Wikipedia:Peer review/Periyar E. V. Ramasamy/archive1

Periyar E. V. Ramasamy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is very imformative and it has been written with a neutral point of view for a very notable but controversial person and has been done after a great deal of hardwork and after resolving disputes it was protected at one point for over 9 months .I would like to thank all involved for resolving disputes and and building the article.

Thanks, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

Always better to identify who these people are - who considered him and icon? He is considered an icon of rationalism.[5] and is most famous for his Self-Respect Movement in Tamil Nadu. The "most famous" needs a ref.
Needs a copy edit to clean up typos and grammar, for example Periyar[']s primary principles of focus was on rationalism... or At a young age, he has been a witness to numerous incidents of racial, caste and gender discrimination.[7] would be better as "was a witness" or perhaps "had been"
Do not italicize quotes per WP:MOSQUOTE
Per WP:HEAD please do not repeat the title or header in a header or subheader, so change "Periyar’s principles", perhaps to just "Principles", or "Reasons for leaving the Congress Party" should not repeat "Congress Party" since it is in the "Member of Congress Party (1919-1925)" section
This paragraph needs a ref: As a leader of the Satyagraha Periyar was imprisoned twice. Gandhi, who was also present on the Vaikom scence, was disturbed about the whole affair but seemingly unable to stop it. His concern grew when other religious groups became involved. Thus the Sikh community offered to met expenses. Money was also said to have come in from Burma, Singapore, and Malaysia, from non-Brahmin immigrants, Muslims and Christians. Gandhi tried under the circumstances to keep the whole thing an inter-Hindu affair. However, in the end a compromise was reached. The streets in the temple area were opened to Harijans or Untouchables. In 1936, they were allowed to enter the temple. The Satyagraha paved the way for subsequent Temple Entry Act. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Or the block quote in Periyar and Gandhi needs a ref
I would try to avoid numbered and bullet lists and make prose that flows better. Also there are a lot of block quotes which obstruct flow.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ravichandar84's comments:

I feel that the article needs to be thoroughly copy-edited. I copy-edited the lead section and am providing my suggestion here.

"Dravidian", as a racial term, was rejected by Periyar, himself. So, I feel that the article could be started in the following way and terms such as "Dravidian social-reformer" be avoided in favor of something which is more neutral.

I would suggest that the article start with:

"Erode Venkata Ramasamy[1] (September 17, 1879 – December 24, 1973), also known as EVR, Periyar (Tamil: பெரியார், Kannada: ಪೆರಿಯಾರ್ ) and Thanthai Periyar was an Indian politician and social reformer of the Dravidian movement. He was the founder-leader of the Dravidar Kazhagam and started the Self-Respect Movement"

I would suggest that the following paragraph be moved to the end of the lead section.

"Periyar's primary principles of focus was on rationalism, self-respect, social reform, eradication of caste, and women’s rights. To his followers and admirers, he was a courageous advocate for the rights of humanity and the preservation of Dravidian cultures. He was a man who indicted Indo-Aryan India in the harshest terms for its exploitation, imposition, and marginalization of the indigenous Dravidian peoples who were non-Brahmin. Those who had a dislike for Periyar accused him of attacking Hinduism and the Brahmin community. But his was targeted against Brahminism and not Brahmins, and the manipulation of Hinduism and not Hinduism as a faith."

Periyar's ideology is spoken at the end of the article. If this paragraph is moved to the bottom of the lead section, then the lead would follow the same format as the article itself.

If possible, I would suggested that this paragraph be reworded. I find the first line to be quite weak.

I make my suggestion here:

"Periyar's ideology was based on rationalism, pan-Dravidian nationalism, eradication of caste, and women’s rights. He condemned Brahminism and harshly criticized Brahmins and upper-caste North Indians for what he perceived as their attempts to dominate and enslave Dravidian people and extinguish their cultures. His attacks on Brahmins have always been controversial and frequently cited by critics and opponents of Periyar. However, some explain that Periyar was only against Brahninism and not against Brahmins, in particular. Today, his followers venerate him as a powerful advocate of human rights and the protector of Dravidian cultures while critics and political opponents often quote some of his controversial statements and actions to accuse him of double standards, iconoclasm and of being anti-Hindu and anti-Brahmin."

"At a young age, he had been a witness to numerous incidents of racial, caste and gender discrimination."

This sentence appears POV to me. Please don't use peacock terms as "numerous". As far as I know, Periyar belonged to a wealthy, respectable family. The first instance of caste-based discrimination he witnessed was at Kasi. Well, I wouldn't say that he was "young" at that time. The incident involving V. V. S. Iyer's school, etc., took place when he was a member of the INC and a full-fledged politician.

"In 1939, Periyar headed the Justice Party[11] , and in 1944, he changed the name to Dravidar Kazhagam."

I need some clarification about this. The article refers to a South Indian Liberal Federation conference happening as late as 1946. Though most Justice Party members were involved in the creation of a Dravidar Kazhagam, it appears as if there was a Justice Party in existence as late as 1951.

"Today, the Dravidar Kazhagam is headed by K. Veeramani who has been an ardent supporter of Periyar’s Dravidian movement, and still continues today to stand up for the rights of humanity. "

I strongly feel that the claim that I've depicted in bold text is POV. -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 04:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Ravichandar84, Periyar did not reject Dravidian as a racial term. As a matter of fact he considers both Aryans and Dravidians two separate races. He was a Dravidian social reformer, from India. As far as him being "Indian" or not, he rejected India, burnt the Indian flag, constitution, and the map. On the first paragraph you brought up, why leave out self respect and social reform? It has been explained in detail in the article. It is true that Periyar belonged to a wealthy and respectable family, but I think you are confusing the word "witness" to "victim". The sentence stated that Periyar was a "witness to discrimination", not "victim to discrimination". Victim of discrimination means "being discriminated against", while witness of discrimination means "seeing others getting discriminated against". However, he was discriminated against in Kasi. Further, all these statements have been quoted from books, journals, and sites with page number, etc. As for peacock terms such as "numerous", and dates clarifications, it will be looked into. As for the sentence and still continues today to stand up for the rights of humanity., could you tell me what is POV about that? Thanks for bringing these issues up. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this: [1]. This is an article in The Hindu which appeared on India's Republic Day and was reproduced on the occasion of India's 61st independence day.

This is what Periyar says: "The Dravidians have a distinct origin in society, their languages are independent and belong to a separate class. The terms “Aryan” and “Dravidian” are not my inventions. They are historical realities. They can be found in any school boy’s text book. That the Ramayana is an allegoric representation of the invading Aryans and the domiciled Dravidians, has been accepted by all historians including Pandit Nehru and all reformers including Swami Vivekananda. My desire is not to perpetuate this difference, but to unify the two opposing elements in society. I am not a believer in the race theory as propounded by the late Nazi leader of Germany. None can divide the South Indian people into two races by means of any blood test. It is not only suicidal but most reactionary. But the fundamental difference between two different cultures, Aryan and Dravidian, cannot be refuted by anyone who has closely studied the daily life, habits and customs and literature of these two distinct elements in South India."

As for "self-respect", though the term and its meaning appears crystal clear for us, it doesn't appear so to non-Indians. I would suggest that you leave aside that term if you desire to promote a worldwide understanding of the subject. And, by the way, you've already stated at the beginning of the section that Periyar started the Self-respect movement. I guess the usage of "Self-Respect movement" would be more appropriate than simply "Self-respect". The reason why Periyar uses the term "self-respect" is given in the article on Self-respect movement. As for the term "reforms", of course, a social reformer tries to introduce reforms in society. What else can you expect of him? The introduction of the term "social reform" in the second paragraph after specifying that he was a social-reformer in the first paragraph ne does not carry any purpose.

And yes, Periyar was against India,but then, "officially" he was a citizen of India. As for his being witness to caste, class and gender discrimination, you should consider one important thing - early in his life, he became a sadhu and travelled on a pilgrimage to Kasi. And the things he witnessed at Kasi were the ones which made him reject Hinduism. And he had a change of heart. But the sentence used in the lead section conveys a wrong impression that right from his birth, he witnessed caste, class and gender discrimination.

As for the sentence "and still continues today to stand up for the rights of humanity", many right-wingers would dispute this claim. So, it does not indicate an universal perception of K. Veeramani. You can, instead, state that he "continues to propagate Periyar's principles of rationalism".-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 10:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your input. You are right about the use of “self-respect” being misunderstood by non-South Asians and also, for the fact that it is hyperlinked to the actual word “self-respect. Do you think that "self-respect" should be left as it is and hyperlinked to "Self-Respect Movement". Or, should we change it to "Self-Respect Movement"?

As for the word "Social reformer and politician" (in the first sentence of the intro), why don't we change it to "Social activist and politician"? Then we can leave the second sentence as it is, since it is condensing the section on Periyar’s principles (ideologies). The intro paragraph is pretty much a summary of the whole article.

As for stating that Periyar was a Dravidian Social Reformer from India, or Indian Social Reformer for the Dravidian movement, it should be left as Dravidian social activist from India. The reason being that he advocated for the rights of Dravidians, not Aryans in India. As for him being a citizen of India, true. But, it would be the same as talking about a freedom fighter from Kosovo and stating he was Serbian. Or, it would be like referring to a Kurdish Freedom activist (for an independent Kurdistan) as a Turkish activist fighting for the Kurds. True, Periyar was living in British made India and was automatically a citizen, but after his short time with Congress, he never ran for office. Now, on the other hand, it would be legitimate to call Annadurai, or Karunanidhi Indian, since they decided to remain with India and run for political offices. It may not be a bad idea to remove the word politician from the first sentence when describing Periyar, just let me know what you think.

With regards to the Hindu article you presented, it looks interesting, but was edited poorly. For example, up to the second paragraph, it is in regular fonts, then at the end of the second paragraph it breaks off into italics to the very end of the document. Also, if you look at the third to the last paragraph, it looks like the editor must have read my numerous arguments on Wikipedia, then parroted what I said. Lol…

Anyways, apart from how the article was presented, for the sake of argument, it is indeed true as stated that Dravidians and Aryans are two separate race groups (families of ethnicities), cultures, and families of languages. But, with the statement made by Periyar below, it is mis-understood:

I am not a believer in the race theory as propounded by the late Nazi leader of Germany. None can divide the South Indian people into two races by means of any blood test. It is not only suicidal but most reactionary.

What he meant was that he does not advocate race hate, or to run the movement based on the Dravidians being a superior entitity. With regards to "blood tests", he meant those that go to the extent of the Germans to prove they are a distinct race by such methods. This sounds very similar to the section of Indo-Aryans who state that their race is the only race in existence throughout India, and that Dravidians do not exist. Or, that Tamil, Telugu and other Dravidians languages came from Sanskrit. Or, for those on wikipedia as can be seen in the article Dravidian people trying to make the whole article a proof test of genetics that Dravidians do not exist. This type of mentality is no different from that of the German Nazis of the WWII era. It's funny that it was noticed there was one editor on a quest in Wikipedia to remove the word "ethnicity" from pages such as that of Kannadiga people, Tamil people, and so on... As for the sentence that states "none can divide the South Indian people into two races", he was not talking of the whole of the Indian Sub-continent (North and South).

With that said, here are some passages of Periyar’s statements regarding Dravidian Race from the book titled Collected Works of Periyar:

"South India is quite different from the North in many respects. It is a distinct and separate State of Dravidian race". p. 490
"Manu’s code is against the Sudra of Dravidan race interests. There are many proofs to illustrate this in Kural". p. 507

Finally, the last sentence of the intro paragraph stating, "and still continues today to stand up for the rights of humanity.", that will be worked on. Once again, thanks for your input. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could create a section on "Definition of Self-Respect" in the article on Self-Respect Movement and provide the link in this article.

I might be wrong about Periyar's views on the Dravidian race but I don't agree that there were two or more different races in existence in India. Maybe, they would've existed thousands of years back, but to speak in racial terms in the twentieth century would not be appropriate. In the two millenia since Sanskritization of the Tamil country might have started, the world has seen a lot of things. Even in the case of an "Indo-Aryan race", we should not forget the fact that wave after wave of Greeks, Sakas, Turks, Afghans, Persians invaded the north. Though the South was almost completely free of external invasions, there were still settlers from different parts of the world. So, a pure "Indo-Aryan" or "Dravidian" race does not seem to exist for all practical purposes. -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 16:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per suggestions, the following have been implemented:

Removed Peacock words here, however, did not find the word "numerous" as a peacock word according to WP:PEACOCK, but found numerous other words in the article.
Removed Weasle words here.
Added the word "former" to "politician" in first sentence here.
Changed "Social reformer" to "Social activist" in first sentence, and hyper-linked "self-respect" to Self-Respect Movement in first paragraph of intro here.
Changed the last sentence from "still continues today to stand up for the rights of humanity" to "continues his legacy of upliftment in Tamil Nadu" in last paragraph of intro here.

There is nothing in the article which stated that a S.I.L.F. conference took place in 1946, nor is there any passage stating or making it seem that the party existed up to 1951. The way this article was written was in native English. Perhaps, there could be a confusion between the way English is spoken in India and in the U.S.? Sorry if there was a confusion. Anyways, thanks for your input. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Characteristics and pre-cursors describes the 16th Confederation of the South Indian Liberal Federation held in Tiruchirapalli in 1945 where the concept of Dravida Nadu was clearly defined by Periyar. If Periyar had changed the S.I.L.F. to Dravidar Kazhagam in 1944, then how come S.I.L.F. existed in 1945. I have sources which state that a party by name Justice Party contested the 1951 Madras Assembly elections and won a seat. See here-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 17:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharp eyes you have. Thanks for spotting that. It was corrected. The pdf file you presented was pretty interesting, though many texts and journals state that the Justice Party ended around 1944. Anyways, good job. Wiki Raja (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether particular phrases constitute peacock terms or weasel words or not depends roughly on human discretion and not on any specific Wikipedia lists. From what I understand, phrases that don't convey anything useful to the article are to be avoided altogether. This would include things like "He was a very famous man", etc. The lists given contains only some of the most frequently used peacock terms and weasel words and not all of them.-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 17:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Numerous" is a word which denotes amounts or numbers of people or other items, not how great someone is. Anyways, "numerous" has also been used in the following articles along with the Gandhi article being of FA status:

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi - "He was imprisoned for many years, on numerous occasions, in both South Africa and India".
Jawaharlal Nehru - "Numerous public institutions and memorials across India are dedicated to Nehru's memory".
Indira Gandhi - "The internal structure of the Congress Party had withered following its numerous splits". Wiki Raja (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "numerous" is a term which carries a great deal of ambiguity. "The internal structure of the Congress Party had withered following its numerous splits". How numerous? Ten might be numerous for you, while I might feel that ten is too little. Three might be "numerous" for another person. So, such sentences carry no meaning at all. Normally, such terms should be avoided if accurate stats are available.

Mahatma Gandhi is an FA and is pretty well-written. But then, an featured article need not be spotless either. There might one or two small mistakes that have beaten the eye of the reviewers at the time of the nom. That's why, we have a featured article review process. But then, it is better to rectify in case something catches the eye.-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 10:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. However, as previously stated, there are differences between the way English is spoken and understood between those from India and those from Western countries. Here are a few more examples of FA articles that use "numerous" amongst many other FA articles using the related word.

Daniel Webster - "Webster's legacy has been commemorated by numerous means":
Harry S. Truman - "The disorderly reconversion of the economy of the United States was marked by severe shortages, numerous strikes... The Republican majority in Congress, anxious to enact numerous tax cuts... In 1950, the Senate, led by Estes Kefauver, investigated numerous charges... He also turned down numerous offers... Furthermore, the Harry S. Truman Library has numerous examples..."
Franklin D. Roosevelt - "...especially Raymond Moley when designing his policies; he offered cabinet positions to numerous candidates... By this time, Roosevelt had numerous ailments..."
Ronald Reagan - "His numerous jokes and one-liners..."
Adi Shankara - "Besides these atheists, there were numerous theistic sects."
Ganesha - "Above all, one cannot help being struck by the fact that the numerous stories surrounding Gaṇeśa..."
Economy of India - "...resulting in numerous famines..."
Delhi - "...exercises supervisory powers over numerous other functionaries of the Government..."
Mumbai - "...Indian companies and numerous multinational corporations... The coastline of the city is indented with numerous creeks and bays... Many of India's numerous conglomerates... explores numerous tourist attractions in Mumbai... Mumbai has numerous newspaper publications... Numerous Indian and foreign channels..."
Michael Jackson - "His distinctive musical sound and vocal style influenced numerous hip hop, pop and contemporary R&B artists... distinctive musical sound and vocal style have influenced numerous hip hop, pop... Throughout his career he received numerous honors and awards..."
Celine Dion - "Her English-language material has been influenced by numerous genres..."
Yom Kippur War - "...Israeli gunners had practiced on the Golan heights numerous time- and were effective..."
Dien Bien Phu - "...light tanks and numerous aircraft were committed to the garrison..."
United States Marine Corps - "...in the War of 1812, at Tripoli, Chapultepec, numerous counter-insurgency and occupational duties..."
USS Wisconsin (BB-64) - "...missions on enemy command posts, bunkers, and personnel shelters, making numerous cuts on enemy trench lines..."
Battle of Midway - "...commissioned more than two dozen fleet and light fleet carriers, and numerous escort carriers..."
Richard Williams (RAAF officer) - "...faced numerous challenges to its continued existence... but following numerous complaints in the ensuing years reverted to Williams' original..."
West Bengal - "The Ganges delta and the Sundarbans area have numerous rivers..."
Rabindranath Tagore - "...Tagore took to emulating numerous styles, including that of craftwork by the Malanggan people of northern New Ireland..."

As you have stated, "Whether particular phrases constitute peacock terms or weasel words or not depends roughly on human discretion and not on any specific Wikipedia lists". If that were the case, then we would not need Wikipedia guidelines and regulations. Further, "human discretion" on Wikipedia articles is pretty much POV unless guided by rules. Anyways, your opinions are respected. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYKI, this is what Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms says:

Words and phrases to watch for

Deciding whether a particular wording is suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment.However, oft-abused words include:

and then proceeds to list some commonly used peacock terms.

-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 07:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that deciding whether a particular wording is suitable or not depends on common sense and good editorial judgment. Thus, common sense and good editorial judgment are the pre-conditions in using human judgment. On the contrary, there are others [not you :)] who tend to use "human judgment" without such pre-conditions only to push for their POV and biased agendas. Anyways, as for the word numerous, it is another word for many. Would the word many be considered peacock term? What if something happened or had taken place more than once, as in "constantly", "on a regular basis", or "many times" - where there is no exact count? Then how would that be rephrased or re-worded? Wiki Raja (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first example in Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms contains an usage of the word "many" which is the reason why I marked out the usage of "numerous" which has more or less the same meaning as "many". -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 04:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I had another look at the lead section and have one more suggestion to make. The article starts with "Periyar E. V. Ramasamy" which is not appropriate. He was never known as "Periyar E. V. Ramasamy". He was officially known as "E. V. Ramasamy" and known as "Periyar" amongst his followers. And then, as per Wikipeda guidelines, you cannot allow initials. You should rather expand them. I'd rather suggest that the article start as:

Erode Venkata Naicker Ramasamy, affectionately called Periyar or Thanthai Periyar by his followers.

It is a good pratice to expand the initials of the subject.

That's the lead section for you. I don't have time to assess the rest of the article, but I am sure there will be people here who would :-). Anyway, that's all for now-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 04:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest that more images (PD and dair use images I mean) be added to the article. And then you could use Template:Quotation for quotes instead of Template:Quote. The article would look more beautiful. -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 04:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]