User talk:Voltigeur/Archive 1

No problem, I'm glad I could help. If you're so inclined, you may want to join a Wikiproject relating to your interests. There's Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, among others. Both provide a lot of information about how pages should be formatted, naming conventions, and so forth. If you have any more problems/questions, feel free to ask me, and I'll do what I can to help. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message.Vadama article has been protected for another 2 weeks.The user Vyaghradhataki has been blocked for 24 hours.If indeed the user has edited within that period using the IP.It is a serious violation.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(04:12, 23 April 2008) (edit) (undo) Voltigeur (Talk | contribs) (POV removed Undid revision 207410810 by 85.86.34.229 (talk))
Actually, it isn't POV, it's a fact.
However, I'm not reverting your revert because: 1) it's a very sloppy edit, 2) it should have some supporting evidence (which, believe me, is very easy to find!!) and 3) other bits of the article already say it.
So why am I posting here? Well, because although I agree with the fact that you've reverted, I disagree very strongly with your stated reasons. Fortunately, this doesn't really matter, but I do hope that either you reconsider your motives, or that in future you explain yourself better.
The above is my POV. I hope you find it useful, but if not, well, ignore it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I entirely concur with your statements concerning Cecil Rhodes's attitudes towards race. Nevertheless, from what I have known of him, he held strong views concerning the superiority of Europeans vis-à-vis Africans, and had a general bias in favour of his own people, the English. Therefore, in my opinion, it is unjustified to claim specific attitudes of Anglo-Saxon superiority when his opinions of racial superiority were much wider than that and his Anglo-Saxon pretensions played a rôle only when questions of Empire came in.

Although I very much appreciate your having taken the trouble to intimate your opinions to me, perhaps it would be much more helpful, if your statements could be a little less presumptuous. Voltigeur (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm. Good points.
So it seems I was being sloppy too.
So it's not fact, it's "ill-informed fact" (whatever that means). I suppose that falls into the class of "opinion". If so, then your edit summary was correct.
And my POV was based on a faulty chain of logic.
But I'm not sure what you're refering to about being presumptive. Do you mean my chain of logic was faulty? If so, yes, it would be good if I never made mistakes. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that I was able to throw some light. When I wrote 'presumptuous', I meant more or less what you have inferred - that your statements assume a few things that are not necessarily true. I look forward to further co-operation. Voltigeur (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too.

I guess that I'm currently on a bit of a hobby-horse about people not using the edit summary, or if/when they do, putting cryptic, uninformative and/or irrelevent comments there; to me it often seems the case that editors put what they did there (which is generally obvious, and doesn't need an edit comment), not why they did it. (Let me hasten to add that this is NOT the case with your edit!)

I guess your comment was open to interpretation, and I intepreted it in a manner different from your intention, and focussed on other issues. e.g. Had you said something like "rv misleading statement - he was British-Empire-centric, not just anglo-centric" (or preferably something more concise and more informative than what I just wrote!!), you would have got a differen response from me - probably no response at all. However, you can not be expected to guess and cater for the multiple ways your statement might be interpreted (if you did that, you'd never finish doing anything). I think the lesson I've learned is to review my assumptions before making bold statements, and perhaps state the assumptions along with the statements. Again, however, if I never assumed anything (e.g. that gravity will still be working tomorrow when I wake up), I'd probably never get out of bed in the morning!!

Yeah well, this is probably getting boring. Look forward to crossing paths again. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving messages in my page. I saw your stuff regarding nayaks/vijayanagar which is nothing short of non-sense. Neither were the nayaks/vijayanagar "rulers" eligible to take the place of great chola/pallava emperors who were crowned kings and virtuous vedic royalty of ancient times, nor did they actually do so. They were mere colonists who exploited the anarchy following the decline of the great above mentioned clans of cholas /pallavas. we have evidence about their usage of terror/guerilla tactics and subversion.We have evidence for their usage of foreign mercenary soldiers. First and foremost of all they were certainly related to those wicked dynasties that suffered annihilation at the hands of chola/pallava emperors for centuries. during the dark medieval ages very few "rulers" actually possessed an army, however useless it may have been. It was trade and commerce(however filthy) that by large settled things for many "rulers". More over The incoming colonists mostly were insurgents who used cover of night for their passage. They are also known to have really spoilt the ancient institutions of south by introducing prostitution and bestiality in name of temple dance and music.Of course by the time these new colonists appeared the demography of that ancient place had far ceased to be what it used to be during chola/pallava times.

I really suspect that the so called "vadama" groups could have been sramanas(buddhists and jains) of past, because they lack any temple rights in TN, most of whose temples(nayaks are not eligible to appoint priests) were independent priesthoods(like chidambaram and srirangam), and whose serving priests mostly perished during the hazardous last years of cholas/pallavas that saw numerous wars. The pagan nayaks were also responsible for ridiculously creating a small and non-descript and fictional "vaishnavite divyadesam" within great chidambaram temple. I say i have to suspect the antecedents of many such people(remember ramanujacharya's conversion spree). In short they(vijayanagar/nayaks) existed because nobody else was there and that some body has to be there to co-ordinate change.

As far as munificence to temples go it does not underline virtuousity as much as it does of brand oppurtunism. The above mentioned chidambaram incident should serve as a good example. If i were to consider the donations of those pagan nayaks, the same holds good for tipu sultan , hyder ali,humayun, akbar, and the list is endless. It is duly noted that these donations or creations would never be the same as the ones of great Raja Raja, Rajendra, simha vishnu, narasimhavarma and a host of chola/pallava emperors. I can consider the immigrants during late medieval ages to be oppurtunists. It may be possible to get me blocked or getting the edit capability removed altogether but i call a spade a spade.I will not be responding any further to such sour embittered polemics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyaghradhataki (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Quo vadis Mr.voltigeur

With each and every word of your reply you have only cleared my doubts regarding your eternal foolishness. I do not want to lecture you on the subject of cholas/pallavas and rest of the things at which i'm confident about my knowledge. Thanks for giving the feedback now i'm very clear and feel justified at my opinions on matter of "different brahmin sects" that made into TN after the rule of the previously mentioned dynasties. I just hope i can also participate in ridding the world of the wretches exactly the way they did.It also clears my doubts on as to why the chola/pallava emperors were so brutal in their expeditions.It is very much possible for the likes of you to declare that the author of saundarya lahari namely sankaracharya did not know what he wrote and also that the great tirugnanasambandar did not know about his own compositions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyaghradhataki (talk • contribs) 12:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he has been uttering nonsense from heavily anti-Brahmanical books and articles. The

No mention. :-) I don't mind him including material derogative to Iyers as long as the material is referenced with proper citations from neutral sources. But he has been repeatedly adding those lines with some sort of motive in mind. Wikipedia is an unbiased encyclopedia not an online forum to engage in slurs or counter-slurs and encyclopedic standards need to be maintained. Unless he references his stuff from reliable, unbiased, third-party sources, he is violating

WP:OR.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop}

13:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The article

original research. It requires a complete cleanup-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop}

12:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Be advised that should you by your nefarious means try and get the article on sholiyars, who howeever a rapidly declining and microscopic minority are also along with nambudiris last remaining ancient sects, removed then be ready for the entire iyer article to be removed from wikipedia because no such group exists. The "brahminical groups" that came later on are simply obscure in origin and identity and certainly heterogenous and for that they cannot be considered brahmins , particularly of TN. I also advise you strongly not to try and justify your vague and completely incorrect assertions like" brahmins who came after and during gupta period are vadamas" using spurious documents that you have cited. Wikipedia is not a place for malicious propoganda and is certainly not an internet group like orkut. -vyaghra dhataki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyaghradhataki (talk • contribs) 12:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, I would have added more tags to

Once the article Sholiyar gets removed, we might start upon a new article which conforms to Wikipedia standards. I solicit your cooperation and help in this venture :-)

-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 01:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides I have given a detailed reply to Vyaghradhataki's nonsensical allegations in the talk page on Vadama. Do have a look :-) -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 01:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The AfD link is here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sholiyar-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Please express your opinion in bold as Keep,Merge or Delete. See this.Thanks -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 13:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if encyclopedic standards need to be maintained then all the stuff that Vyaghradhataki had entered should blanked and work begun afresh. However, Wikipedia rules do not allow blanking. Wikipedia recommends deletion of articles in cases such as these. Don't worry! We could create it new:-)-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 14:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Francis Day of Madras :-) -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop}

14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Moreover you foolishly stick to an opinion that they could not have originzated prior to 13 century in tamil ndau is pure ignorance as ramanujacharya, the son of keshavasomayaji deekshitar and kanthimathi ammal belongs to 11 century add. Does this name sound like a maharashtraian name dude. There are so many other practices in his family which are not only bvery typically tamil brahmin but are also very much in line with smartha culture peculiar to tamil nadu, and not to be found in smartha culture elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 12:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

===From Harish

I am okay with sparse details and no ellaborate points. But I will not accept falacious details. You did not have to tell me you were a vadama, I knew it. As I said lot of people have a grand view of their community's beginnings- which is really not so grand after all. I dont want my kids later growing up reading an incorrect history.

I am not sure whether you are aware, that there is a strong opinion that vadamas are so called because of their settlement in north tamil nadu. You must understand that all most all brahmins have come from north of tamil ndau to tamil nadu, excepting a few. I dont want to doubt your family tree, but even their stay in deccan cannot be ruled out, but that ends there. I am aware of the fact that Appaish deekshitar's ancestors originated in nasik, but when? Why do vadamas keep calling themselves as dravids (in maharashtra), dravidlu in andhra? The real question is why they stayed where they stayed and when, while its easy to prove that they stayed at some place in tamil nadu,as records in tamil nadu indicate their presense, that they stayed in certain other places is neither proven and I am sure such a factual detail is not available with you excepting from family stories. What is true is that they have come from brahmadesham a very long time ago ,crossing naramada and settloing down in tamil. This definately did not happen in 16 th century.But if you look at it that way even brahacharanam have come from north india, you dont need to be a geek to deduce it. Vathimas are also too fair to be native of tamil nadu. Underestand that just like today our ancestors kept moving across countries for different reasons, but their base location did not change frequently.

We need something concrete to include dates like 16 th century. Making a statement that 10 th century is earliest possible date is audacious. Because there are too many vadamas with different family stories to tell.

I am not going to include certain points of mine, beacause the moment I stop watching this topic you are going to remove them. But I am not allowing any statement which cannot be traced back to a proper historical record. If you are quoting anything from any textbook , please specify what it contains and which kind of historical record is being used to make the inference.

Get out of sectarian mould. There is nothing so very northy about vadamas - there is nothing glamorous about a north india which declined more than 3500 years back, because of buddhism.Now age of budhism - thats a controversial topic and I am not getting into it.

My latest date for vadamas to arrive is 8 -9 century and early dates well nobody knows and I am not in the business of falsifying history with my speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend, I have myself seen such articles indicating 13 th century origin. I believed in it a few years backs. The story began with myself locating an a person called swaminatha deekshitar on the web. He lived many centuries back. The story mentions how muslims attacked nasik in 13 century and the family moved down. I belived it entirely ! This group, which is highly linked to my ancestors were supposed to be from near trayamabkeshwar. Now so easy to gooble up the date. But it is not so simple. First thing the crucial peice, who fixed this date,is it indicated in any written family records? Is it there in family legends? Come on even mutts and institutions are not able to provide convincing reasons of their date of origin. I approached a number of elders in my family who know nothing of any date of origin. I asked some elders who are actually doing research on the family tree front. One person , a direct descendant of Neelakanta deekshitar a wing commander by profession, corrected me, he said vadadesha vadama means north arcot, north with respect to tamil heartland - which is chozha land. Added no tirunelveli vadama is truly of origin in tirunelveli. The people maintaining family trees and who have done substantial study on this matter cannot themselves say with certainity about dates. I dont believe that any family notes down the date and p;lace of birth of every individual. It only notes the name. If there is any unnatural thing like shift from one region to another they might mention that so and so ancestor( with name) moved from x to y? do you have such a concrete proof in the form of record? Our ancestors were much more practical, than counting the number of seasons since they left maharashtra, Then how come people claim 13 century origin of vadama?. Well if people claim in the families it could be true, isnt it? Depends on how ancient the belief is! When did they start believing that they came in 13 century ? Nobody knows! No record has been found! On the contrary we have evidence that by 14 century the practices of the so called "new vadamas",the vadamas we are talking about,were completely similar to other vadamas+no record of any integration+ complete exclsuion of deshastha+ other brahmins of andhra. Now the andhra site mentions the origin of saurashtra for dravidlu. How did they come to that date. The same source which spread that vadamas came during 13 century. But if it all comes down to 1 source and if the reliability of this one source is not strong, then we cannot accept it as true. I read the british gazette on Satara Brahmins. It lists down all brahmins in Satara Maharashtra. I have not quoted this as I am not able to locate that article again. But what it says about dravid brahmins is that - dravid brahmins have come here in 17 th century from tamil nadu. They speak tamil at home, they belong to two gotras - bharadwaja and kaushika. If what you say is true, then these folks should be remembering their origin better than us. Why is there no indication that they are deshasthas? Why is there no indication that they were originally from maharashtra. At the same period, deshastha started coming to tamil nadu. Here again they were not accepted as tamil brahmins. The sourashtrians came much earlier. They were not accepted as tamil brahmins once again. None of the vaidikulu of andhra intermarried with dravidlu even in 16 century. How come? Though I dont want to rule out 13 century origin, there is no proof at all. We have the srivasihnava literature that thankfully spares us a lot of the ordeal. In this not only ramanuja, but a whole set of vadama get coverage and their origin is clearly indicated. Everything starting from the nombu practice to the way muruga is the kula devatha, to the way a whole set of rituals are performed indicate a clear integration with tamil culture for atleast 1000 years. Atleast such an assumption has some basis, but nothing to the contray has any supporting material evidence.How about earlier than that- Well I will be entering an area of speculation. I will just put a full stop and say nothing is known when they have come. If you browse sufficiently on the net , you will even read that some namboothiris mention that their ancestors were vadama living in villages of tamil nadu. But nambbothiri society had become extremely rigid by the time the first vadama appeared in kerala.So you have an entire process - namboodization of vadama , taking place atleast 1000 years ago. You might agree that presense of vadama is indicated in tamil nadu for atleast 900 years. You might also agree that presense of vadama in north tamil nadu is certainly indicated in those 1000 years. Now examine the records of Brahacharanam, ashtasahasram ,vathima and chozhia. Who among them lived in kanchipuram? None of them excepting the famous gurukal. But read sivananda's article which mentions gurukal as an exclusive vadama clan - not without basis. But kanchipuram was more than a land of agama shastras, It wss a land of shrauta and yagna culture. It had the strongest sanskrit culture . This is the land which vadama dominated and lived. Vadama I belive after all my reading were the people who lived in northern tamilnad. Does that mean vadamas were homogenous not necessarily. To be more specific vadama were the ancient vaidiks of north tamilnad who could have been from anywhere before a certain period.North tamilnad composedd of places as north as tirupati and north arcot and as south as chidambaram.Look at the closely linked andhra vaidiks. How are they divided. They are divided into velanadu, mulukandu etc etc on the basis of region. Do you think all their ancestors came from the same part of country not at all. But the base location for being velanadu was costant for atleat 1000 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

http://fortheloveoflife.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/tracing-my-roots/

Refer to this article and you will be amazed about how unclear people are about their dates.

This is what I am saying all along, not only is 13 century too late for vadama migration, it misses a whole period when there were serious arguments between vadama and brahcharanam in pre ramanuja era. which is also part of legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 22:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.