Talk:Vanniyar

Result

Despite all the citation, I have presented and the official name of this community accepted by the Indian government and the Tamil Nadu government, the English Wikipedia admin and some people from Tamil Nadu refuse to write it. This is the English Wikipedia that ignores the Indian government and the Tamil Nadu government. [Evidence number 36].--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

And also that 'historically lower caste' mentioned needs to be removed. Its particularly mentioned in this page and not in other caste's pages. That's the highest hatred action 42.104.212.139 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia is not censored! We state what reliable sources say! Regarding other articles, read WP:OTHERCONTENT; hope you understand! Ekdalian (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

What are you even talking? What are the sources that says that Vanniyars are 'Historically' a lower caste? Can you provide a valid source which says 'Historically'. What's the 'hatred' behind mentioning this? And defending that statement too is a shame. Even these things are not mentioned in Dalit caste's wiki pages! Vinothp34 (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this your first account? If so, then I doubt you know about our policies and guidelines. If not.... Doug Weller talk 16:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Don't talk irrelevant. Where's the source which I asked for? Vinothp34 (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

How did you find this page? Doug Weller talk 16:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gowtham Sampath These people just want to show their hatred to this big community of Tamizh Vinothp34 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by hatred? And why? Why should an editor hate a particular social group? Don't talk nonsense. We only state what reliable sources say! I agree with Doug Weller; if you are a new user, how did you find this page? Strange! Ekdalian (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Vinothp34: The relevant sources are listed in the Historical status and Sanskritisation movement sections of the article. Abecedare (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Abecedare I'll go through the sources and will come back. Thanks for the reply. Vinothp34 (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Abecedare I went through the sources. Now please read this fully and take required actions

  Here this book by Rudolph is given as reference in the 'Historical status' section and given the text 'the Vanniyar had ceased to accept their "low caste" status' but what is original text in the book is 'the Pallis had ceased to accept their status as "humble agricultural caste"' What's the need to change this text? In the same paragraph of the book itself Rudolph has mentioned that T. Ayakannu Nayakkar's two books Vannikula Vilakkam and Varuna Darpanam has "supported" the caste's claim to be Kshatriyas and connected Pallis by descent with the great Pallavas dynasty. He has even mentioned that there is substantial amount of cultivator owners and petty land lords in Madras state.

  Then this has been followed by the 'shudras' thing by providing this, Where in the book the author Christophe starts the paragraph by mentioning 'As in many parts of India, the four-fold varna paradigm of Sanskrit tradition does not apply well in Tamil nadu'. He has not mentioned particularly Vanniyars as Shudras, that means all the non Brahmin communities in Tamilnadu are equal, this is given as a reference for Shudras thing? And here the author Kathleen is talking about castes near Thanjavur and she has mentioned Vanniyars, Pallis, Padayacchis under Farming castes and she has added that 'Padayacchis were known to have provided foot soldiers for Cholas'. These two are provided as reference for Shudras??

  Now, importantly here in this book by Alf Hiltebeitel, he has mentioned in his book about Draupadi that 'There is no reason to discount the above-mentioned traditions that Vanniyars formed an important part of the Pallava soldiery' and 'Vanniyars took on roles as soldiers in the standing armies of the Nayaks' Where he has made sure that Vanniyars were warriors and strongly accepted the link with Pallavas. Alf Hiltebeitel has provided the reference of some inscriptions where Pallis are called as Vanniyars before itself. And this reference is provided under Sanskritisation movement and not under historical status? Why?

  Even in this book by J B Prashant, he has mentioned that 'Many of the Vanniyars were sepoys during French rule'.

  Now two requests from my side. 1) I have went through all the sources you have provided and there's never a sentence like 'Vanniyars were "historically" a lower caste'. So, you must remove it. 2) And there has been enough evidence from "your sources" itself that Vanniyars were historically warriors and agricultural people. So please mention this as it is mentioned in Kallar Wiki page

  Thanks Vinothp34 (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Vinothp34, a discussion is unlikely to be productive if you selectively quote the sources. For example, you quote Rudolph & Rudolph (1967) as saying 'the Pallis had ceased to accept their status as "humble agricultural caste"'' while the full quote from the book on page 50 is:

  As early as 1833, the Pallis, as they [Vanniyars] were then called, had ceased to accept their status as a humble agricultural caste and tried to procure a decree in Pondicherry that they were not a low caste.

  which the current version of the wikipedia article paraphrases as "Researcher Lloyd I. Rudolph notes that as early as in 1833, the Vanniyar had ceased to accept their "low caste" status", which seem reasonable to me. (I'll fix the issue of Susanne Hoeber Rudolph not being properly credited).

  That said, neither the content nor the sources were added by me and I'll let the regular editors of the article engage, if they wish. Abecedare (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Abecedare

  Even if you add the total sentence, he didn't mention Vanniyars as lower caste. He's just pointing the peasant and agricultural works as lower caste work, which is totally wrong. And there are no sources which says Vanniyars as historically lower caste which is mentioned in this Wiki. The sources mentioned in this Wiki itself mentions warrior and agricultural history of Vanniyars. So please let the editors know Vinothp34 (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller@Ekdalian Please check this and do the required changes Vinothp34 (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Ekdalian Why are you guys (editors)not even ready for a discussion when you are not having any 'hatred'? Can you please check my analysis of 'your sources' and provide your views? Vinothp34 (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Because no one is obliged to take your request seriously. 114.143.71.3 (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Who even are you? Vinothp34 (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Just an another editor on Wikipedia like you 114.143.71.3 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  As I understand, an experienced editor and admin like Abecedare has already reviewed the same! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  He hasn't reviewed fully. He mentioned "neither the content nor the sources were added by me and I'll let the regular editors of the article engage, if they wish". Who are the 'regular editors'??. I've mentioned the points from the sources mentioned in the Wiki itself!! Vinothp34 (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  The regular editors can see these discussions and are most welcome to participate in these! Abecedare has already pinged a very experienced editor as well as one who shaped the article, Sitush! You need to wait now till any other experienced editor takes it up. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Vinothp34 (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  Hello @Sitush or who ever is the regular editor. Why there's no reply to my points? What's stopping you to go through it and coming for a conversation?

  
  

  Here there's another journal by Professor Karthigesu Indrapala, who is from Sri Lanka. He mentions several inscriptions and several literary works as sources and writes this "On the basis of the above evidence in the South Indian sources. we are in a position to draw the following conclusions. In the eleventh, associated twelfth and thirteenth centuries. the Vanniyar with martial pursuits rather than with agriculture. were Some of their chiefs were in the service cf kings and enjoyed a status similar to that of other feudal officials of that time. But there were occasions when the Vanniyar constituted a source of trouble to the supreme rulers and it was considered to be an achievement to suppress them"

  
  

  And this "As far as we can trace, therefore, the Vanniyar were a community associated with fighting. Gradually they must have begun to lead a settled life and taken to agriculture"

  
  

  He mainly analyzes the links between Vanniyar community of south India and Vanni chieftaincies of Sri Lanka in the journal. He comes to a conclusion that "The Vanniyar were a military caste of South India whose leaders created their own chieftaincies with the decline of the Cola empire. It appears that Vanniyar soldiers were brought to Ceylon as mercenaries at the end of the twelfth century and started the Vanni chieftains in Srilanka"

  
  

  So please remove the "Historically lower caste" thing mentioned in this Wiki without any proper source, and add that Vanniyars were a martial community in the past like how it's mentioned in Kallar caste's Wiki page! Even the sources mentioned in this Wiki is supporting this argument as I have mentioned above Vinothp34 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Vinothp34 The article needs to be returned to how it was when I last made a major edit to it. It has become a complete glorifying mess. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Sitush What's your edit? Who has added the "historically lower caste" thing without any proper source is my question. I don't need any glorification, I need you guys to remove this degradation. Please go through my comment fully and the sources too Vinothp34 (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Vinothp34 Very probably it was me who added that. If I did so then it was in accordance with high-quality sources, read in the round rather than snippet view etc. If you delve back through the article history and also the history of this talk page, you will find many people have challenged it in the past and almost all of them were clearly glorifiers. Like them, you seem to be abusing sources by use of selective quotation, as at least one other person here has said recently. I will try to read through your new sources but it is unlikely to lead to removal of the "degradation" because the quality was good then. At best, we would show an alternative opinion from an equally meritorious source. Sitush (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Sitush: Here is the diff between the Aug 8 2023 version you last edited and the current version. It would be good for someone knowledgeable to review the content and changes (some of the technical citation fixes are by me, which I assume are non-controversial). Abecedare (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Abecedare I will try to take a look, thanks. It's all a bit awkward using the app on mobile. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  Abecedare, the app shows the diff as being from 10 Apr & thus only your citation fixes, sorry. I, too, got a "bad" diff earlier, which made it look like the article had been twisted into glorification even though having just read the actual thing it seems that is not the case. It will have to wait until I sit in front of a PC. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Sitush I have read everything from 'your sources' about the Vanniyar community, there isn't a common point from all the sources which suggests Vanniyars were 'historically' a lower caste. Only J B Prashant mentioned it in a non relevant book to check for a caste history. Even he mentions Vanniyars were sepoys during French rule. Even Rudolph mentioned in his book (which you are mentioning as a important source for lower caste thing) 'there is substantial amount of cultivator owners and petty land lords in Madras state'.

  
  

  All your sources except Kathleen and Alf Hiltebeitel talks about Vanniyars economical situation and employment in 19th century or 20th century (even the others mentioned Vanniyars as agricultural people and petty land lords), you have taken these as sources to mention them 'Historically' lower caste?? This is not at all acceptable!

  
  

  What's the common point from your sources and my above source too was 'Vanniyars were a martial community and agricultural community', I have mentioned the particular lines from those sources too. So please consider and remove those degrading lines. I don't know what 'quality' you are mentioning regarding this degradation. Vinothp34 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Vinothp34 I (or whoever did it) accurately paraphrase the sources. It does read as if it was me. The more you say "degradation", the more it makes me think that this is perhaps not an article which you should be editing because it suggests to me a conflict of interest at best. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Sitush I don't understand what you are talking about. Why are you assuming something and thinking in a negative way rather than going through my comments and your sources fully? So please go through those fully (my new source and even your sources again, why not?) and check whether my points are valid or not! Vinothp34 (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Vinothp34 I have looked at the Indrapala paper. I have no idea who he is/was, other than a university professor. Nor have I yet discovered the journal and publication date. He does mention a martial group of people called Vanniyar but that doesn't make what is already said "wrong" or "degrading". I need more info about the paper but, assuming that is good and we can be sure that he isn't referring to the Vanniyar of Sri Lanka, there would be no reason to ignore his opinion alongside that of those already cited. Note that Indrapala does refer to Vanniyar = cultivator as a more common understanding.- Sitush (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  Ceylon Journal of the Humanities, it seems. I've never heard of it & will have to dig further. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Sitush And why I'm talking about degradation again and again is, there is no caste in south India or particularly in Tamilnadu which is 'Historically' a lower caste. There is no varna system here historically as like north India. That's the reason I'm talking about that again and again.

  
  

  And Indrapala clearly mentions that 'the Vanniyar were a community associated with fighting. Gradually they must have begun to lead a settled life and taken to agriculture', this is his conclusion after mentioning all those sources from inscriptions and several literary works about Vanniyars. Please go through those fully Vinothp34 (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Vinothp34 Please stop telling me what I should do. I am not your servant.

  Like any decent editor here, I reflect what reliable sources say about a topic and if they say that these people were cultivators or whatever etc in the past then that is what we say. Whilst it is true that the caste system of S India differed from that elsewhere, it seems that the Vanniyar of the 19C were attempting to sanskritise and, by definition, that means they were trying to assert a caste position by that time.

  I see we have an article for K. Indrapala and it looks like the journal, now pushed under another name, is sound. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Sitush I'm not ordering anything, it's just a request. I don't know whether I sound like ordering. Anyway thanks Vinothp34 (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Vinothp34 Page 54 of Burton Stein refers to them as "peasant warriors" around the 14C. Does this help to resolve the differences? here. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  He mentions "the Sambuvarayars were Vanniyar chiefs, part of that group of peasant warriors". He is linking Vanniyars with Sambuvarayars, a kingdom during 13th century. Vinothp34 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Vinothp34 No, he is linking some Vanniyar chiefs with the Sambuvarayars and it is rather a passing mention of that link. This is little different from Indrapala, who is clear that most were cultivators yet acknowledges evidence that some were fighters. That's little different, except for scale, from saying most Indian people aren't soldiers but some are. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Sitush Yeah, Stein links Vanniyar chiefs with Sambuvarayars (Sambuvarayars themselves were a chieftain kingdom, chieftains started to rule) and that book is about Vijayanagar empire who ruled north Tamilnadu after Sambuvarayars. Indrapala concludes that Vanniyars were Warriors and cultivators, and links Vanniyars with Vanni chieftains of Srilanka Vinothp34 (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  1970, it seems, although I've not got a complete citation. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's This book from 1970 names 'The Ceylon Journal of the Humanities', where 'The Origin of the Tamil Vanni Chieftaincies of Ceylon - K. Indrapala' this content is there Vinothp34 (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Vinothp34 Yes, I saw that web page, thanks. It is vague on date, volume, page numbers etc and, despite the link, doesn't appear to be a download. It's vol 1 or 2 and the page range begins somewhere around 110, I know.

  All this said, and while I don't have an issue mentioning the peasant warrior term in context, the article as it is already covers the bulk of your concerns, including the peculiarities of varna in S India. Indrapala and/or Stein don't seem to add a lot to it, although they're worth a mention and Hiltebeitel refers to it also. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Sitush Thanks for checking. Requesting you to make an edit considering all these. And it's important to note that Stein mentions Sambuvarayars were Vanniyars Vinothp34 (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The full citation to the Indrapala article is:

Indrapala, K. (July 1970). "The Origin of the Tamil Vanni Chieftaincies of Ceylon". The Ceylon Journal of the Humanities. 1 (2): 111–40.

obtained from the citation to the article in this book (p. 84). One possible caveat: see this (77 page-long!) review of Indrapala's 2007 book based on his 1966 thesis. In that book Indrapala effectively disowned many of his early findings as outdated and based on a small number of sources available then on early Tamils in Sri Lanka. Not about this 1970 article per se but something to keep in mind depending upon what one is citing the article for. Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gowtham Sampath Government sources, and in particular those of Indian governments, are only reliable for what they say about themselves. They are frequently politicised and considered unreliable because of that. It is fine to mention that governments use a particular name officially but they certainly do not carry more weight than a multitude of high-quality academic sources. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Abecedare It's not clear which 2007 book of Indrapal you are mentioning, but his inscriptions sources and Literary sources looks strong in that 1970 journal and he has even provided citations for it Vinothp34 (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vinothp34 Epigraphy.is notoriously unreliable and interpretations of it add another layer of subjectivity. It isn't uncommon to find changes in interpretation. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Sitush What I'm saying is @Abecedare was wrong in saying that this review was done by Indrapala, it was done by Bandu de Silva. So Abecedare is wrong in saying that Indrapala was disowning many of his early findings. And even in that Review the author (Bandu de Silva) mentions that 'the work was considered to be a notable contribution to the problem of Srilankan Tamil history'. In the review the author was not saying anything wrong about Indrapala's work, he's just pointing out the important points from the book. And as Abecedare mentioned, this review is about another book of Indrapala Vinothp34 (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vinothp34: Please read, at least, pages 264-265 of the review, which contain a lengthy quote from page 30 of Indrapala's 2007 book. Abecedare (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You guys are avoiding Epigraphy, Oral traditions everything. Yet Indrapala also have included literary works also as sources like Silan Ezhupathu and others, this must be considered Vinothp34 (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vinothp34 Definitely not! Please read the information at WP:RS and note that ancient epic poetry etc is both a primary source and prima facie fiction. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sitush Ok, but I don't know what other sources historians will use Vinothp34 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vinothp34 Modern historians are secondary sources. With certain caveats, we accept their expertise in analysis of primary sources. One of those caveats is that we prefer to use their most recent analysis: people do change their mind, new information does come to light. - Sitush (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sitush Anyway, I don't think Indrapala denies his analysis about Vanniyars history. In the sentence which Abecedare mentioned, he talks about his findings about Srilankan Tamils and their roots whether they are indigenous or they came there before 2000 years or more, that's a different topic altogether. Vinothp34 (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Vinothp34 He has changed his mind about stuff. His 1970 paper was right at the start of his academic career and it discusses Srilankan Tamils, so unless you have read everything by him since that time there is a potential issue. In particular, the review notes how such studies generally changed dramatically with the emergence of new information. This doesn't make him a "bad" academic but it does cause potential problems in representation of his opinions. If we don't have to use him then we shouldn't. - Sitush (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sitush Ok, anyway your sources itself are enough for the warriors and agricultural people history. This Indrapala's work is just an add on Vinothp34 (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Abecedare Thanks. I think we can probably avoid it and just use the Stein source. Hitelbeitel supports that much, too, and I have found other mentions from less well-known sources. Tbh, most peasants of S India had a warrior element (in the loose sense of the term) in the medieval period - every village was fighting another village! I'm not going to make an edit with cites using the app, though, so it will have to wait. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

my opinion

• The largest community in Tamil Nadu is the Vanniyar Caste-wise census: An opportunity to rectify the injustice done to the Adi Dravidas (but this is not included in the article)
• There is a book about their origin in Tamil Nadu, the name of that book is Vanniyar Puranam.(but this is not included in the article).
• Kambar has written a book about the Vanniyar people in the book 'Silai Elupatu'.(but this is not included in the article).
• Other names:These are in the Most Backward Classes in the Tamil Nadu Government's reservation list. It also includes other names like Vanniya Kula Kshatriya, Vanniyar, Vanniya, Vanniya Gounder, Gounder or kandar, Padayatchi, Palli and Agni Kula Kshatriya.(but this is not included in the article).

But it is written line by line that these are Shudras, lower castes. English Wikipedia provides very accurate information about the Vanniyar people. I don't want to waste my time talking about this page anymore and I don't want to diminish my respect.. My thanks to all the admins..--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Gowtham Sampath I have removed the POV tag as a consequence of this declaration. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

this article purposely written against vanniyar community and must be Wikipedia should remove the article. 2409:4072:6CBD:54BD:0:0:F0CA:4F09 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This article should be deleted as it is deliberately written against the Vanniyar community. This article contains completely false information. 2409:4072:6CBD:54BD:0:0:F0CA:4F09 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Legal-claiming user complaints

I have reviewed the text, prompted by a complaint made by a user dressed in legal language which led to their banning. Unfortunately, the user did not specify what details they found to be objectionable beyond generally stating the footnotes were one of them. Looking at the footnotes, I found a specific claim that the Vanniyars had "taken ownership" of an origin myth of descent from certain "fire races". This claim was not supported by the text so I rephrased it and added to the body, as there was no reason it needed to be a footnote.

As this is a caste-related article that documents a process of Sanskritisation, supported in the sources, I strongly suspect that the objection is to the fact we mention this process. However, given the fact I have found a misrepresentation of the source, I have not removed the tag. I will try and find a user with more expert knowledge to review the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: I am fine with your edit to the article but IMO the previous version was not "a misrepresentation of the source" either. "Tak(ing) ownership of the Agnivanshi fire myth" is just another idiomatic way of saying that the community "laid claim to" or "linked themselves to" or "adopted" the agnivansha or agnikula (fire origin) myth in order to assert their kshatriya status. Again, replacing that wording with "assert descent from the "fire races" from which Kshatriyas frequently claim descent" is perfectly fine, and perhaps even preferable if it avoids any confusion or misreading; I just don't want to fuel the claims that the article was previously misrepresenting the cited sources. Abecedare (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue Your recent edit isn't an improvement on my original, in my opinion. It makes for close paraphrasing, it mis-spells kshatriya and it manages to use the word descent twice in a short sentence (assuming that I am reading the edit correctly on the app, which can be confusing). More, the "fire races" (Agnikula) are indeed a myth - it is the concept that some "supermen" among humans originate not by the usual scientifically-accepted evolutionary process but instead emerged fully-formed from flames.

Is it OK for me to revert? I see that Abecedare is sort-of OK with what you wrote but I'm rather less so, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I've corrected the spelling and added "also" to make it read more smoothly. The version prior to my edit was making a statement not found in the source that the Vanniyar were making an "attempt to take ownership" of the woo. If one "takes ownership" it strongly suggests that something is being removed from somebody else, and this is substantively different from the claim made in the source. Feel free to reword if you wish, but it should not be a footnote, or imply that this cast group is taking something away from another group to which they are not entitled.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue It still reads wrongly, with a clumsy two uses of "descent". And while your interpretation of "take ownership" is one, both myself & Abecedare interpret it otherwise. I'm not at all sure what the issue is with it being a footnote - it is a nonsense claim and can be treated as such.

You did say that you would seek advice from people more informed in caste matters. That would be me and, very probably, Abecedare. I'm going to have a think but my gut says right now that you have tweaked for tweaking's sake and possibly without a full understanding. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I should add that the "also" which you added is effectively tautology. The Vanniyars were claiming Kshatriya status, which means that they must be descended (in their eyes) from one of three mythological origins - all Kshatriya claim one or other of these origins (fire, sun, lunar).

I've fixed the kshtriya typo. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok per your comments, I have rephrased so that it matches the source. There is no mention in the source of "taking ownership" of the myth. The exact text is this Instead of giving the old name, Palli, many were beginning to refer to themselves as the Agnikula Kshatriyas or Vannikula Kshatriyas (that is Kashatriyas of the fire race). And: Oral histories simultaneously were stressing descent from the traditional "fire races" which Kshatrityas both north and south often claim as ancestors.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue "Taking ownership" means "embracing" an identity. Furthermore, regardless of what that specific source says, if you were actually familiar with the sources generally you would know that your latest attempt to "improve" the article has yet again made it worse: it wasn't just oral histories which claimed the kshatriya connection but also written histories, and one book in particular which became something of a bible-like text for those seeking to glorify the caste. - Sitush (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue "... descent from the mythical "fire races", whom the Kshatriya claimed as ancestors" is not correct. I thought I had made this clear before but perhaps not: only some Kshatriya claim an Agnivansh origin. There is a reason why a familiarity with a whole range of sources and concepts produces better articles than a slavish reliance on one. - Sitush (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so you would want to add sources that say that. Currently, the only source for the statement relating to fire races says exactly what our article does. The only edit justified by our source would be to add "northern and southern" before Kshatriya. Do I need to remind you of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH?

As for "taking ownership", in this case it is not great English, and I have never seen it used for the adoption of a cultural belief. It reads as if another point is being made. If you wished to use "adopted" I would have no objection, but again, we must bear in mind what the sources say.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Or also "often" or a synonym.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue All I want is for you to stop messing up this article with poor edits. The original statement, prior to your arrival here, was fine, not synthesis/OR and not a misrepresentation, despite your accusation. Abecedare told you this and I told you it also but you are in IDHT mode. Are you aware of the Arbcom sanctions regime in this topic area? - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue Try reading p 50 of the Rudolph source which you are citing. That mentions two written histories by one guy. How many more errors are you going to make in attempting to "fix" something that didn't need fixing? - Sitush (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of the requirements for editing in contentious areas, are you suggesting I am breaching them in some way? I would have thought supporting edits with sources was even more important in these cases.

Page 50 describes two books which claim Vanniyar descent from the Pallava dynasty, the source does not claim that the books by the Palli lawyer assert descent from the fire races. The Pallava claim is already in the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue The crux here is the claim to Kshatriya status, not which Kshatriya dynastic origin myth they claimed. If you knew anything about caste issues, you would realise this - no caste has ever fought about which origin dynasty they claim, only about whether or not they are this or that varna (brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya, shudra). You said you would check with an expert - that's me. Feel free to find another but as things stand, I am going to be reverting this mess unless someone other than you objects. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

You can't appeal to a higher truth outside of the source which supports a claim. This is a basic tenet of wikipedia. The source simply does not say what you want it to.

In any case, you are entirely within your rights to revert to the established version as there is no consensus for what I added. Afterwards I will try another bold edit to see if we can resolve this. If that doesn't meet your approval, I will add a failed verification tag to the footnote, as you have provided no evidence from the source to support the claim.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue No. Propose your bold edit now and save us all some time. Whilst you are correct about the pre-eminence of sources, there are ways to use them which better reflect the wider topic area. It is that which you clearly do not understand and because of the lack of understanding you are making statements which, outside of the specific source microcosm, are nonsensical. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and don't you dare tag me if I revert. I'm not the only one who thinks that the original statement was not a misrepresentation, as you claimed. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

No, I feel that given your very emotional tone, reliance on arguments based on WP:TRUTH and the very strong indications of WP:OWN, you have no interest in substantially discussing this topic based on the content of the sources. The bold edit will likely be the basis of an RfC, and I will not be making any complaint against you based on grounds of edit-warring when you revert it. However, I will add failed verification tags, as indicated above, if you revert to the unsourced text. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

names

This caste using Other names: Vanniya, Vanniya Gounder, Gounder or kandar, Padayatchi, Palli and Agni Kula Kshatriya. Adding this to the article.. Gowtham Sampath (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The Vanniyar, (also known as Vanniya kula kshatriya's) formerly known as the Palli, are a community or jāti found in the northern part of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu... Add this to the article Gowtham Sampath (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gowtham Sampath On 12 April, you said here that you were not interested in developing this article any further. You have since returned twice, seemingly pushing a similar glorification angle that has been rejected countless times. You have had it explained to you why VKK isn't acceptable in the lead. Please read the information at WP:TE. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Request to revise ‘lower caste’ description for historical accuracy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The current article oversimplifies the social status of the Vanniyar community by referring to them as a “lower caste.” While a majority were historically engaged in agriculture, this overlooks the significant number of Vanniyars who held positions of power, particularly as chieftains, poligars (feudal lords), and military leaders during the Vijayanagara and Nayak periods. Notably, the Sambuvaraya dynasty — linked to the Vanniyars — ruled parts of northern Tamil Nadu in the 13th–14th centuries. Several Vanniyar poligars were influential during colonial resistance movements. Such historical roles challenge the one-dimensional classification as “lower caste,” which seems to be based primarily on colonial ethnographies rather than a full account of their socio-political history. I suggest revising the wording to reflect this diversity of roles and status across time periods, and incorporating reliable historical sources to support a more nuanced account.

Sources can include works like Burton Stein’s “Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India” and K.A. Nilakanta Sastri’s histories of South India. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Vanniyar classification needs historical context and nuance; Clarifying socio-political diversity of Vanniyar community

Historical Status and Role of the Vanniyar Community

The Vanniyar community has a rich and diverse history that transcends simple classification as a “lower caste” community. While some segments of the community were traditionally engaged in agriculture, it is important to acknowledge the significant role that many Vanniyars played as warriors, chieftains, and military leaders throughout history, particularly during the medieval period.

Chieftains and Poligars

The Vanniyars have long been associated with feudal roles in Tamil Nadu, particularly as poligars (feudal lords) and military leaders. Many Vanniyar families governed regions and played key roles in local administration, defense, and regional politics. Some of the prominent Vanniyar chiefs belonged to the Sambuvaraya dynasty, which ruled parts of northern Tamil Nadu during the 13th and 14th centuries. The Sambuvarayas were powerful feudatories under the Cholas and later the Vijayanagara Empire, recognized for their military prowess.

During the Nayak period (16th-17th centuries), several Vanniyar families held significant positions as poligars, managing territories and defending against invaders, including the British during the Poligar Wars of the 18th century. These military and administrative roles were crucial in maintaining local power structures and resisting colonial forces.

Sanskritisation and Caste Reclassification

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Vanniyars sought to enhance their social status through Sanskritisation, adopting practices, customs, and titles traditionally associated with the Kshatriya (warrior) varna. They began to emphasize their warrior heritage and claim descent from the Agnikula Kshatriyas—a legendary group of warrior clans in Hindu tradition. This effort to reframe their identity resulted in the community adopting the title of “Vanniyakula Kshatriyas.”

Colonial and Post-Independence Classification

Under British colonial rule, communities in India were often categorized based on their occupations rather than their political or military roles. As a result, many Vanniyars were classified as part of the Shudra varna, associated with agricultural and manual labor, which led to them being perceived as part of the “lower castes.” However, this classification ignored the elite segments of the community that had held power and prestige for centuries.

In post-independence India, the Vanniyar community was initially recognized as part of the Backward Classes (BC) in Tamil Nadu, reflecting their socio-economic status. Following the Vanniyar reservation agitations of the 1980s, the community was later classified as Most Backward Class (MBC) in 1989, which provided them with access to affirmative action benefits in education and employment.

Conclusion

The Vanniyar community’s history cannot be reduced to a simple “lower caste” classification. Their role as warriors, chieftains, and poligars in medieval Tamil society illustrates their significant political and military contributions. While many were involved in agricultural occupations, this does not fully capture their historical and socio-political influence. Their efforts to elevate their caste status through Sanskritisation reflect a broader trend among communities in South India seeking recognition for their historical achievements.

Suggested Sources:

• Burton Stein, Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India
• K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India
• S. Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy of the Vijayanagara Empire
• V. Kanakasabhai, The History of the Sivaganga Poligars (for insights into the Vanniyar role in the Poligar Wars)

Mr.nobody777 (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.nobody777: Please specify:

• The exact change you are proposing to make to the article,
• Along with the complete bibliographical information for the sources (including publisher, year, page number and, ideally, link and quotes) supporting the change

Fwiw, I could not even locate the works by Sanjay Subrahmanyam and V. Kanakasabhai you are referring to although I don't know whether that is due to the missing source information or because they are LLM hallucinations. Abecedare (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Abecedare: download link 👉Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India. --Gowtham Sampath (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Padaiadchier (padaiyatchiyar) were armed men and formed the military class.Source--Gowtham Sampath (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Gowtham Sampath That 120 year old book is not a useful source for anything related to this article, and hadn't the concerns about Vanniyar being both warriors and peasants already been addressed in the above discussion and by Sitush's recent edits?

Unless Mr.nobody777 (or, anyone else) can specify what exact book/chapter/article S. Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy of the Vijayanagara Empire and V. Kanakasabhai, The History of the Sivaganga Poligars refer too, we can close this discussion section as an LLM-generated distraction from efforts to improve the article. Abecedare (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Supporting Sources with Full Citations

1. K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, A History of South India: From Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar
   • Publisher: Oxford University Press, 1976 (4th ed.)
   • ISBN: 9780195606867
   • Page: 232, 234
   • Quote: “The Sambuvarayas were important feudatories of the Cholas and later emerged as rulers in their own right. They controlled territory in northern Tamil Nadu and had a long-standing presence in the region.”
   • Link (Google Books)
3. Burton Stein, Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India
   • Publisher: Oxford University Press, 1980
   • ISBN: 9780195610659
   • Page: 276
   • Quote: “The poligar system was widely prevalent in Tamil Nadu during the Vijayanagara and Nayak periods… Among those who occupied such roles were the Vanniyars, whose influence in northern Tamil Nadu was significant.”
   • Link (Google Books)
5. Dirks, Nicholas B., The Hollow Crown: Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom
   • Publisher: University of Michigan Press, 1993
   • ISBN: 9780472064345
   • Page: 154
   • Quote: “The Vanniyars, despite being largely cultivators, were also poligars in several districts and held considerable military power in pre-colonial Tamil society.”
   • Link (Google Books)

Mr.nobody777 (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. What about the other two? Abecedare (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, Which two?? Mr.nobody777 (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The other two sources you listed in the original comment, and which I have asked twice about above, namely:

• S. Subrahmanyam, The Political Economy of the Vijayanagara Empire
• V. Kanakasabhai, The History of the Sivaganga Poligars

Btw, I checked the information you provided in the recent update and all the google book links are incorrect and the supposed quotes from Sastri and Stein don't appear on the listed pages or anywhere else in the respective works (I didn't bother checking the Dirks reference after that). Abecedare (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Abecedare I have Dirks here. It is Cambridge University Press 1987, not Michigan 1993 (which is a common error). The cited page doesn't even mention the Vanniyars. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.nobody777 Please do not use LLM AI for research and don't expect anyone else to check what it says for you. The accuracy of results is often very poor and far too often is completely wrong. If you cannot be bothered reading the sources properly then it is probably best that you move on from Wikipedia. Sitush (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

My intention was to contribute meaningfully to the representation of historical communities like the Vanniyars, whose roles in Tamil history I believe are sometimes underrepresented or misunderstood. Going forward, I’ll focus on sourcing information directly from published academic texts, archives, or publicly accessible historical sources. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppilla Mazhavaraayas of Ariyalur – Vanniyar Poligars

The Oppilla Mazhavaraayas served as poligars (palaiyakkarars) of Ariyalur and were distinct from the Mazhavaraya clan associated with the Cholas. Their original title was Nayanar, and their leader was awarded the title Ranavijaya Oppilla Mazhavaraya by a ruler of the Vijayanagara Kingdom for military achievements. Notably, the Zamindar of Ariyalur belonged to the Palli or Vanniyar caste.

Source:

Mazhavaraayas - Wikipedia

what’s your say on this?? Mr.nobody777 (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.nobody777 Wikipedia isn’t reliable. - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we’re in a strange position. You’re trying to defend the Wikipedia page about the Vanniyar caste, but when I provide another Wikipedia page with citations as a source, you say it’s not reliable. That would make the current page unreliable as well. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.nobody777 Wikipedia isn't reliable in part because people like you contribute to it using useless so-called sources and statements, as you did above. There are lots of people like you, so lots of articles are affected. Please read WP:CIRCULAR. - Sitush (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Why are you speaking so rudely? This is a discussion page, and we should be having a healthy, respectful conversation. I’m not being offensive—I’m simply presenting my points. If I’m wrong, you’re free to point it out constructively. There’s no need for offensive remarks; they only create conflict instead of helping solve the issue. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.nobody777 I am addressing your points. Even the statement you quoted mentioned said one guy was "notably" a Vanniyar, implying that the status was unusual for Vanniyars. Since this article concerns the community as a whole, most of whom never amounted to anything more than hand-to-mouth peasantry for many centuries, we aren't going to make a big fuss about the exception to a rule - as the saying goes, one swallow doesn't make a summer (Aristotle, I think?). Your purported "issue" is not in fact an issue. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Addressing points is one thing. But “ people like you contribute to it using useless so-called sources and statements, as you did above. There are lots of people like you, so lots of articles are affected.” This is a offensive statement. I hope you understand. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.nobody777 I don't understand. It was factually accurate, which is something all contributors here should aspire to. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Every contributor aspires for the factual accuracy. No wrong in that, but does that mean you can be offensive. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

You’ve contributed a lot to the wiki community, and I appreciate that. When new contributors like me join, please try to be constructive with us. That’s what helps move us, the community, and society in a positive direction. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mr.nobody777 I wasn't offensive but we're drifting off topic here. I have been working on caste-related Wikipedia articles for about 18 years and it becomes wearisome seeing people (often the same people, using different accounts) constantly try to glorify their lowly socio-economic-religious position. If all these people were right, every caste group in India comprised rulers and warriors, whilst no-one farmed, cleaned the streets, prepared meat, worked as labourers etc. It is laughable, just as people in the UK would be laughed at if they all claimed to be historically akin to King Charles III.

Take the time to discover how Wikipedia aspires to have its articles researched and presented and remember that it is a voluntary project, so you should be mindful of the time being spent by other people in addressing whatever you might say. My top tip: until you have some familiarity, avoid caste stuff because it tends to be a minefield and a quick way to get blocked from contributing at all.

This is a blunt response but not, in my opinion, rude. - Sitush (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand that caste-related topics can be sensitive and often misused, and I appreciate your long-term commitment to maintaining Wikipedia’s standards. However, I’d like to offer a broader perspective. Over the course of India’s long and complex history, power dynamics have shifted repeatedly. Many clans and communities that may today be classified as lower in the socio-economic hierarchy did, at different points, hold regional or military power. The subcontinent has seen countless local kingdoms, chieftaincies, and armed groups rise and fall. To generalize or dismiss all such historical claims as glorification risks oversimplifying a very layered and fluid social structure. While I agree that all claims should be backed by reliable sources, I believe it’s important to approach historical diversity with openness, not mockery. Constructive dialogue and rigorous sourcing should be the focus—not presumption or discouragement. Mr.nobody777 (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.