Talk:Tulu people

Are there really any tulu christians

hey there aren't any tulu christians left anywhere.most are assimilated with konkani catholics or are reconverted to hindu faith.the madhva monastries and Hindu nationalism is pretty strong a force in mangalore.though there are a few koraga christians,but koraga is listed as a separate language.They can't be added as tuluva.Tulu culture is pretty much hindu and the remaining jain.Koragas are listed as a separate ehtnic group though they associate more with tulu than kannada.what is Tulu chritian culture?.Most protestant churches sing kannada konkani hyms not tulu except the pavoor church.Beary muslims can be classified as Tulu since beary find mention even in paddanas.there is vibrant mangalorean konkani christian culture not tulu.Muskeeter8 (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please add new sections to the bottom of the page. Or just click on "New Section" to add a new topic. There are Christians among Tulus. I had added a referece some time back but someone removed it. I have added it back. Hope that erases any doubts. --Deepak D'Souza 05:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

i doubt there are tulu christiansAttagirl (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some ethnicities have strong relations with a particular religion. For example, the Arab identity is strongly related with Islam. Likewise, the Tuluva identity is strongly related with Hinduism and Jainism. But on Wikipedia, irrespective of what anyone considers, all religions have to be represented. Forget Christianity, even if there any Muslim Tuluvas or Buddhist Tuluvas, even they have to be mentioned.

• Bulletin, Volume 25, Issues 1-4, p. 41
• Google Book search on Tulu Protestants Kensplanet^T_C 05:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

2001 statistics of Tulu Nadu from the Diocese of Mangalore clearly states that there are 60,434 Protestants. Are you trying to say, none are Tulu-speaking. Kensplanet^T_C 05:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously doubt the presence of Tulu christains, most of the articles on the net do not mention any thing about Tulu Christains, except for the sources provided above most of which are christain sites. We need some neutral source. The word Christian can be taken out of the infobox and be mentioned in the para.188.54.84.236 (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally know a couple of Tuluva Catholics and Protestants. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 10:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

People

IP dont delete the majority of the article when you disagree with somone, it looks like an edit war in the article history, ive removed the warnings linguistic gave you, but it looks like you may have a history of blanking articles to cause an edit war, don't do that please--Lerdthenerd (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the warning issued by Linguistic to me. I have no intension to start an edit war. My point is large edits as the one made by linguistic needs to be discussed. Until a discussion is made, let the original version be in the article.188.54.14.205 (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

what is the problem with the content.you mean to say other communities are irrelevant even if they have articles.that's not how wiki works see Malayali article.anyways this article is stub.expansion is required.`13:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Tuluvas and a brief description of each communities is not required. Each community has its own page and is hyperlinked. So anyone who wants to know more about the communities can click on the hyperlink. Also description of each community make this article looks un-encyclopedic. 188.52.8.156 (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

sorry but all you have done with your dynamic ip is remove hyper links of shivalli brahmins,tuluva gowda,devadiga,sthanika brahmins etc.that is pure vandalism.do you think i don't see the edit history.the article is a stub description abt various communities does not violate any rule.and also please stop removing kannada fonts from other articles.LinguisticGeek 07:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

While I have removed the hyper links, I have stated the reason. You could have contested the edit there and then itself. This discussion is about the current edit. Don't bring in old issues. We can have a discussion for it also. Now by adding brief descriptions of various communities does not violate any rule, by definitely it make the article look shabby and un-encyclopedic. Discussing the edit and comming to conclusion is better than protecting the article. 188.52.8.156 (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

not even a single edit of yours on this article has been constructive.your reasons are invalid.all communities are notable if they have articles.and old issues?.you edit behaviour shows all you are intersted is in vandalizing and removing other people's referenced content with citation.you don't even discuss which is a violation of wikipedia policy and also use multiple ips to avoid detection.read wikipedia rules before you come again to edit this or any other related page.also see this Malayali page.the format is pretty good and it has all malayalam speaking communities mentioned.and what shabbiness ?.the article is stub.expanding it makes the article look better and you are clearly not interested in expanding or improving.all you do is remove content or kannada fonts.LinguisticGeek 08:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are you just referring only to the Malayali article. Why don't you refer to other articles pertaining to other linguistic groups. None of these articles have any brief description of communities. Your reference to only the Malayali are seems absurd. More over the Malayali article is not even a featured article to hold it as a reference for the Tuluvas article. Yes I have made previous edits according to what I think is right. If anyone has an issue with the edits, they have to contest the edits I made then and there it self. This discussion is contesting your edit where in you have put brief description of each community. Lets stick to it.188.52.8.156 (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

first stop sock puppeting and using multiple ips and this account User:PDheeru.secondly your edit behaviour has been contested see Kasaragod Town page and also warnings on pdheeru user page.also what you are doing is not just removing description but even links of other communities.there are only abt 40000 jain bunts and you are keeping it and removing other communties who have their population in lacks.thats absurd.LinguisticGeek 08:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Jains Bunts are mentioned just because they are Jains. Showing a uniqueness. You need to read the para completely to understand the essence of it. It has nothing to with population.188.52.8.156 (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

all communities have their own uniqueness,removing them does not make sense.you said only major communities should be added.you are contradicting yourself now.and also you haven't explained your previous edit behaviours including starting edits wars .LinguisticGeek

No, I never started an edit war. It was you who tried to avoid a discussion challenging your edit by issuing me a warning. From the begining my stand was to restore the article the original form and discuss your edits. You were simply reverting and calling my edits vandalism.188.52.8.156 (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

how funny.i am not the person who uses mutiple ips and accounts and removes content without leaving edits summaries.LinguisticGeek 08:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to check the history page and see for your self what you have been doing. Jains need to be mentioned since it is a religion rather than a community. My point was we cannot list all the communities, hence mentioning the major ones188.52.8.156 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

the jains are a community.part of the bunt caste traditionally.your removing of other communitieslinks perhaps stems from your dislike towards them and also kannada fonts.LinguisticGeek 08:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Requesting you to stick to the topic. Jains are a community but also a religious community. Mentioning Jains brings out the fact that there is small community of Jain Tuluvas. Hence need to be mentioned. Please note I do not have any dislike toward any community.188.52.8.156 (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

They are jain bunts (bunts speak both tulu and kannada) and historically jains have used kannada and sanskrit as their official langauge.while the shivalli brahmins used what is now called Tulu script historically tigliari.and you are removing brahmins.funny.LinguisticGeek 09:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Since this discussion is pertaining to the brief description of each communities I suggest replacing the said section with this 'The majority of Tuluvas are Hindus who are subdived into various communities namely Bunts, Mogaveera, Billava, Shivalli Brahmins, Devadigas and others. There is a small population of landlords who follow Jainism'188.52.8.156 (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

yes that is what i have made brief description of four major communities brahmin,bunt(both hindu and jain) mogaveera and billava and minor description of smaller communities like sthanika devadiga and tulu gowda.who have articles.also don't forget they are more tulu caste like pambada,nalke,mundala etc who don't have articles therefore not listed.every community with article should be listed.a brief description of each community is good enough.it lets readers know how they are different.completely enclopaedic.LinguisticGeek 09:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC) We need to do away with the brief description, since all have hyperlink188.52.8.156 (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

the article is already a stub.it needs content don't you realise.and you aren't adding any sourced content are you ? with citationss not original research.LinguisticGeek 09:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this article needs content but that does not mean filling the article with irrelevant words. Describing about various communities does not add qualitatively to the article. More over there is a hyper link for each community mentioned and any one wishing to see more info about a particular community can click on the link. A person visiting this page does so to know about the Tuluva ethnic group so info about Tuluvas is more relevant in this page. Adding content pertaining to the Tuluvas in genaral will improve the article.188.52.8.156 (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant.there is nothing called tuluva identity or kannada identity or for that matter any language.it is just a lingusitic term.every tulu speaking community or any language caste has it's own traditions history and separate origins.it's like saying all indians have one culture and all are hindus.diversity is what india is known for.description of that diversity is neededLinguisticGeek 09:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don;t make irrelevant and imaginary comments. Stick to the topic. This issue cannot be decided. We need to have poll on this. Opinion by other users will help resolve this issue188.52.8.156 (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

imaginary.tell me will a bunt man marry a mogaveera woman and a brahmin girl will marry a billava man.caste identities are more stronger than linguitic ones.anyways half of the tulu spekaing caste also speak kannada and malayalam.seriosuly this article is a stub and will remain so.and imaginary notions are held by you not me.LinguisticGeek 09:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You are going way out of the topic. Please stick to it. Requesting users to express their comments on this issue.If they are for including the brief description of each community in the people section or against it. 188.52.8.156 (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

this is not way out of the topic.enough of this discussion.the next time you remove content with citations and indulge in sock puppeting like you always do and remove kannada konkani or malayalam fonts from anywhere.be ready to face a block.if you have any problem go to the content dispute resolution section.and stop vandalizing other people's edits.this is a consensus driven wikipedia and read the rules again also unlike you i edit and clean a lot of article.so i have work to do.goodbye.and i warn you gain if you undo any edits then be ready to face a block for edit warring.LinguisticGeek 10:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop issuing warnings (the only thing you are good at). If you have way out please sugget it.Your edits are liable to be deleted if consensus is not reached. Older version will pervail10:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeking a third opinion, since there was no response from any user.188.52.8.156 (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi! I'm here to respond to the third opinion request on WP:3O. I'm not familiar with this topic, but purely from an editor's point of view, the new content lacks citations. Linguisticgeek, not taking Pdheeru/188.52.8.156's side, but do you have any reliable sources to verify your claims? I'll have to dispute your "content with citations" claim, you've expanded the section with multiple paragraphs (which is perfectly fine), but only one of the paragraphs has an inline citation. And the page cited discusses "Gowda Kannada" (a dialect) and "Women in Tamil Society", but nothing specifically relevant to the article (unless it's on another page? Could you provide a page number?)—res Laozi speak 09:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to the request.188.52.8.156 (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Since we have not received any reply on the query, may I seek the permission to revert the edits made by Linguesticgeek and restore the section to the original version. Also requesting Administrators to remove the protection on the article, so as to enable IPs to contribute to the article.188.50.106.93 (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd wait a few more days, just in case. But is he watching this page? Has he been notified?--res Laozi speak 23:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeking permission to revert the section to original version. The discussion can be kept open if you wish so.188.49.33.240 (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverting to older version 188.52.34.11 (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Linguesticgee, please discuss your edits here. Since you have not responded to the queries of the Third party conflict resolution negotiator this issue is far from sorted out. Please do not hijack this article. 188.50.23.250 (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

stop this vandalism.you remove content added by other users.including user;Kedige.also you have been reverted by user GEd UK.I have come across lot of language chauvinist vandals like you.do something constructive than disrupting wikipedia.not one single contructive edits in your long history of editing through dynamic ips.all you indulge is in edits wars including other related pages like tulu nadu and kasaragod.LinguisticGeek 08:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please be to the topic and discuss the issue. Stop preaching. I know what I am doing.(Whatever I have been doing is within the rules of Wikipedia policies) Please discuss first. 188.50.23.250 (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to the request from User:RegentsPark. As far as I understand, User:LinguisticGeek has added a chunk of text describing various communities that are Tuluvas which the IP says is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Malayali example is not the best, it is not even a good article, let alone a featured article as mentioned by the IP. See the featured article Tamil people for example. IMO, IP sounds like a reasonable person and definitely not like a language chauvinist vandal as desribed by LinguisticGeek in his 08:02, 14 February 2011 post. It will be best if everyone stays WP:Civil and not resort to WP:Personal attacks. Considering LinguisticGeek's propensity to personally attack others (see Mr Anti Nair/upper caste barb at me) that disagree with him, i am not surprised. I would recommend one paragraph describing all communities and one paragraph describing all the religions. another option is to draw the attention of more editors by placing a note in other public venues. --CarTick (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to the original version. User Linguesticgeek has been shying way from any discussion on the large chunk of text he has added (Kindly see the history page) and has been abusive. Concerned editor are requested to take note of this for necessary corrective action.59.92.240.116 (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture at the begining of the article

It would be better if we include a sport person's pic also in the group. Kindly suggest some names for inclusion, of which one pic can be finalised 117.198.108.120 (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Sri sir Vishwesha Theertha Swamiji.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Sri sir Vishwesha Theertha Swamiji.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

File:AishwaryaRai.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AishwaryaRai.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:AishwaryaRai.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do people revert the change without even doing basic research?

When someone adds some info it's pretty usual that he/she has a source for that info. If you don't agree well you can always challenge that!!

It's like you know it exists!! you have witnessed it!! you have proof!! but some people on wiki just don't let it happen.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianDroid (talk • contribs)

Hi there!

Firstly please familiarize yourself with the standards laid down here, WP:NOT. I have recently reverted your edits as you fail to provide reliable reference sources for the same. Original research as given here, WP:ORIGINAL is strictly not allowed on Wikipedia. Thank you and have a nice day! --PageImp (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Bhuta-aradhana

If there is a better literal translation than 'ghost worship', then please do add it. I went to the trouble of looking it up, because when I read the paragraph, I thought: what is "Bhuta-aradhana"? My addition did not say it is actually "ghost worship", merely that this is its literal translation.

Would not have minded TuluveRai123's removal [1] of the new material, if they had added a superior explanation, or even any! They seem knowledgeable on the subject, so why could they not add sourced content that was correct (in their view)? It needs to be explained, otherwise we might as well not have the paragraph at all. And Buta Kola is not the correct link to pipe to Bhuta [2]: One is the festival, the other, Bhoota (ghost), is the article on the entities themselves.

Anyway, I have changed ghost to spirit, in the hope that is more acceptable. Also, Buta Kola is now a {{see also}} section hatnote. Added sources, too. Please, if you do change this again, don't just remove, but add informative detail, that's better than what you're removing. Thanks, AukusRuckus (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

hey there!

You have added main article as Bhoota(Ghost), which is not proper. Bhoota(Ghost) is not same as Buta Kola. Here in Buta Kola deities are worshipped not the Ghost. Its actually Daiva and not Bhuta. Hope you get this. Kindly go through this once.

TuluveRai123 (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)