This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
I'm removing Varna-based claims in the article as it is complicated and controversial. Also, it violates
WP:SYNTHESIZE and
WP:NPOV. Whether be it Kshatriya or Shudra, other prominent editors suggest mentioning their caste instead their varna. Of course, Brahmins are exceptions as they don't need to claim anything. Southern castes are almost shudras including military groups, merchant groups, and other dvija analogs. These shudras have revived Hinduism along with Brahmins. But it is complicated to structure them under the Varna label as it has many confusions and complications. Because the Northern social system isn't similar to the South. So we don't need to tag specific individuals with the disputed claim.
Numerous RS, including Brittanica, unambibuously mention that the saint was a Shudra. The Vellala caste is classified as Vaishya is disputed in references, with
[1] calling Vellala as Shudra. Unfortunately, the above para is
WP:SYNTHESIS and POV pushing the saint as a Vaishya. --
RedtigerxyzTalk17:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Hey, Thanks for citing a Google book. I know Nammalwar is Shudra. But none of the original works mention that. It is later day interpretations if some say him a Shudra or Vaishya. If we search "Nammalwar Vaishya" on Google Books, many sources will show the results accordingly. But it's called cherry picking whether be it shudra or vaishya. If we copy Britannica, why are we here as editors? Wikipedia and the Britannica are different. Wikipedia has a set of rules for content. For social groups and varna topics, we need consensus. The Varna system of Southern India is disputed by major scholars and historians as Southies are being mentioned as Non-brahmins by modern scholars. Better we mention Nammalwar was regarded as both Shudra and Vaishya or remove the varna label as it is not applicable to non-aryan castes and scholars are labeling them as Non-brahmin castes if we're really following
WP:NPOV. If we add our opinion (He is wrongly claimed as a Vysya who are not Shudra.) which is not mentioned in sources is considered obvious
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTHESIZE. Varna shouldn't be mentioned in the lead, as per consensus. I don't know why you have reverted that too. But whatever we add information on Wikipedia should be from a secular point of view.
@
Sitush I don't know what did I miss here. If you're free, you shall edit this article. This individual (Nammalwar) is being targeted by casteists who wanna tag him "Shudra" with their preferred sources while ignoring modern sources that mention him as Non-brahmin. You know "All southerners are shudras (Except Sanskritised castes) because of 4-fold Varna system didn't exist practically". Is mentioning individuals with the Varna fair? There are many sources say him "Shudra", "Vaishya", and "Non-brahmin". But none of them have originated from original works that mention their varna. These are scholars' interpretations. You're an expert in this section, so I pinged you.