Talk:Sri Lankan Vellalar

Origin

This page is for discussion on the - origin of Vellalars of Jaffna (we can discuss in detail various family history). - Special Features (religion, practices, family etc,) - We will have to study that on the basis of written history of Jaffna and not on the basis of intepretation. - We can also discuss the migration of other families into Jaffna later (Saiva Vellalas and Chetties). - It is know that Jaffna Tamils had close links to Chidambaram and SaivA Adheenams in Tamil Nadu until recently.

Well we need to create and edit on the basis of five pillars of wikipedia, including using WP:RS sources. I have updated this article from an OR status to an article based on RS souces written in a neutral tone22:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.134.115.100 (talk)

The fact is Vellalars are the Chiefs since inception of Jaffna Kingdom. No doubts on that. Portugese/Dutch are not responsible for the rise of the Vellalars.. Almost all the Families with links to the Arya Chakravarthis have Vellala Links. Check out the Family Trees of the Vellalar Chiefs.

Your version is ridiculous. Tobacco or Portugese Laws did not give rise to wealth for Vellalars. Kailaya Malai explains their wealth and power before migrating. Besides there is no need to delete the names of the Vellala Chiefs in here. Real Vellalar families have links to their founding lineages.

You seem to have a agenda here. I wont disturb you but read Prof. S. Pathamanathan's work on History of Jaffna or similar works. What I have written needed a clear-up but wasnt OR .. IT was based on works by recognised scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weldingveerasamy (talk • contribs) 14:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well besides the personal attacks against WP:NPA you seem not to know the policies of wikipedia. The most important policy is WP:OR, no original research. If you have any WP:RS books that agree with your point of view, please add it to the article not your words. There is one para in post 1983 society that is not fully supported by sources. I will leave it there for 2 weeks. Please find sources to back up those claims.. Also there is no agreement Arya Chakaravarthi dynasty is Vellalar in origin. What little agreement we have is that they are Tamil Brahmins from Madurai. There are even evidence in Tamil Nadu about this family. Also watch your language and refrain from using words such as ridiculous. Thanks Taprobanus 13:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the most important parts and removed the irrelevant parts .. Origin of the Vellala Chiefs .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weldingveerasamy (talk • contribs) 13:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What you have added is Primary source, it has to be attributed not directly quoted. Can we rely on Mahavamsa to write in the Sinhala people page that they are actually half lion-half human race ? No we cant. That is the problem with Primary Resources. That is why in Wikipedia WP:RS we avoid Primary resources or we attribute it to it when doing so. Nothing Yalpana Vaipava Malai says about so called Vellalar origin of Kings and elites can be taken for face value without correponsing secondary sources that agree with it or disagree with it. You really have to find those sources. Also I dont agree with your deletion of properly cited material (2 cites) about Vellalar rise during the Dutch period. Please add it back. Thanks Taprobanus 22:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Let at least the names of all chiefs, their background and place of settlement be there. I will edit that portion in due course with due citation. Without the names, background and place of settlement this page is not about Vellalars. The Base of Vellalar history in Jaffna is about the Chiefs and their settlements, we cannot ignore that. The rest of the stuff is about people who "became vellalars".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weldingveerasamy (talk • contribs) 06:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 

I am not sure about the other cast people who later became Vellalar story is correct. We in Jaffna check four to five generations of someone’s ancestry and back ground to know their cast. The origins of someone’s place of birth can identify the cast too. In Jaffna for example, if you are from chunnakam you are most likely to be Kovier. It is as simple as that. There are still ways to identify people. Jaffna Tamils do not mix with Tamils from the east of Sri Lanka or hills because they are mainly lower cast. It is very hard to hide someone’s true identity and claim the vellalar identity, especially during marriage proposals this is subject is very deeply looked at for many generations before forming alliance. One more thing, in Jaffna or let’s say in Mannipai Iyers or Brahmins do not get respect from the prominent Vellalar, we call and treat them as poosary’s. If you are leaving for an important business and in an auspicious time crossing an Iyer is a sign of bad luck. It is also true to say there are a few inter marriages with other cast specially after the 1995 mass displacement but this is very minimal. People do not accept other cast members into the families even if they were married to their sons and daughters they are always out casts. In this occasion I would like to point out which other cast today does not have any inter marriage with another cast? There is always some, one-way or the other even in the so called Brahmins.

My grand mother will not serve water to a pallan in an empty soda bottle (which normally goes in a bin) instead, she would poor it into a coconut shell and offers it to drink. This practice is not acceptable and very discriminatory I am not proud of it to say we discriminate fellow human because of his/her birth but this is how the cast system is still in Jaffna and it is an example to show how prominent the Vellalar are still in Sri Lanka.

I also believe the Chera, Chola and Pandiya’s are a fusion of Vellalar. As you can see they do not have another identity or a Kshatriya Varna directly associated to them. I also believe the late domination of Brahmins in the south India especially in Tamil Nadu in the 17, 18 and 19th century tried to undermine the Vellalar history to claim the dominent position among the other casts. If you take northern India there are still lots of Kshatriya casts left but where are the Kshatriya families of the Tamil Nadu the old Tamil kingdom? Well some of them migrated to Sri Lanka and settled in the north of Sri Lanka and others still remain in Tamil Nadu but lost their prominence because I believe systematically Brahmins erased their identity through modification of literature. It is also worth to point out unlike Sri Lankan Tamil vellalar the Indians did not have the easy access to high class western education. This also made them lag behind the Brahmins in the 18th and 19th century. It is also worth noting Dravidians are the origins of India and they were powerful and Brahmins could not get upper hand here until recent part of history. The rest is history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weybridgeguyat (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Varna and Jati are 2 different concepts. South and East Indians did not have the concept of Varna, except the Brahmins most of whom migrated from North, the rest are just groups of people divided along linguistic, ethnic and jati lines. This is what most mainstraem history books will tell. The Kings and the street sweeper are all the same. Even the Cola king Karikalan was chosen by the people a story says. Anyway even Arumuga Navalar did not try to give Vellalar kashtraiya status in his days. Taprobanus (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Taprobanus,you remove very easily statements concerning Vellalars but for karaiyar no pb... They claim to be (ancient) warriors (...) without any citation, but for you, it seems there is no pb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajkris (talk • contribs) 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding of

Several users are adding unsourced content. The article had previously content without sources or with unreliable sourced that were removed. It should be discussed here before any further edits.Xenani (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

To Xenani,

There were so many sources provided before you removed them. Who are you to tell what should be added and what should not? You are not even a Vellalar. If it's a fact pertaining to the Vellalar, it can be added, there is no limit. In fact the article was neutral and unbiased until you removed so many sections and added others (which I respected). What happened to the rise of dominance section? Where is the part on the Malaysian and Singaporean Jaffna Vellalars, who comprise the majority of educated, elite Tamils in these countries even today? Why is there no source left from the Yalpana Vaipava Malai? I will not allow you to remove what you like and add things to your own picking and liking. What I did is added the old info (which you removed) to the 'new' info that you added. I respected your edits. But you go and remove all of them? And your English is horrific. Your GRAMMAR is wrong in so many sentences. I EVEN CORRECTED THAT FOR YOU. Know who you are THOROUGHLY before doing these things. Learn proper grammar OK? Thankfully while researching to edit I also came across many other facts and info pertaining to the Vellalar so I added more info while re-adding the old info yet still keeping the stuff which you added.

From, Damien. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damien1994 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Damien1994. The article was previously pretty much biased and didn't have any sources to the content, thats the reason I removed it. This an example(from 30 march 2017, before I edited):

"According to Yalpana Vaipava Malai, a native chronicle, written in the 18th century, which narrates the history of the establishment and the fall of the Jaffna kingdom in Sri Lanka, from its rise in the 13th century to its fall in the early 17th century, many Vellalar chiefs from Tamil Nadu were responsible for organizing settlement groups from India into the Jaffna peninsula.[citation needed] Most of these pioneering families had titles associated with clan chiefs such as "Rayan", Thevan", "Mudali", "Mappanan" and "Malavan".[citation needed]"

You see that this didn't have any sources and I didn't neither find anyone so i removed it. When something stays for too long without any citation, then it has to be removed. Also you don't need to go on personal attacks on Wikipedia, try to avoid it, and also avoid being to casteist, nationalist etc. on Wikipedia articles when editing. The article looks pretty biased currently and all content you added have no sources. Add reliable sources to it or please remove the content. Xenani (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It is up to Vellalars what they want to add, as long as it is not too much exaggeration. You are not a Vellalar and have no right to tell what to put and not put. You must be a jealous Koviar. I will not allow you to edit as you like. Everybody is proud of their caste and origins and you have no say in this. In India pages all castes are so proud of their castes and love exaggerating, why don't you go and tell them what to do. We can be how nationalistic or proud of our castes as we want, as long as we state the facts and not hurt sentiments of other castes. I see you having special interest in Vellalar history, but you are not Vellalar, so you have no say in this. Only Vellalars know our history and society better. Damien1994 (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Damien1994, I request you to not edit on this page. You have a superiority complex which is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and your edits are also without any sources at all. Read WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Xenani (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Xenani, I will edit as much as I want and will start adding the sources soon. You sound like a jealous lower caste with inferiority complex, which is understandable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damien1994 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Article is a mess, countless edits and bias from both sides

Damien1994, Xenani - I suggest you find an admin to resolve this issue, or resolve it mutually using both of your sourced information which you both have.

Its been going on for over a year by the looks of it. You both contributed researched and referenced work on the article, but both choose to delete thousands of words of each other's work like a ping pong battle.

You need to look at the references and citations which you have both given to come together to bring useful information, instead of making "good faith" mass deletions and reversions.

Both of you have contributed useful and cited information and its not really a battle, so would be good if you incorporated material from both your work in an unbiased and logical format, also leading to many grammatical mistakes.

Corrected some of the poor grammar on here, removed speculative statements e.g. about concubines about whose origin is not known, but is known to have Brahmin ancestry by SM Raghavan in the Jaffna Kingdom.

The community I have found to be around 50% in the northern Jaffna peninsula before the war, not throughout the whole population of Sri Lanka, where even in Jaffna, their population has declined due to mass emigration, which constitued a majority of Vellalars.

Please review information of Christian missionaries, and early origins in your ping pong battles, some really useful information if presented logically and without bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You removed a lot of sourced information without any consensus on the talkpage (See WP:TALKDONTREVERT). As far Damien1994 is concerned, he has been blocked for violating WP:NPOV, for "ping pong" editing, and addition of unpleasent comments and personal analysis. Besides, he provided no references as you stated. FYI, the situation has already been handled by an admin ([1], [2]). You might be right on the concubine part (which I will try research). Otherwhise, the other content that was removed is backed up by several other reliable sources (eg. population, mudaliyar, udaiyar). Xenani (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Terrible grammar from last mass content provider and Subdivisions listed on the title card

Not sure, but the divisions are described in the article as being historic terms to describe people who assimilated and not in current usage, unlike the previous lists of some like Pillai, Mudaliyar etc.

Would appreciate if someone more informed on this than me, can take a look at this

Corrected grammar, the person who last mass provided the information made many grammatical mistake, would be good if we kept an eye on new content for this reason

AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Misleading narrative

This article has heavily biased edits from a certain group of editors who took content out of the context and added misleading edits to the article. The section "Mythological origin" is not even related to this article. It belongs to Sri Lankan Pallar.

From the submitted source (The Sri Lankan Tamils Ethnicity and Identity, EDITED BY Chelvadurai Manogaran and Bryan Pf affenberge)

"From the Vellalar point of view, the stigma of Nalavar and Pallar rank, coupled with the history of these castes as recent immigrants from south India, denies that they have any real claim to membership in the Tamil community. In the early 1970s, some Vellalars expressly denied that Nalavars and Pallars were Tamils; and in tum, members of these two castes in the early 1970's still sometimes referred to Vellalars as "Tamils," thus driving home the social and cultural gulf that divided them from Vellalars. The Nalavars' and Pallars' recent historical origins in Dutch-sponsored immigrations from south India, and their putatively darl<er skin, also seive to deepen the Vellalar sense that the Minority Tamils are a people apart from the mainstream Tamil community. It should be noted that Minority Tamils do not always accept the view that they are non-Tamilians. The Pallars of Jaffna expressly conceive themselves to be descended from one of two Vellalar brothers; after the older brother's death, the widow--a "bad woman," according to the tale-made the younger one into a landless slave.25 In contrast to other low-ranking castes, which are (on the whole) remarl<ably quiescent, the Nalavars and Pallars have not hesitated to speak their minds about the injustice of their status."

What is added to the Mythological origin:

"According to myth, the Vellalar and Pallar are descendants of two farmer brothers. The property of the younger brother Pallan was destroyed by a storm. The older brother Vellalan gave Pallan shelter. After the death of Vellalan, his wife became the owner of the property and forced Pallan and his family to become agricultural laborers for her"

Some editors cherrypicking the content to mislead the article's narrative. They combine different sources and take contents out of the context to imply their desired narrative. For example @luigi boy This user has been adding misleading edits to the article. That edit is obvious WP:SYNTH.

Editors should compare what sources say vs what is written in the article. Also, because I'm editing from an IP, this user considers me I'm a newbie and I shouldn't remove his edits as he edits on a dedicated account and feels superior. I simply asked him not to add misleading edits to the article. He's now redherring and started his accusations that I threatened him on his revert's summary. 2409:40F4:200D:7C2B:BCDF:CF94:7E25:E27 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

ping @User:Ekdalian If you're free, please fix this article. This article has many misleading edits. As sitush is busy, I request for your help. 2409:40F4:200D:7C2B:BCDF:CF94:7E25:E27 (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there’s some overreaction here regarding my edits. To clarify again: I did not add any mythological content to the article, as you claim. My [3] edit and another [4] edit were simply reversions, restoring information from previous versions ([5] link 1 and [6] link 2). Additionally, I added a clarification for the term "Vellalar," as the edit history ([7] 2nd last) clearly shows.

If there’s a concern about the wording or phrasing, I’m open to discussing how we can rephrase the sentence if necessary, to ensure it better reflects neutrality and accuracy. It’s important we focus on improving the article with reliable sources and without making accusations.

Thank you, and I hope we can work together to resolve this matter constructively. Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 08:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

As an additional step, I reviewed the source that you referred to in this [8] edit.

Here’s the relevant reference from the source:

4. The Velirs The third important division of chieftains were well known as Velir. Many of them were popular feudal lords of ancient Tamilakam. In Tolkappiyam, it is clearly stated that Vellalas shall have no other duty except the "duty of tilling the soil and earning the food thereby." They will have the right of carrying weapons and wearing garlands when they were employed by the kings in the affairs of the state. [9]

I’m not entirely sure how relevant this passage is to the Vellalars (வெள்ளாளர் Veḷḷāḷar ≠ வேளாளர் Vēḷāḷar) specifically. It seems to be discussing the Velirs and Vellalars (வேளாளர் Vēḷāḷar) in general, and any direct connection to the Vellalars (Veḷḷāḷar) may be misplaced. In this case, the accusations the user is making could be equally applied to their own interpretation of the source. Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 10:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are some facts from Sangam literature you need to understand before editing these caste articles.

Tolkappiyam doesn't have any term called "Vellalar" but it has "Velanmanthar" (agricultural people). It is a generally known fact among editors who edit Tamil caste articles. Hence, there should be no edits about tolkapiyam included here as it is irrelevant.

Primary Source: Tolkappiyam original work from any public domains

Secondary sources:

1. Heritage of the Tamils Education and Vocation (1986, P.no 266). It implies farmers known as velanmantar in the sangam era.

2. Donors, Devotees, and Daughters of God: Temple Women in Medieval Tamilnadu By Leslie C. Orr (2000, page no: 209 - 210). Susan Bayley concludes that the term "Vellalar" was the source of prestige and any number of groups sought to claim themselves. Further, page no.210 explains Vellalar doesn't mean velan mantar.

3. Dev Nathan (1997). From Tribe to Caste. Indian Institute of Advanced Study. p. 233. It also explains that tolkappiyam doesn't have the term "Vellalar" but "Velan mandar". It explains another sangam literature, "Paripatal", which used the "Vellalar" term for "landowners". It was the first ever mention of a vellalar term in history.

In your revert You didn't even check the sources. It has a "From tribe to caste" reference. The reference error confused you as it wasn't properly added. I mentioned "WP:RS from the main article" editing summary. You could have visited the article for confirmation. But you didn't and chose to play blame games.

I hope you finally get clarification. The provided sources are WP:RS compatible ones.

Coming to your edits:

Main article Vellalar is reviewed and edited by prominent editors like sitush. The sources your brought here are disputed ones to imply your narrative. I have imported reliable edits from main article Vellalar. But you reverted it because it doesn't suit your pov. [2]. From my side, the tolkappiyam point is unnecessary in both article as it is irrelevant to the article as it doesn't mention about Vellalar.

Coming to "Mythological orgin":

The policy WP:NPOV never advocates for misleading edits. (read) The current version of mythological origin implies that pallars descended from vellalars. The book clearly mentions it POV of Pallars. It belongs to the Sri lankan pallar article. Also it shouldn't be called "Mythological origin". That is their theory. You brought that here and claimed it as a source for Vellalar's mythical origin. It doesn't even make sense and is called WP:SEALION. The term vellalar exists in Sangam literature, but you can't show the term "pallar" in Sangam literature. The origin of vellalar is uncertain. This is called NPOV.

I hope you remove the misleading edits. If your ego hurts because I said all this from an IP, I'm extremely sorry for that. I do have an account. I have been editing Wikipedia for more than a decade. I don't use my account much these days as I'm semi-retired. Thanks for understanding. 2409:40F4:205F:F5BE:C114:B319:EBE9:CF3D (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response and for providing additional sources. I’d like to address the points you raised while adding important clarifications regarding terminology, the sources, and historical developments.

1. Tolkappiyam and "Vellalar" vs. "Velanmanthar": You mentioned that Tolkappiyam does not include the term "Vellalar" and instead refers to "Velanmanthar" for agricultural people. While this may be the case, other reliable sources, such as Ahananuru in Its Historical Setting (University of Madras, 1974), indicate that Vellalar (வேளாளர், Vēḷāḷar) is listed among the four classes: Arasar, Andanar, Vanigar, and Vellalar​

Wikipedia . Therefore, Tolkappiyam does contain a reference to Vellalars, which is important for the article's context. This doesn’t negate the use of "Velanmanthar" but shows that both terms have historical relevance.

1. Terminology Differentiation (Veḷḷāḷar ≠ Vēḷāḷar): The differentiation between வெள்ளாளர் (Veḷḷāḷar) and வேளாளர் (Vēḷāḷar) is crucial because the two terms are often confused. Veḷḷāḷar refers more specifically to landowners, while Vēḷāḷar refers to agriculturists, often with broader connotations. This distinction is important because, over time, especially in Tamil Nadu, the Vellalars gradually phased out their specific name and began using the more generic one, thus blurring its original meaning. Given this evolution, it’s critical that we maintain clarity between these terms in the article to avoid confusion and ensure the historical context is properly represented.
2. Paripatal and Vellalar as Landowners (from From Tribe to Caste): I have reviewed the source you provided, From Tribe to Caste by Dev Nathan, and found that it confirms the presence of the term Vellalar in the Sangam anthology Paripadal. The source notes that Vellalar occurs in Paripadal, where the term refers to landowners and those controlling agricultural surplus. However, the source does not directly refute the mention of Vellalar in Tolkappiyam. Instead, it simply emphasizes that Paripadal mentions Vellalars in a landowning context​ Compass by Rau's IAS . This means that both texts—Tolkappiyam and Paripadal—can contribute to our understanding of Vellalars, without one necessarily negating the other.
3. Mythological Origin: Regarding the "Mythological origin" section, I understand your concern about potential misinterpretation. The current phrasing does not claim that Pallars descended directly from Vellalars. Rather, it reflects a myth where the two groups are said to have descended from two brothers, which led to differing social statuses. To avoid confusion, we may reword this section to clearly attribute this belief to specific communities or sources, ensuring it doesn’t come across as a universally accepted fact.
4. Sources and WP (Cross-checking the provided source): I recognize the confusion caused by the reference error during the revert and appreciate your patience. After reviewing From Tribe to Caste, it is clear that the source focuses on Paripadal and other Sangam literature, confirming that Vellalar refers to landowners in that context. However, it doesn’t challenge the mention of Vellalar in Tolkappiyam. Therefore, both references remain relevant and should be considered when discussing the historical role of Vellalars in Tamil society. I will ensure that sources are checked more thoroughly moving forward, and I’m open to further discussions to verify WP standards for the article.

Lastly, I want to reiterate that my goal is to ensure the accuracy and neutrality of the article. I respect all contributions, whether they come from an IP or a logged-in account, and I appreciate your insights. Let’s work together to ensure the article reflects a well-sourced, neutral perspective that includes the nuances of both terms and the contexts in which they are used.

Thank you again for your input, and I look forward to working collaboratively to improve the quality of this article. Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 16:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, that is me. I'll ask an admin to assign the ip address to my account.

Anyways, I would advise you to read WP:RS and WP:OR. You have given enough explanations and advices.

Orr's source (read) clearly points it doesn't have the term "Vellalar" in Tolkappiyam. The sources you provided aren't fresh for your claims. Caste articles' editors follow certain thumb rules. We have been editing caste articles for a long time. I want you to upgrade instead of doing the same thing in different contexts. Kautilyapundit (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message and for pointing out the source by Leslie Orr. After reviewing your reference and comparing it to other sources, like Ahananuru in Its Historical Setting, I think there’s a fundamental disagreement between the sources that needs clarification.

Orr’s Source

Orr’s source actually disputes that the term "Vellalar" appears in Tolkappiyam. It asserts that Tolkappiyam uses the term Velanmanthar to describe agriculturists and does not mention Vellalar explicitly. According to this interpretation, the term "Vellalar" may have appeared in other texts, but not in Tolkappiyam.

Ahananuru in Its Historical Setting

On the other hand, Ahananuru in Its Historical Setting claims that Tolkappiyam does, in fact, mention Vellalar as part of the four-class societal structure, alongside Arasar, Andanar, and Vanigar. This suggests that the term Vellalar was recognized within this early text, but potentially in a different societal context rather than specifically referring to agriculture.

Discrepancy

This presents a direct contradiction between the two sources. Orr’s source seems to be focusing on the agricultural aspect (where "Velanmanthar" is used), while Ahananuru in Its Historical Setting seems to emphasize the broader class structure where "Vellalar" is mentioned. Given this, it’s essential to reflect both interpretations in the article and clearly distinguish between them to avoid confusion.

Regarding WP

I want to clarify that my edits don’t fall under WP:OR as the information I provided comes from a reliable secondary source—Ahananuru in Its Historical Setting. My intention is to present multiple scholarly perspectives, not to draw my own conclusions beyond what the sources state.

Regarding WP

As for WP:RS, I agree that all sources must be verified for reliability and independence. Since Ahananuru in Its Historical Setting is published by the University of Madras, it typically meets academic standards. However, if there’s concern about the reliability of this source, I’m open to having an independent review to confirm that it meets Wikipedia’s guidelines for reliable sourcing.

Thanks again for raising this issue, and I hope this explanation helps clarify the situation! Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 09:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Tolkappiyam doesn't have the term "Vellalar". It is supported by secondary sources too. All other sources are fringe theories (like Velanmantar might be Vellalars). They fall under WP:OR and WP:FRINGE.

Not all sources are credible. It has to meet WP:RS qualities. Kautilyapundit (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kautilyapundit, thanks again for the clarification. I understand that you believe Tolkappiyam does not mention the term Vellalar, and this is supported by secondary sources like Orr. I also agree that WP guidelines are important to follow. However, I’d like to address a few points.

Mythological Origin Section

While I understand your concerns (the revert that you made [10]) regarding the Tolkappiyam, the Mythological Origin section refers to a different context entirely. This section is based on sources like Contributions to Indian Sociology that discuss Tamil oral histories and beliefs, not the Tolkappiyam. Removing the section because of the Tolkappiyam debate is not directly relevant here, as the mythological origins are a separate matter entirely.

Changing the Status Quo

You are the one disputing the current content and attempting to remove it, which changes the status quo. I respectfully disagree that content can be removed before reaching a proper consensus. There should be a broader discussion about whether this section is relevant or redundant. Until we reach that consensus, removing established content might not be the best approach.

Parent Article Issue

Regarding the parent article, while there may be overlap, the content in question here might provide additional details or context that aren't covered in the broader article. Just because the main article mentions a similar group doesn’t mean the content here should be automatically removed, especially without a deeper review.

Need for Consensus

I believe it would be helpful to seek a broader consensus on this issue before making any final changes. Involving other editors in this discussion could ensure that we maintain the integrity of the article while addressing any concerns about redundancy or accuracy.

Thanks again for your contributions, and I look forward to working together to resolve this in a fair and collaborative way. Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 09:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are some things I want to convey

1. When we edit sub-caste articles we don't need to add a specific "Origin" section to articles. We can refer to the parent article.

2. Removing outdated/contradicting/redundant information is followed by all prominent editors.

3. I don't believe in myself when I edit. I only believe in WP:RS.

4. We have to accept the facts and move on instead of bringing the same topic into a different context.

5. The sources you brought here are outdated and contradicting with modern credible sources and original work.

I know you believe your point is right. Actually, everyone. You have been here for a long time. I respect you for that. But at the same, you have to upgrade. We believe in fresh peer-reviewed trustworthy sources. The parent article has been edited by all prominent editors. We have to follow the rules they follow. As a person, I request you let me cease this conversation further. You have given enough sources and explanations. But you're repeating the same thing in different contexts. If other editors see our conversation, they will understand that you are entitled to your views only. It leads you to WP:SEALION. I don't want that. As a fellow editor I want to be friends with you without any harmful conflicts. Kautilyapundit (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Kautilyapundit, thanks for your detailed response. I want to start by saying that I don’t have any issue changing my opinion when presented with valid points. After reviewing the sources and the discussion, I can understand and accept the argument that Tolkappiyam does not explicitly mention the term Vellalar. However, I have a few points I’d like to clarify in response to your message:

Point 1: Regarding Sub-Caste Articles and Parent Article References

I understand your suggestion that we don’t always need a specific "Origin" section for sub-caste articles and can refer to the parent article. However, I don’t believe this is a strict rule that we must always follow. In fact, in this case, the Mythological Origin section seems relevant to the Sri Lankan Vellalars, and referring only to the parent article on Vellalars in India doesn’t capture this specific context. The mythological origin story doesn't seem to apply to Indian Vellalars, which further justifies keeping this section in the Sri Lankan Vellalar article. Simply referring to the parent article may overlook important distinctions.

Point 2: Edit History and Removal of Information

Looking at the edit history, there are concerns about consistency. You mentioned removing the "Pallars as slave caste" claim or someone else, I'm not sure (see [11]), which seems to show selective edits. This might indicate a bias, or at least an agenda that needs closer scrutiny. I'm not suggesting anyone is acting in bad faith, but the reasons provided for removing content seem inconsistent, and this requires further discussion and consensus.

Point 3: IP Addresses and Hidden Agendas

You’ve raised some valid points about editing behavior, and I’ve noticed inconsistencies in the reasoning behind the edits as well. I’m not sure whether the IP addresses involved are connected to the same user or someone else, but the changes and the reasoning provided don’t seem consistent. This might require closer review to ensure neutrality.

Point 4: Dispute Resolution

I appreciate your friendly tone and the willingness to engage in conversation, but I also want to note that the dispute resolution process ([12]) was initiated on your side. While I’m open to resolving this collaboratively, I think it’s important to acknowledge that this step was taken by you, not me.

I’m happy to continue this discussion openly, and I believe the best path forward is to seek consensus with other editors. I’m confident that we can resolve these issues through a broader review and by ensuring that all relevant perspectives are taken into account. Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 11:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You have to follow WP:RS. This is a strict rule. There's nothing called "mythological origin of Sri Lankan Vellalars" in any WP:RS books. Further, those dynamic ip addresses used in this discussion are mine. That is a dynamic ip provided by a mobile network. I don't know about the rest. I don't do offensive edits. Many WP:RS sources say Sri Lankan pallars were agricultural laborers and slaves. I can add them to the article, but I won't do it. I find it offensive. If you make personal attacks on me without any evidence, that is called redherring and implies that you're not here to build Wikipedia. In this thread, you've got answers for everything. Kautilyapundit (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kautilyapundit, thanks again for your reply. I want to clarify a few points and also express my willingness to resolve this collaboratively.

Point 1: Sub-Caste Articles and Origin Sections

I understand that you prefer referring to the parent article when it comes to sub-caste articles, and I respect that viewpoint. However, this is not a strict rule that must be followed in every case. In the case of Sri Lankan Vellalars, the Mythological Origin section is relevant to the specific context of that group and doesn’t seem to apply to Indian Vellalars. This nuance justifies keeping the section in the Sri Lankan Vellalar article, and simply referring to the parent article might lead to the omission of important cultural distinctions specific to Sri Lankan Vellalars.

Point 2: Personal Attacks

I want to emphasize that I never intended to make personal attacks, and I explicitly stated that I don’t know who made certain edits, as you can see in my previous comments. I simply pointed out the inconsistencies I noticed in the edit history, which should be addressed for neutrality. If there was a misunderstanding, I apologize, but I did not intend to target or accuse you personally. Additionally, you were the one who initially drew conclusions that I might have been implying something negative (as shown in your earlier comment about feeling attacked, for example that I consider you inferior, as you're using an IP address talk page).

Collaboration

I fully understand the importance of WP, and I’m committed to following reliable sources to maintain Wikipedia’s integrity. My intention is not to push any narrative but to collaborate and ensure that we represent all perspectives accurately. While I understand your concerns about sources, I think it’s essential to reach consensus with other editors before making major changes, especially when there are conflicting interpretations.

Seeking a Third Opinion

At this point, I believe it would be helpful to seek a third opinion to resolve the matter objectively. As far as I'm concerned, I’m open to moving forward with the Tolkappiyam part, and I accept the arguments presented there. We don't even need to investigate it further.

However, regarding the mythology section, I don’t see a clear reason for its removal. The main article on Vellalars does not reference this mythological origin, which seems specific to Sri Lankan Vellalars. The fact that the earlier group (Indian Vellalars) doesn’t share this origin doesn’t automatically invalidate the section. This is the reason why we have a separate article for sub-castes, as there are nuances specific to the Sri Lankan group that differ from Indian Vellalars. The edit history (e.g., regarding Pallars as laborers or slaves) reflects these nuances.

Final Thoughts

I appreciate your friendly tone and willingness to engage in conversation, but I also think it’s important to acknowledge that the dispute resolution process was initiated on your side. While I’m open to resolving this collaboratively, I believe involving a neutral third party (WP:3O) will help ensure that we handle this fairly and objectively.

Thanks again for your input, and I’m happy to continue working together to improve the article with a broader review. Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 12:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You can seek WP:3O if you want. But they won't allow misleading edits/POV edits. Kautilyapundit (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I will seek WP:3O to gain a neutral perspective on the matter. I understand your concerns about potential POV edits, but I believe that’s exactly why we should get an external opinion. The goal here is to ensure that all relevant perspectives are included fairly and accurately in accordance with WP.

As mentioned, I don’t believe that my edits fall under misleading or POV content, but an independent third opinion can help clarify this for both of us. I’m happy to engage in the process and ensure the article reflects a balanced view.

Looking forward to the outcome! Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 12:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion

AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below. Editors are reminded that large language models such as ChatGPT should not be used in talk page discussions.

Viewpoint by (Luigi_Boy (talk · contribs))

There are two points I objected to regarding the removals: First, the difference between the terminologies Veḷḷāḷar (வெள்ளாளர்) and Vēḷāḷar (வேளாளர்), specifically whether the term is mentioned in Tolkappiyam. Both sources contradict each other on this point ([13] their and [14] mine), but I am willing to accept the removal as their source is newer. Second, the removal of the mythological origin from the lead section, which I believe should remain as it provides a distinct context relevant to Sri Lankan Vellalars and does not apply to the mainland caste.

Edit: Just to say, I've checked the source that Kautilyapundit (talk · contribs) provided, but the very same source contains about the mythology and even more. See here: [15]

Viewpoint by (Kautilyapundit (talk · contribs))

I removed outdated and misleading content. The reason is they don't fall under WP:RS. The removal of the mythological origin is necessary as it falls under WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. Also, those sources talk about something other than the Sri Lankan Vellalar's mythical origin. If we type "Vellalar's myth origin" on Google books, it provides some viewpoints. Here is one example 1. The origin of Vellalars is undocumented and uncertain.

Third opinion by AirshipJungleman29

Although Luigi_Boy's use of AI-generation to write talkpage comments is prohibited per WP:LLMTALK, they have a stronger point than Kautilyapundit: there is nothing wrong with discussing mythological origins if they are discussed by WP:RS, and the cited sources appear to be reliable. If Kautilyapundit feels that certain sources are WP:FRINGE, I advise them to make their case at the reliable sources noticeboard. If an aspect of a sub-class of an ethnic group, such as their origin, is relevant to the article, there is also no reason why it should not be discussed on the sub-article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. But there's a misunderstanding here. My points are simple:

1. In the mythological origin, they added misleading edits. If the source says A, they added B to support their narrative. This is WP:OR.

2. Those sources should discuss the origin of the Sri Lankan Vellalar. However, they fail to do so, as they recount the tales of other caste groups.

I'm not against adding a mythological origin subsection, but I'm against the misleading original research (OR) content. If you explore this edit and read the sources of myth origin section, you'll see that there's a significant difference between the edit and what the sources actually say. Some of the sources are inaccessible. I have pointed out the misleading narratives at the top of the discussion. I request that you read them, verify the sources, and reconsider your opinion. I'm open to any reliable sources you find that describe the mythological origin of the Sri Lankan Vellalar and would be happy to see them added to the article.

Edit: Sources like this one would be good, as it directly discusses the mythological origin of the Vellalars. Kautilyapundit (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)