluvar era is the calendar and Thai 1 is the new year. That is why i proposed an article with title "Tamil Nadu New Year" not "Tamil New Year". There is a distinction here. As the legally elected government head of TN, MK has shifted the new year and that carries a recognition.
  • How many people celebrate new year requires a numerical answer which we cannot provide. each side will provide anecdotes to support its case and it will end up edit warring all over again. I do not propose to go there. The new article will merely note not everyone accepts the move and detail who they are.
  • A single paragraph article (or stub in wikipedia parlance) is nothing to frown about. The article will cover three points - that karunanidhi shifted the new year, that it has been challenged in court and that many people including two opposition parties have refused to accept the shift.
  • If and when MKs successor CMs shift the new year back, the article will merely record that it was a short lived shift and was immediately shifted back.

In short - a new article just reporting the facts. It will solve edit warring here and everyone will be happy. --Sodabottle (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sodabottle,

Thanks. I have no problem with the single paragraph stub that you propose. This said, we might need to reflect a nuance. Not all in Tamil nadu may agree with Karunanidhi. This explains why the April new year has been defacto renamed as Chitterai Thirunaal even by television stations (Raj, Kalaignar, Sun) linked to his party.

Can we pause to get a few more views on this?

I need to respond to your opening remarks. Sri Lankan Tamils are not 'diaspora'! Most did not immigrate from Tamil Nadu (except for the descendents of the indentured Tea estate labor). They are Sri Lankans of Tamil ethnicity and had pre-colonial kingdoms in the north of the island. The issue of being attached to Tamil tradition or not applies equally to both sides of the Palk Straits. I think many in Tamil Nadu are attached to the April new year. Hence the court case, the AIADMK and MDMK felicitations and crowded temples on April 14.

Now to Vaiyapuri Pillai. you have a point that he is contested. However, even those who contest him do not necessarily agree with Tiruvalluvar being born in 31 BCE. There is simply no evidence for such an early date. The Tirukural is clearly later than that. There is a vast body of evidence that the Tirukural is a post-Sangam work. One citation - Tamilnet - tangentially explores that point. I can refer you to more if needed --Dipendra2007 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for working towards a compromise, Sodabottle. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sodabottle, Sundar

This is not a compromise. The overwhelming majority in Tamil Nadu celebrate Pongal as a harvest, not a new year. Pongal to this day is NOT marked by any new year rituals. It is observed with harvest motifs alone. What you can do is to have a link in the Puthandu entry to the Tamil Nadu New Year Declaration Bill (2008) where we can include what you propose. But Wikipidea can not imply that Tamilians in Tamil Nadu take January 14 as their new year only because the Chief Minister has so determined while Tamilians outside Tamil Nadu observe the traditional date in April. This dichotomy is mischevious. A Government enactment rarely determines popular culture. It rarely is able to legislate behaviour! I do not support a separate entry called Tamil Nadu New Year. The edit wars will only continue there. If you insist, lets have an entry on the legislation alone. --Nakirar (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nakirar, I think that's just one point of view. Legislation does have a non-trivial impact on people's behaviour. It begins with formal scenarios and then gradually trickles in. I am aware of many people who bought the Government's decision (they could be a minority, but we can't ignore them). The English New Year has been moved around a few times by monarchs successfully, right? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
a) i am not implying anything with the new article (mischievous or otherwise) b) it is going to state, TN Govt has indeed shifted the new year using executive fiat c) The move is not accepted by all. I am not talking about popular culture at all, rather a government decree - there will be no mention of "celebration", "observance" by the population of Tamil Nadu in the article. It will state it is a public holiday and is considered by the Govt as New year. Public holidays do indeed get their articles in wikipedia, so why not this?--Sodabottle (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think its bears mention that most of the edit wars in this page are by anonymous IP numbers, not by registered Wikipedia editors. --Nakirar (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sodabottle

Why not have the link to the Tamil Nadu New Year Declaration Bill and proceed as you suggest on the article on that piece of legislation. There are two holidays relevant here - January 14 and April 14. The particular article you propose would be appropriate for the Bill. The current Wikipedia articles on the two holidays - Pongal and Puthandu have an internal consistency. A third article on the same holiday (either one) but with drastically different content would not make sense even if very brief as you imply. It would still confuse. The way to go ahead would be to describe the bill in a stand alone article and include therein what you suggest - which is ok for the latter purpose.

My humble opinion in response to you.

Sundar, a quick clarification. Its the Gregorian new year that you refer to. This has not been moved since its introduction by Pope Gregory. The Julian new year which he replaced is still observed in the Eastern Orthodox church that never recognized papal authority. Turning to the Tamil new year in April, look at the start of a new cable network company (by the grand son of Karunanidhi!), another television network (linked to the DMDK - a Dravidian party) and two audios that were launched in Chennai on the occasion of Chitterai Thirunaal this year.

http://www.behindwoods.com/tamil-movie-news-1/apr-10-02/dayanidhi-alagiri-15-04-10.html

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2010/04/14/%E2%80%98captain-tv%E2%80%99-launch-today-tamil-new-year%E2%80%99s-day

http://sify.com/movies/fullstory.php?id=14938495.

Surely, this was not coincidence! These are just a few examples. April 14 continues to be a significant event in Tamil Nadu. Pongal is a big holiday but for reasons that have nothing to do with the new year! Its to do with the rice harvest.

We can not have two articles with conflicting messages - Tamil new year and Tamil Nadu new year. Its odd. There will be edit wars in the new article unless we confine it strictly to what Sodabottle suggests and focus on the bill, not a holiday entry.

cheers--Nakirar (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nakirar. --Dipendra2007 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section.

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I had reorganised the controversy section and renamed it to Government of Tamil Nadu New Year Controversy. No references were removed in the process nor any POV added. The topics scattered in various paragraphs were re-organised into logical sections along with their citations. IP User:202.171.161.131 has been reverting my edits. I believe he is free to add any references deleted by me if any instead of blatant reverting back to old cluttered section. rams81 (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the textual reorganisation, I did not discuss in the talk page of the article because I did not intend to remove any content or reference. If any editor feels that in the process I tampered any material, citations or introduced POV, I am welcome to joing the discussion page. In fact, I created a talk page entry when the IP user started reverting my edits.

Regarding the Thiruvalluvar era, this is the text I corrected:

The 2006–2011 Government in Tamil Nadu also introduced the Tiruvalluvar era that begins with the purported birth of the Tamil literary figure Tiruvalluvar in the year 31 BCE. The literary evidence however may not indicate an early date for Tiruvalluvar. The syntax and grammar may indicate a subsequent date. Renowned Tamil Scholar Vaiyapuri Pillai was of the view that Tiruvalluvar lived around 600 CE, based on the internal evidence of his work and the significant influence of Sanskrit, Prakrit and Pali works in the Tirukkural.[31] While not all may agree with Vaiyapuri Pillai's textual criticism and dating, several question the Tiruvalluvar era on the issue of its date.[32] However, the Government of J. Jayalalitha reverted the celebration of Puthandu to the original date of fourteenth of April.[11]

To: The Bill also introduced the Tiruvalluvar era that begins with the purported birth of the Tamil literary figure Tiruvalluvar in the year 31 BCE. Though the literary evidence may not indicate such an early date for Tiruvalluvar.

Because the contention of the previous editor was Thiruvalluvar was born in 600 CE and not 31 BCE. My point is since there is general citation regarding it, one need not resort to literary references etc.

Jayalalitha Govt's decision to move New Year to 14 April already finds its place in the new govt order sub-section. rams81 (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ramanan

IP Number 115.241.76.202 had made ideologically oriented edits and reverts on November 6, 7 and 8. Many were simply not factual nor supported by citations. He reverted the initial version several times. He had a selective quote of a lone judge in Madurai that had been superseded by subsequent rulings and legislation, which he either makes no reference to or in-fact had deleted. He had deleted entire sentences. You in turn had introduced edits on his version, primarily to correct his grammar and language.

It may have been more useful if you had attempted a reorganization of the initial version as edited by Oh Confucious on October 18. That version was on-line since 2009. While I understand your desire to reorganize the text, it might be useful to retain the nuance at all points. We need to reflect all dimensions of the debate.

For instance, the manner in which you had summarized the discussion on the Tiruvalluvar Era removes the nuance and detail. This is an encyclopedia which needs the detailed literary references (i.e. Professor Vaiyapuri, his pros, his shortcomings) in the text itself. This should be in addition to the footnote. Not everyone has access to Vaiyapuri's seminal book for example. The point needs to be made in the text itself. Many individuals refer to and check with Wikipedia for knowledge. We need to be as thorough as possible.

Please therefore retain the original language and detail. It may not be advisable to summarize, to paraphrase or to shorten the paragraphs or remove the paragraph headings just yet. However, if you think absolutely essential, a reorganization of paragraphs with the current material may be ok provided the original richness of discussion is retained. But once again, does this add value? How does it improve the encyclopedic entry?

My objection was not to your edits per se but to the PoV that IP Number 115.241.76.202 had introduced, points which you had retained as you rearranged the paragraphs shortening and thereby inadvertently omitting key information.

IP Number 202.171.161.131 and you then engaged in edit warring over the last 24 hours. I have an issue when anonymous editors start editing and reverting.

I would like to make another point, this time unrelated to your edits. Tamils live in India, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Malaysia, Mauritius and Fiji. The Tamils are indigenous to India and Sri Lanka. We need to reflect every dimension of the old tradition, not just the happenstance ideological views of certain politicians in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Lets therefore retain the rich detail, not abbreviate.

Kind regards, Nakirar (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The article propagates violation of minority rights

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia article on "Minority Rights" says:

"The term minority rights embodies two separate concepts: first, normal individual rights as applied to members of racial, ethnic, class, religious, linguistic or sexual minorities, and second, collective rights accorded to minority groups. The term may also apply simply to individual rights of anyone who is not part of a majority decision."

With reference to "Minority Rights" as defined by Wikipedia, Calling "Puthandu" "Tamil New Year" is a total disrespect for the minority Tamils who are not Hindus. Therefore, the article violates "Minority Rights". Therefore, the article on "Puthandu" propagates violation of minority rights. KSBKUMAR (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It is the calendar written in Tamil

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Tamil people who are Hindus observe auspicious days and times. They (Tamil people who are Hindus) make use of the calendar based on astrological calculations as given in the Hindu almanac (written in Tamil) for that purpose (to observe auspicious times).

Therefore the calendar that Tamils who are Hindus use is “Tamil astrological calendar”.

The minority Tamils who are Christians, Agnostics, Atheists, and other non-Hindus do not make use of this calendar. Therefore, propagating it as “Tamil Calendar” is not only (gramatically)inappropriate but also disrespectful to “Minority Rights” (please refer to the Wikipedia article on “Minority Rights”).KSBKUMAR (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"The festive occasion is in keeping with the Hindu solar calendar."

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Dipendra2007: That was definitely not a mistaken deletion: in fact, I noted in the edit summary, "removed sentence that was gibberish". I am a native English speaker and I have absolutely no idea what this sentence means. "The festive occasion is in keeping with the Hindu solar calendar." Yay, Puttāṇṭu is very Hindu solar calendar-ish! ... wait, what? Ogress smash! 01:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Puthandu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Puthandu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this or is this not a reliable source? Why or why not?

Latest comment: 7 years ago25 comments11 people in discussion

Is The Island a reliable source for the purpose of making academic claims about Indian influence on Southeast Asia?

Why? Or why not? I'm trying to stay out of this and only get discussion going, but I will note that The Island is not an academic source even though it is being used for a historical claim that normally would use an academic source. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dipendra2007:@Ian.thomson: It's unreliable according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources → Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change. Occasionally, some newspapers still have specialist reporters who are citable by name. There are academic sources already listed there, so there is no need to list a news article. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC))
As I said, I'm trying to stay out of this. I really only asked to get discussion started on this talk page, where it should've started and stayed. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay thanks for doing that @Ian.thomson:. (58.164.106.182 (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC))
Ian.thomson saw my comments elsewhere and asked me to chime in here. Journalists virtually never have scholarly training in history/anthropology/ethnography/etc. — they're generalists as far as this kind of thing goes, not knowing more than what's needed for background purposes, and as such we mustn't consider them reliable sources for such fields. Exceptions can exist, of course, and we can't discount a journalist merely because of his job (e.g. he could be an avocational anthropologist so dedicated to the field that he's a member of a learned society), but even then we should only trust his writings if they've gotten reviewed by other experts; the most scholarly journalist will have his newspaper writeups reviewed by nobody except the newspaper's editors, whom again we can trust to know a lot about news reporting but we can't trust to know much of anything about "olds" reporting. We can take newspaper reports as authoritative if we're writing a middle school report for our teachers, but encyclopedia writing demands better sources: whether they're written by professional academics, journalists with a lot of experience in scholarly work, or anyone else, they need to have gone through a scholarly review process. Of course, all this applies if there's no significant dispute; a faithful adherence to WP:NPOV will demand that we use the best sources from (or about) each position, and we can trust a journalist to report on the rise of a new popular movement that advocates a different perspective on such-and-such an idea, but journalists being primary sources in such situations, we shouldn't use them to interpret something about the different perspective. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend,

I followed the debate and fail to understand it. The material is cited in academic publications and in media sources. Regardless of whether the media sources remain, the academic texts are mentioned. There is no harm in the added sources introduced by Vatasura on February 3. Most seem to support her additions, me included.

Not sure where all the bile comes from. Papiamento Momo (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Papiamento, Vatasura and Dipendra. Pararaja (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  • The thing is that those sources are unreliable. How can you say that source is reliable when it goes against Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources? If you're going against that Wikipedia rule, then I don't see any reason why you would want to follow any other Wikipedia rules. Rules are put in place to maintain control, allowing one to break a rule means all other rules should then be thrown out the window. It makes me wonder why I should follow the rules when you choose to break them? @Papiamento Momo: @Vatasura: @Pararaja: @Nyttend: @Ian.thomson: (121.219.232.188 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC))
  • There is no need to add six sources to confirm that information @Papiamento Momo:. First source is a news article that says nothing about the topic, second source is a news article and the final source is a copy of a Wikipedia page which I had already pointed out earlier on. The final source goes against another rule, which is called circular referencing, also see WP:PUS. There are three reliable sources already listed there, why do you want to add more? This is also not a popularity contest, where the one who gets the most votes wins, it's about following the rules. (121.219.37.73 (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC))
  • @Papiamento Momo: and @Pararaja: nirvanapeace.com, Times of India, and The Island are not academic sources. Nirvanapeace.com does not meets our reliable sourcing guidelines. Times of India and The Island are journalistic sources, which are fine for current events but not for history. Either you did not follow the debate as much as you thought you had, or you do not know what "academic" means. Wikipedia does not operate off of claims of "me too!" Wikipedia also takes a very negative view of offline canvassing. 00:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Response to Pararaja — I was asked to come here to talk about one specific source, not to say whether a statement in the article were currently supported by reliable sources. If it's relevant to the article and backed up with reliable sources, good; such a statement should almost never be removed from the article. However, it's almost always best to cite just one source for any specific piece of text, since citing multiple sources for the same piece of text is a claim that the text was derived from all of them. (1) If you didn't really depend on all of them, you've made a false claim, i.e. a hoax. Just cut out everything that you didn't use, beginning with the least reliable. (2) If you did depend on them, it's hard to distinguish what parts of the information came from which source, so it's simpler for everyone if you can cite source #1 for one part of the statement and cite source #2 for the other part. (3) If you depended on all those sources for the whole statement, see WP:SYNTH for our prohibition on "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". This is probably the most common situation for multi-citation, and aside from simple matters such as the stuff permitted by WP:CALC (e.g. you cite an organization's membership statistics for 2001-2010 and say "From 2001 to 2010, the organization's membership grew by 58 people"), it's a bad idea. (4) If you really have a situation needing all those sources for the whole statement, without engaging in WP:SYNTH, okay, but while it's not required, it might make things easier for everyone if you gave a short explanation of why all the sources are needed together (rather than separately) and why it's not a WP:SYNTH situation.

@Papiamento Momo: @Pararaja: @Nyttend: @Ian.thomson: News website publish not only current news, but also scholarly articles too. This article "A Tamil cultural debate" was written by Dharman Dharmaratnam and was published by The Island, Sri Lanka Guardian, Tamil Canadian and Daily News Sri Lanka in 2011. Why making a mountain out of a molehill? If nirvanapeace.com, Times of India, and The Island sources seriously offend wiki rules, then it should by removed, academic sources have already been added that back the claim for Tamil cultural influence in South and Southeast Asia. It is difficult to find sources for this topic, because the ancient Tamil history is much unresearched. Sadly, Tamil achievements are often generalized as "Indian" and "Hindu". There are many sources, who claim Indian or Hindu influence in Southeast Asia but not Tamil.Vatasura (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No, news papers do not publish scholarly articles -- peer-reviewed academic journals do. Some newspapers may publish what is usually a layperson's understanding of academic research, which the newspaper is not equipped to peer-review. If those newspapers are the least bit respectable, then they would simply repeat and summarize academic sources -- sources that should be cited instead. It is the responsibility of the person who adds the claim to provide sources, not the person who removes the claim. If the material is so ready to be found in academic sources as you seem to think, then quit citing newspapers and cite academic sources.
If Tamil history is so unresearched, then where are those news sites getting their information from? Are they just making it up? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

As I said, difficult but not impossible. You have to ask the news sites from where they got their stuff. I was asked to give sources for the claim Tamil influence on New Year and general in South Asia / Southeast Asia. I searched and found these sources.

newspapers:


by nirvanapeace.com


by www.island.lk


by Times of India. This source has nothing to do with New Year, but its supports the claim Tamil cultural influence in South and Southeast Asia during the Chola and Pallava periods.

Books:


Early Tamil Cultural Influences in South East Asia p.18 and Tamil Culture band 6 (1954) p.360.

The book "Tamil cultural influences in South East Asia" as the title says, deals with this topic. here is the link to book [1].


"An introduction to Tamil culture" by Kirusna Nanacuriyan (1984) p.83

I hope I could help.Vatasura (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What part of "Nirvanapeace.com and The Island are not academic sources" do you not understand?. Bringing them back up over and over after their unsuitability has been explained for you is disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I got you point Ian.thomson, but I've just posted an sources overview and response to Nyttend. Vatasura (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the subject of which footnote to retain and which to delete. It merits attention that there is zero disagreement on the main text. Vatasura introduced the material on February 3, 2017. I did not think that the additions had particular value [for one the article is on the Tamil New Year, not Tamil influence on South East Asia], but I did not revert Vatasura's input given the effort and thought that had gone into it.

I initially undid the anonymous IP number's vigorous reverts as I had mistakenly assumed that those were instances of a flippant and aggressive editing commonplace in this and other pages that I had helped write. But on subsequently reading his points, I realized that I had no strong views either way. I agree that the Times of India and the NirvanaPeace articles were shoddy. Further, footnote # 6 [G.H. Luce on Old Burma and A.B. Griswold on Thailand] that I introduced in 2010 or thereabouts may provide the strongest academic sources that underpin Vatasura's subsequent additions on February 3, 2017.

On the circular reasoning argument, let us be cautious as it could go either way i.e where a Wikipedia editor inadvertently uses material without attribution and another editor subsequently rejecting the same material appearing elsewhere as a plagiarism of Wikipedia.

I disagree with Vatasura on one point. Tamil history is increasingly well researched. There is a wealth of academic material on the subject. I would cite the 2009 publication ‘Nagapattinam to Suvarnadwipa: Reflections on the Chola Naval Expeditions to Southeast Asia’ by Hermann Kulke, K. Kesavapani et al.

Let's be civil in this discussion. Strong words and insinuations have been used by all. Moving ahead, let us all adhere to the Wikipedia civility policy – of being respectful.

A last point to the anonymous editor. He mentioned at one place that he had been active in Wikipedia for a while. If so, I would suggest a Wikipedia user account with a user name like the rest of us. With the constantly shifting and dynamic IP numbers, its hard to keep track of contributions. This has the unintended effect of being less than transparent. This is a suggestion on my part. Feel free to disregard.

I attempted to delete my initial complaint on the Administrative Notice Board. I should not have responded to the initial complaint of the anonymous editor. Anyway, subject closed on my side..

Shalom Dipendra2007 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dipendra2007: Thanks for finally understanding but I don't understand how you can say, "I had mistakenly assumed that those were instances of a flippant and aggressive editing" when I gave an edit summary for every edit I made on this page and posted two messages on your talk page. Sorry I'm not buying that story at all especially with what happened at the Admin noticeboard last week. As for your last point, I do not need to become a registered user as I am not breaking any rule for being an anonymous user. I have no problem being an anonymous user and making constructive edits. Honestly, the way you treated me last week at the Admin noticeboard gives me another reason why I should continue being an IP user. Not all IP users vandalize or make unconstructive edits. (120.144.162.89 (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC))

@ Editor 120.144.162.89 - I don't understand how you can say 'especially with what happened at the Admin noticeboard last week'. I read the Admin noticeboard. You did not treat Dipendra well. Instead of leaving messages for Dipendra, you should have alerted Vatasura who was the editor who made the changes. That was the correct thing to do. She has explained herself above. Tamizhanpu. Pararaja (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pararaja: Are you really going to go down that road? Can you show me examples of the way I negatively treated Dipendra? I do not ever recall personally attacking Dipendra. @Vatasura: never had a problem with my edit so why would I need to notify Vatasura? Dipendra was the one who had a problem with my edits so I spoke to them, is that not the right thing to do? Do you not recall the attack you made towards @Ian.thomson: on that same page? This discussion should have come to a conclusion when I pointed out the reason why those sources were not reliable. However, for some reason it now involves users that weren't even involved in the initial dispute. How can we have a fair discussion when there are people who will not look beyond their biases? (120.144.162.89 (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC))

@ Editor 120.144.162.89 - I stand by what I wrote in the Administrators Notice Board. Readers are welcome to read and judge for themselves. You say: 'However, for some reason it now involves users that weren't even involved in the initial dispute.' Of course - it was escalated! Tamizhanpu Pararaja (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Pararaja: It wouldn't have "escalated" if people followed the rules, would it? On another note, I still see no evidence for the grandiose claims you're making against me. Please look beyond your biases so we can actually discuss this properly because it doesn't look like you're willing to accept the error here. (110.148.156.129 (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC))

Thank you Dipendra 2007 and Nyttend for your constructive tone. Thank you Vatasura for your detailed explanation. Papiamento Momo (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dipendra2007:, If Tamil history is well researched. Can you recommend some other acedemic books, who mention the Tamil impact on the New Year festivals in South and Southeast Asia? It would be really helpful. Vatasura (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Vatasura,

Thank you for your interest and commitment. As I mentioned, there are several scholarly documents. Its important to clarify that South East Asia i.e. Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia and Laos, selectively adopted Hindu civilizational elements in the early classical period onwards on its own terms as part of a larger effort at state consolidation and commercial development. Indic culture came from different sources in the Indian subcontinent, the Tamil element being significant. There were trade links with several south Indian guilds present in South East Asia. Several academic references, many of which are now out of print, allude to this. Any history of Indonesia, Cambodia and Thailand will cover the process in considerable detail. I also refer you to the following publications.

i. G.H. Luce, Old Burma – Early Pagan, Locust Valley, New York. ii. A.B. Griswold, 'Towards a History of Sukhodaya Art, Bangkok 1967. iii. S.J. Tambiah, World Conqueror, World Renouncer, Cambridge University Press, 1977. iv. J.C. Eade, The Calendrical Systems of Mainland South East Asia, Brill Academic Publishers, 1995. v. C.S. Navaratnam: A short history of Hinduism in Ceylon. vi. Hermann Kulke, K. Kesavapani et al, Nagapattinam to Suvarnadwipa: Reflections on the Chola Naval Expeditions to Southeast Asia’, Institute of South East Asian Studies, 2009. vii. S.Singaravelu, Some Aspects of South Indian cultural contacts with Thailand. viii. Professor T.P Meenakshisundaram, Cayamil Tiruvempavai Tiruppavai. Madras, 1961. ix. X.S. Thaninayagam, Tamil Cultural Influences in South-east Asia, in Tamil Culture, IV, 3, (1955) x. R.C. Majumdar, Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East. Lahore, 1927. xi. L.P. Briggs, The Ancient Khmer Empire. Philadelphia. 1951. xii. Asad ul-Iqbal Latif, George Yeo on the Bonsai, Banyan and the Tao. Please also look at the International Association of Tamil Research compendium of scholarly papers presented at the 1966 International Conference on Tamil Studies held in Kuala Lumpur. There are many other monographs and studies, too numerous to mention. Thank you. Dipendra2007 (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

@Dipendra2007: Please do not remove sourced content and sources, such as your edits here here and here. That is disruption. Further do not reinsert sources that do not verify or are non-WP:RS. Please discuss any concerns you have, and do provide edit comments. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dipendra2007: In one of your many changes, you added the source as "Lines 160 to 162 of the Nedunalvaadai". Please see WP:Primary and do not add personal interpretation of a primary source. If you have a secondary WP:RS, please provide. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarah
The sources you refer to our Tamil classics - the Purananooru, Nedunalvaadai, Silapadikaram, Manimekalai, Tolkaapiyam etc that are dated to between the first and 8th centuries CE. Please do not remove this material that has been here since 2007. You can check the citations. Adiyarkunalaar is a medieval classicist. Professor Vaiyapuri Pillai is a well known early 20th century Tamil lexicographer. These are all published primary sources (except Vaiyapuri Pillai). If needed, we can elaborate in the footnotes. You have been disruptive in reverting long established information without recourse to the Talk Page.
Pechilis Raj, by contrast, is not a reliable source. What are his/her credentials? Who is she/he? Thank you. Dipendra2007 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS guidelines. You are removing a scholarly secondary source. Pechelis is a professor of Comparative Religion, and it is puzzling that you allege Pechelis to be "not a reliable source". The "our Tamil classics" is your OR on a WP:Primary source. If you find a secondary source, we can add it. Also, please stop removing "Hindu" word from the article, as it is supported by sources, and you must not introduce your opinion / prejudice / wisdom against or for a particular group. We must stick to summarizing the WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarah

I think this needs mediation. There are just as many writers who would say this is Tamil, not just Hindu. There are lots of reliable sources already there. Pechelis is not the same authority as Professor Vaiyapuri Pillai. Do a search on the primary sources provided. Do you want me to include the printed edition of the Tamil texts that I mention? I would be happy to do so given Oxford University Press having printed texts such as the Silappadikaram and other reputed publishers printing the remainder. IYou have been disruptive. I do not wish to fight with you but this is on a matter of principle. Dipendra2007 (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dipendra2007: Please do not repeatedly remove scholarly sources, that you just did 4th time in last 24 hours. You added "Lines 160 to 162 of the Nedunalvaadai", "Poem 229 of Puṟanāṉūṟu" etc as sources. These are WP:Primary and not valid sources, just your personal OR on alleged primary sources. Such disruption of this article is not constructive. If OUP has published a source, you should cite it. Currently all of your rapid pace edits are not helpful. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Welch has been belligerent and a cyber bully. She had on March 30 onwards proceeded to make extensive edits to the Tamil New Year page without knowing which is a primary source and which is unsourced. She claims that the Tamil literary sources that go back 2,000 years are not sourced. The original text, the specific verses and canto are all alluded to in the footnote. She also had arbitrarily removed citations such as Samuel Jeyanayagam Gunasegaram and Kirusna Nancuriyan and replaces that with Pachelis Raj. On the eve of the Tamil new year, I wonder what her agenda is. Is it to dismiss Tamil new year as only celebrated by Tamils who are of the Hindu religion and not others? Is it to deny Tamil cultural influence on South East Asia? Is it go by the rulebook not knowing anything about Tamil language, literature and culture? She is extremely aggressive and I wished she would resolve issues on the Talk Page without a destructive edit war. I would appeal to her to exercise restraint and resolve things on the talk page before editing. Papiamento Momo (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I was about to warn this editor for personal attacks, but a block for being a sockpuppet makes a warning unnecessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Papiamento Momo: First welcome to wikipedia, since you recently opened your account. The issue with @Dipendra2007 or your support for edit such as this is that you are merely alleging "Poem 229 of Puṟanāṉūṟu" etc is 2,000 years old, and that it somehow supports the content. A secondary or tertiary source needs to state this, and interpret the "Poem 229" or the "lines 160 to 162 of whatever primary text you allege is your source. You can not do original research, nor interpret a poem in a primary source, per wikipedia content guidelines. See WP:PSTS. Further, you can't remove scholarly secondary sources and content based on them, as you did with removing Pechelis - that is disruption. @Utcursch:, @Robert McClenon: would one of you provide WP:3O on the content guidelines and comment on cites such as "Lines 160 to 162 of the Nedunalvaadai", "Poem 229 of Puṟanāṉūṟu" etc then OR based on these? Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Ms Sarah Welch - It appears that there is no need for a third opinion because the other editor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned or indeffed user. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
(ps) Since I am asking for 3O, let me disclose here that I have already made AGF efforts to locate the source. I found Hart and Heifetz with a translation of Poem 229 of Puṟanāṉūṟu, a source published by Columbia Univ Press, and it does not support what is alleged by Dipendra2007 restored content. So now the burden to establish verifiability is on the one who adds/restores the content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sarah, if you'll stop edit conflicting me for just a moment, I was going to remove the attack by the sock, but since you've replied, I'll leave it. I'll block, though, because that's Dipendra2007. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC).

Massif Map

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Ms Sarah Welch:, I've seen that you added this map instead of the Chola Map.

 
Southeast Asian Massif (pink)

Can you explain to me, why you added this map, while there is a discussion for the Chola Map going on? What has your map common with Tamils and their puthandu? What makes your map more legitimate than the Chola map? You irritate me, stop aggressively editing and respect the works of others and stop simply replacing everything with your stuff.Vatasura (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vatasura: I am fine with not having either of the maps. Wikilink suffices. FWIW, the Massif map verifies in a journal published by London School of Economics and Political Science. The Chola Map is strange original research, and it misrepresents what Kulke and Rothermund state. Further, again FWIW, Buddhist and Hindu influences came to southeast Asia from India, many centuries before what the 11th-century Chola map is trying to show. Tamil merchants and scholars were just one of several Indian sources, though Tamil region indeed was a significant source. I have not come across any reliable source yet which states "Puthandu or Puthandu-like new year was celebrated in Indonesia before Islam made Buddhism and Hinduism extinct in Sumatra / Java / etc". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania: M to Z, Barbara A. West (2009), Facts On File p.81.

Your map not cover the Hindu Khmer empire or show the cultural spread by sea route, but you think it's ok and criticize the Chola map at all the way. Good, that you accept the removing of the Massif map. The Tamil soures were readded, the Chola map is no longer needed. Vatasura (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Map and southeast Asia influence again

Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

@Vatasura: The influence of Tamil culture in southeast Asia, as well as from other parts of India and other countries such as China, is indeed accepted by mainstream scholarship. But, we must ask how is that relevant to this article on Puthandu and new year? Do the sources present a similar map or give data that supports the map, etc? @Ian.thomson:, @Nyttend: you were involved in this discussion about a month ago, were you able to verify the map in any of the new sources. For example, I find no support for the map in Samuel Jeyanayagam Gunasegaram source, who makes fringe-y Indus Valley Civilization links etc. I share your WP:RS concerns above. But, if you are in consensus with @Vatasura, I will go with your call. FWIW, two of the editors who participated in the discussion with you are now blocked for sock-puppetry. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(1) Either you're talking gibberish, or I'm too ignorant of this subject to understand you. Much more likely the latter :-) Since this is a Tamil cultural topic, I don't understand why you'd question the idea that the influence of Tamil culture in southeast Asia is relevant to an article on Tamil culture in Asia. Could you explain more fully, for my sake at least? (2) Aside from what I raised in my first question, what's the problem with the map? The source is scholarly, coming from a major academic publisher. Through my library, I have access to the slightly older fourth edition (the linked source is the fifth edition), so I just now checked the pages that mention Rajendra I; no maps appear on those pages, and none of the maps listed in the contents appear to cover this time period, but pages 116 and 124 list places that Rajendra conquered, and if I were familiar with Indian geography (which I'm not), I'd be able to produce a map showing the areas in question. If the places listed in the source match the areas highlighted on the map, there's no source problem. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Sure, I will explain. As I wrote above, Tamil cultural influence on southeast Asia is accepted by the mainstream. But, it is one thing to state Tamil culture influenced southeast Asia, another to state or imply either of the following two without sources [1] Puthandu migrated as per this or that map; [2] the new year festivals in southeast Asian countries is exclusively Tamil influenced or modeled after Puthandu. On The History of India by Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, I don't see the word "Puthandu", nor the phrase "new year". Do you? How is Kulke and Rothermund directly relevant to the subject of "Puthandu"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
(ps) Please note that there was significant cultural exchange between South Asia and Southeast Asia through Manipur as well. But this is not directly relevant to this Puthandu article either. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: @Nyttend:, The map shows the Chola Empire and how far their influence reaches. It is normal that during this time cultural, religious exchange has taken place. What would represent this fact better than a map showing the sphere of influence? The sources support a Tamil and Harppan origin of the festival. The New Year festivals in India are mostly based one culture and not on religion, otherwise all Hindus would celebrate it on the same day. The map show that Chola influence cover most of the regions that nowadays celebrate their New Year festivals on the same day as Puthandu, Tamilakam (Tamil Nadu, Kerala), Sri Lanka, Kalinga (Odhisa), Pala (Bengal, Nepal, Assam), Burma, Thailand, Chambodia. Before the Cholas the Pallavas were active in Southeast Asia but there is no map of their sphere of influence for comparison. The Punjab which celebrates its New year on same day like tamils is located in former territory of Indus Valley Civilization. Probably Maharastra, Karnataka, Andhra, Telengana celeberate their New year on same day, because they were under Chalukya rule and not under Chola. I hope you now see more in this map than just a map of Chola Empire. Vatasura (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vatasura: Please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. You are drawing too many new conclusions such as "it is normal that during this time....". Such personal opinions / prejudices / wisdoms do not belong in this or other wikipedia articles. We need to summarize what the reliable source state / interpret / conclude, as closely as possible, to the best of our abilities. No WP:FORUM-y discussions on this talk page please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
You're giving a non sequitur here: a map from Kulke and Rothermund can be used regardless of whether they discuss Puthandu. In this revision, the map neither says nor implies what you say it does, and nothing is said nor implied about the other festivals being "exclusively Tamil influenced or modeled after Puthandu". I strongly suggest that you self-revert. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: I looked at the map again. Please note that most of the countries colored (Indonesia, etc) in this map as "the extent of the Chola empire" do not celebrate new year on or about the day Puthandu is celebrated. Further, the countries and regions that do celebrate the new year in mid April are not colored as "the extent of the Chola empire". I am not persuaded that this is a relevant map. If your intent is to clarify the presence or lack of Tamil culture influence on new year in these regions, we can add back the map and change the caption to, "The extent of the Chola empire (c. 1030 CE). Most of this map's colored regions in southeast Asia "do not" celebrate new year in mid April when Puthandu is celebrated." (caption will be sans-highlighting and quotes, of course), Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: Maldives, Indonesia, Malaysia are muslims countries, If they have not adopted the Islamic calendar, they whould like most Southeast countries celeberate one same day. The Roman Empire is also used to show the first spread of Christianity and no one asks why they use the Roman Empire, because some Roman region showed one the map of Roman Empire are Islam today and not christianity? There is no better picture than Chola map to show the relationship between Tamils and Southeast Asia.
What you mean by my personal opinion? Was it not normal that during this time cultural, religious exchange has taken place?
Are books like Early Tamil Cultural Influences in South East Asia not accepted as sources, who describe that during this time cultural, religious exchange has taken place?
Early Tamil Cultural Influences in South East Asia p.18 and Tamil Culture band 6 (1954) p.360.
What does "The New Year celebrated in many of these countries including Champa, Cambodia and Ceylon is the Tamil New Year 13th-14th April". mean?Vatasura (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vatasura: This "Champa..." etc is already in the article, for now. However, I made some inquiries and it seems Ceylon Printers may be a WP:SPS and therefore a non-reliable source for wikipedia purposes (I am waiting for a call back from another Sri Lankan origin scholar). If you can confirm that Gunasegaram source was peer reviewed, that would help make it more acceptable as a source. Once again, please avoid original research and WP:FORUM-y discussions such as "Was it not normal that during this time cultural, religious exchange has taken place?" Wikipedia talk pages are not a debating forum or a place to argue new conclusions / interpretations and then summarize or advocate causes/ideas/Tamil nationalism/etc. We can only summarize what is in one or more reliable published sources. As Ian.thomson explained to you few weeks ago, non-reliable sources such as "nirvanapeace.com" etc are not acceptable. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch, Well at last you recognized the Tamil sources, by adding:


But, what does this part have to do with Tamil culture or Puthandu?


It should be in a new article called "New Years in Southeast Asia" or so.Vatasura (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vatasura: It was there many edits ago, per AGF! you just were not reading the article carefully. But unless you provide evidence that Gunasegaram isn't WP:SPS, and is WP:RS such as by providing evidence of a scholarly peer review of that book, I am going to take it out. The new year festivals celebrated on or about the same day as Puthandu, in Sri Lanka, other parts of South Asia and Southeast Asia are relevant. It is appropriate to discuss the similarities and differences using reliable sources such as Michaud. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: Samuel Jeyanayagam Gunasegaram was graduated as an external student of the University of London with Second Class Honours in Philosophy, and finally obtained the Master’s degree specialising in History of Philosophy and Sociology. Professor J.L.C. Rodrigo has stated that he was “one of the first of our pupils to specialise in Sociology”.
From a Biographical Introduction by James T. Rutnam, Evelyn Rutnam instiute, 1985[5]
The same statement by Samuel Jeyanayagam Gunasegaram which was published by Ceylon Printers:
was also published by Academy of Tamil Culture in 1957 under Tamil Culture, Band 6.[6]Vatasura (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tamil cultural influences in South East Asia (1957) by Samuel Jeyanayagam Gunasegaram, Ceylon Printers p.18
  2. ^ Tamil Culture, Band 6 (1957), Academy of Tamil Culture p.79
  3. ^ An introduction to Tamil culture, Kirusna Nanacuriyan (1984), Institute for International Tamil Renaissance p.81
  4. ^ a b c Jean Michaud; Margaret Byrne Swain; Meenaxi Barkataki-Ruscheweyh (2016). Historical Dictionary of the Peoples of the Southeast Asian Massif. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 284. ISBN 978-1-4422-7279-8.
  5. ^ Biography of Jeyanayagam Gunasegaram."Selected Writings" (PDF). noolaham.net.
  6. ^ Tamil Culture, Band 6 (1957), Academy of Tamil Culture p.79

@Vatasura: College resumes or reference letters that state "one of the first of our pupils to specialise in Sociology” is not the way to establish whether a self published book (or a blog-like source) is reliable. Please see WP:RS guidelines. We need evidence of peer review of the book, or another acceptable criteria as is described in the guidelines. The two sources are not independent, one is exact copy of the other, each is by the same Gunasegaram. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: The creator is a factor for reliable source, thats part of his biography, should help to identify him as a academics in this field. The publisher is a factor for reliable source, The Tamil Culture Band series were published by Xavier Thaninayagam, Academy of Tamil Culture. Xavier Thaninayagam another well-known Sri Lankan scholar acknowledge the statement by Gunasegaram by publishing it.
The book Tamil cultural influences in South East Asia by Gunasegaram was mentioned in bliblography of books like Naturalistic Tradition in Indian Thought by Dale Maurice Riepe or Imagining a Place for Buddhism: Literary Culture and Religious Community in Tamil-speaking South India by Anne Elizabeth Monius.Vatasura (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing sourced content

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Tharun 0203: welcome to wikipedia. Please do not repeatedly remove text that is cited and supported in reliable sources, such as pages 632-633 of Melton and others. Please review wikipedia's content guidelines. If you have concerns, please discuss it here. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puthandu/Archive_1&oldid=847832044"