Talk:Vadama

message: The article does not cite references to the claim that the migration happened in the 16th centuries. One of the groups of Iyers (including the Vadama subsect) had already migrated from their new found homelands in Tanjore to Palakkad in the late 15th century. The evidences and timeline for the latter migration to Kerala is available.
So the claim of migration in 16th century is inconsistent (rams81 (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Migration timelines

message: Please read Vedam Jaishankar's Biography on ancestory of Rahul Dravid , that his ancestors were not only from Tamil Nadu, tney were descendants of Appaiah deekshitars. Dravids are well known in maharshtra, it has the same meaning as dravidlu in andhra.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the article on Rahul Dravid doesn't mention this-RavichandarMy coffee shop 18:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rahul Dravid and Vadama

message: However, the date has been provided from a source, which in turn refers to an even older, published source and not a web-page. The fact that they provide a date needs to be taken cognisance of.
While the Dravidlu of Andhra may not speak Tamil today, migration studies show that it takes only three generations for the mother tongue to be supplanted by the local language. Thus, since at least ten to twelve generations have passed since their migration into Andhra, their lack of language cannot be held a reason for considering their opinion of their origins incorrect.
If we were to restrict ourselves to Tamil Nadu in getting dates, it would be quite impossible to find conclusive and clinching evidence, since the question is one of migration, where both origins and destinations, as well as stop-overs matter. Voltigeur (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration Dates 

message: Thoough some people find it hard to accept that vadama have been in South India,even as early as 750 AD and certainly even before as Indicated in samngam literature, I am just surprised that there are new evidences which keep propping up! When I quote vaishnava literature, some people play with language, using words such as "appears". When Sangam records are examined, people try to claim that vadama is not vadama in that context. If history is looked at in suvh a sense, anybody can twist history to anything they like. This is not done.
The date of vadamas is prior to date of inscription , that much is logical:)  
--Harishpsubramanian (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Information

message: The words used by Voltiguer leads an unassuming reader to believe that All/Most Dravid Brahmins of andhra have been believing in the 13 century date of migration. The website he  quotes  references a book published in 1935. Does that book claim that all Dravid Brahmins strongly believe in such a date and if so does the book really provide  an evidence in the existence of a widespread belief atleast? Then again, we cannot use a community's self perception to use the words " appears" , "can be deduced" etc. You can only state that such a self perception , if indeed common( which itself  remains to be proven),increases the possibility that such a migration could have occured. Then again I would like to know if the book he quotes does indeed provide evidence for the 13 century date. I strongly object to such manipulation of language to give the reader a feeling of the existence of overwhelming evidence. For 13 century date of migration, no land records or inscriptions or any form of historical material have been found. On the contrary we have inscriptions and other historical material to support the view that vadama existed prior to 13 century ad in tamil nadu. I would like Voltiguer to quote from the book, to make it clear to us all that his wordings are the most appropriate, in this context.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 22:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some edits by Voltiguer related to dravida brahmins=

message: Which is migration from south to north and back to south. But my assumption that stay in north would not have been for a long time.
Though this is only a theory at present, the liklihood is very high especially in case of vadama who left tamil nadu to settle down in andhra and maharashtra, Why do I say so?
1.  That Migration to tamil nadu is not historically recorded in terms of real sources but their existence here is nown for atleast a century.
2. There is evidence of migration of dravid brahmins to north for atleast the last 1000 years, or even more , read the reference to the world famous book - Kalhana's rajatarangini which gives one example.
3 Though I cant quote sources now, I read in one article, by a knowledgeable gentleman, that vadama were actually among the oldest in north tamil nadu( including tanjore, and gurukal are also based there and believe it or not supposedly related to them), after the chozhiar. The other immigrants were merely given names by vadama and allocated only specific villages to settle down.It needs also to be said that only the original brahmins, have had the freedom to dominate a country's religion, this was indeed the case in north tamilnad. It could be true, as evidenced in the case of kerala,where the dominant brahmins are namboothiris .This is one of the reasons ,I do  not want to swallow the complete baggage of 13 century date of vadama in the current form. There is more to it then stated.
3. Their role in vijayanagar empire neither proves nor disproves anything. This is because,as  pure brahmins they were very much sought, and they are likely to have taken up residence near the capital. Only aarama dravidas are mentioned to have come from north. we dont know about others. If the interval was only brief 150 years or so, then they would never had a problem coming back as long as they maintained caste purity.
4. That history is silent on their prototypes in rest of India.
5. It becomes much easier if we dont look at this as a reverse phenomenon, especially in case of thummagunta dravidas. As Nellore and Tirupati are as much tamil, as north. It just happened that at a later time ,not in the first millenium, this region became invaded by telugu rulers, who did not speak tamil, hence the confusion whether vadadesha vadama spoke tamil or telugu.
--Harishpsubramanian (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse Immigration?

message: The entry for Vaduga in the book Castes and Tribes of Southern India Volume 7, Pg 266-267 by Edgar Thurston and K. Rangachari:
 "At the census, 1891, 180,884 individuals were returned as Vadugan, which is described as meaning " a native of the northern or Telugu country, but in ordinary usage it refers to the Balijas. I find, however, that 56,380 Vadugars have returned their sub-division as Kammavar or Kammas, and that the term has been used to denote many Telugu castes. At the census, 1901, the number of people returning themselves as Vadugan dropped to 95,924, and the name is defined by the Census Superintendent as a "linguistic term meaning a Telugu man, wrongly returned as a caste name by Kammas, Kapus and Balijas in the Tamil districts/' In the Salem Manual, Vaduga is noted as including all who speak Telugu in the Tamil districts, e.g., Odde, Bestha, etc. 
It is recorded, in the Gazetteer of Malabar, that "of the same social standing as the Kammalans are the Vadugans (northerners), a makkattayam caste of foreigners found in Palghat and the adjoining part of Waluvanad. They are divided into two exogamous classes, one of which is regarded as inferior to the other, and performs purificatory ceremonies for the caste. They cut their hair close all over the head, and have no kudumis (hair knot)."
It is noted by Mr. L. Moore* that "Xavier,writing in 1542 to 1544, makes frequent references to men whom he calls Badages, who are said to have been collectors of royal taxes, and to have grievously oppressed Xavier's converts among the fishermen of Travancore.Dr. Caldwell, alluding to Xavier's letters, says* that these Badages were no doubt Vadages or men from the North, and is of opinion that a Jesuit writer of the time who called them Nayars was mistaken, and that they were really Nayakans from Madura. I believe, however, that the Jesuit rightly called them Nayars, for I find that Father Organtino, writing in 1568, speaks of these Badages as people from Narasinga, a kingdom north of Madura, lying close to Bishnaghur. Bishnaghur is, of course, Vijayanagar, and the kingdom of Narasinga was the name frequently given by the Portuguese to Vijayanagar. There is a considerable amount of evidence to show that the Nayars of Malabar are closely connected by origin with the Nayakans of Vijayanagar." (See Nayar.)
So, as late as 1909, there is no mention  of Vadugas being related to any Brahmin sub-caste. There is no evidence whatsoever of Vadamas being related to Vadugas.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 06:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vaduga 

message: P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar, in his book History of the Tamils from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, states that Kanchipuram was the first region of the Tamil country to be  Aryanized. He states that this region is not even mentioned in Sangam Tamil texts. but it finds regular mention in Puranas and Sanskrit texts. This region was under the rule of Andhra kings was was the territory originally known as Dravida. This region came under the rule of Tamil kings only in the 6th century AD. Could it be possible that the Vadamas were originally the inhabitants of Kanchipuram who dispersed all over Tamil Nadu when the territory came under the rule of Tamil kings
Also, this region has the oldest temples to the Agamic gods in the Tamil country-RavichandarMy coffee shop 07:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kanchipuram]] and Vadamas 

message: Hello. Over the past few days there has been a slow edit-war between dynamic IP and myself   . The IP has been replacing sourced information with unsourced POV/soapboxing (my favorite little sentence being PS:- IF ANY ONE BELIEVES IN THE ABOVE ASSERTION THEY WILL ALSO BELIEVE THAT FOX IS A HUMAN BEING.). I just wanted to check to see if anyone thinks any part of these edits can or should be salvaged. Thanks. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 14:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  He is a determined POV-pusher with an objective. He had earlier been using the profile User:Vyaghradhataki and a number of socks such as User:Sembian valavan, User:Kaadavarkon, etc. I guess he is a member of some political party or organisation -The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 02:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha, thanks for the background. As I was going through the history, I saw that I had reverted a nearly identical edit back in August '08, which I had completely forgotten about. The article's now semi-protected for 3 months, so hopefully it won't be a problem for a while. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 05:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Recent
 edits 

message: Hi,
Vadama Iyers are unique and are not related to Vadakalai Iyergars. I have read many scholarly articles and did not find any relationship between Vadamas and Vadakalai Iyengars. Svr014 (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check out the book Castes and Tribes of Southern India, Volume I by Edgar Thurston under "Brahmin".-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 01:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Till this very day, Thurston's book is acknowledged as a classic and is the standard reference for articles on South Indian castes and communities.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 20:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  Check out this and this. Google Book results which clearly point out that Saint Ramanuja was a Vadama. And please don't revert edits before arriving at a consensus. You seem to suggest that Thurston could be wrong because he has stated that there were inaccuracies and errors in his surveys. Unless you could provide exact sources which state the contrary, Thurston's statement cannot be claimed to be an error.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 02:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

text:  I don't care who you asked and what you asked. I can never verify your claims. And Wikipedia is not an ecyclopedia written and owned by Brahmins which non-Brahmins are not allowed to edit. I strongly suspect that you are a sockpuppet of a previously blocked user. Now, either you stop editing this article using multiple profiles or I shall have to report you for indulging in sockpuppetry.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  Do you even know who Edgar Thurston is? Have you read the book or are you making your conclusions by examining some of the leaves at random. The book is one of the most comprehensive anthropological studies of the people of South India ever conducted. Thurston follows most of the procedures of organized anthropology like measuring the cephalic index, nasal index, etc. And by the way, what has scholarship in Vaishnavism got to do with anthropology? How can you regard philosophers as better anthropologists? And though I do agree that P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar's book History of the Tamils from Earliest Times to 600AD is a good book, how come do you consider Srinivasa Iyengar a better anthropologist than Edgar Thurston as you seem to indulge in his veneration here. The sources I have provided are fairly reliable. If you feel that the claim is not true, do add your claims along with proper reliable citations from published sources.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 13:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  Oh yeah, I've been removing citations repeatedly from the article. Could you please provide the diffs! -The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 13:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  We won't accept your claims. Either you should be a well-established and trusted member of the Wikipedia community in order to add such claims without references; or you find enough, published, neutral sources to add them to the article.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 17:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vadama Iyers are unique... 

message: This article is one of a  number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes"  would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending changes

message: The book "Castes & Tribes in Southern India" does not have any free or limited preview in the internet.
No ISBN numbers have been provided in any of the iyengar or iyer wiki pages. The Isbn number ie provided in the edgar thurston page ,specifically for "Volumes 1-a,b" and "volume-2" is . Wiki editors claim references for some controversial statements such as "all iyengars were once iyers, who later converted to vaishnavism", etc etc from these volumes.
Actually, the isbn number leads to a complete collection of all seven volumes. As you already know, clicking on the isbn number leads to the "wiki book search result page", which in turn gives many links as to where the book might be available for any "free or limited preview".
But here, there is no such online preview for these volumes(1-a,b & 2) anywhere. Hence the contents are not verifiable by any mean. The only verifiable mean would be to buy the book directly.
The book is written by both Thurston and "K.Rangachari". But here "K.Rangachari" himself is an Iyengar. Such "non-online references" alone, atleast need be written by 3rd parties.
I can cite all the above reasons to delete all claims made from these "non-existent references".
I'm a Vadakalai Iyengar myself & my stand is this :- I hold that the terms "iyer" ,"smartha" ,"vadama" etc were once applicable to all brahmins & not just for the present days' iyers. But today they are only applied to the current iyer community & hence Thurston misinterpreted all iyengars to have come from iyers.
Anyhow, none of the references are valid under any wiki' rule or regulation ,& hence should be deleted as they are used for controversial statements. Now give ur opinion on this.
If someone's going to indicate the "primary source" factor, that they've witnessed the contents of the article, then i suppose they are to provide a valid secondary source for support.
All contoversial claims made from castes & tribes should be deleted.
But u had mentioned i was toying around with the article!!!
... If the allegations made from some non existent reference is called valid , then certainly my changes in the iyer pages were acceptable. Explain ur stand here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari7478 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A message to user:Ravichandar - for false allegations on hari7478 

message: 49.204.135.135 (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2022 

message: 49.204.115.138 (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of etymology of the term