Talk:Nair

About Murky Origin and Irrelevant Statements

This probably would be the article that has ‘U’ turned in Wikipedia during last one year. Earlier the article was only about the glorification, now it is more like defamation ever since the new editors like Sitush has taken charge. I hope this would take a middle path sometime soon, and would reflect something closest to the Real. The article still has a long way to go. The murkiest section is regarding the origin. They are not able to put forward the findings of so many scholars who researched for decades on this subject. Instead they are making vague statements like Nairs were some tribes that originated from Nilgiris (though they have absolutely no source to cite this). In some other section of the article they quote the less known Pullaplilly as a source and says that Nairs originated from Ezhavas and in the main section they say it is an amalgamation of so many castes. What a contradiction. can anyone make an article more confusing than this. Nairs and Bunts of Tulunad are of same race and this is mentioned and documented in almost all ancient, medieval documents including govt gazettes. They are of indo-scythian origin. A few researchers like Zacharia thundiyil has mentioned Nairs as descendants of Newar who basically again are of indo-scythian origin. References are aplenty..here are a few ( Martial races of undivided india - Tyagi vidya parkash, census of india - office of the register general, The modern review - Ramanada chatterji, The scythian origin of Nairs , Ravunni Menon). At least Himalayan blunders like the origin and all references from Sadasivan and Pullapilly (which you editors yourselves have agreed as not reliable) should be removed first, for this article to get bear minimum reliability. Another most ridiculous statement goes like this “This Travancore State Force was instrumental in the suppressing of the 1946 Punnapra-Vayalar uprising, during which 7000 Ezhava youths were killed by the Force”..this is height of stupidity. What do the editors mean by this..it was Nair forces that killed the Ezhavas..come on, you are questioning the readers’ sensibility here. The famous Malayalam actor sathyanesan nadar (a.k.a Sathyan) was an inspector in this force like so many other Nadars and Tamils (travancore included many southern Tamil districts those days). Also how did they count the no. of Ezhavas..there were so many other community members including Nairs who were killed in Punnapray-Vayalar. In fact the founding leaders of the communist movement were from Nairs. ayways, what is the relevance of this statement in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyasan (talk • contribs) 11:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You mention Tyagi's Martial Races of Undivided India as a source. This clearly demonstrates that you have not even looked over the comments of the last few hours on this talk page, let alone the discussions that have taken place during the period that you consider to be an ill-founded u-turn. As such, I do not propose to respond further until you at least demonstrate some sort of appreciation regarding the lengthy process of examination that the "u-turn" has undergone. You might also wish to consider the fact that we need to present alternate views shown by reliable sources, with appropriate weight etc - this may explain your concern regarding apparent contradictions. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mr.Sitush, please don't run away and change topics when i'm specific on some points. You always tend to quit any discussion by citing some technicality or other. If you think whatever sources i have given are not 'reliable' and only Sadasivan and Pulappilly are 'reliable', then me too is not interested in having any discussion with you, because that tells me that you are prejudiced, anyway I have read what you have mentioned in the earlier sections, and my point was not about what was discussed there..It was about the origin section.Also I do accept your contributions to this article, but still has a long way to go. and i'm trying to help you in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyasan (talk • contribs) 13:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no "Origin" section. And Nilgiris are not mentioned anywhere. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Pullapilly's publisher is reliable, as also is he. Sadasivan is not in the article & has not been for quite a few hours. When he was there, his stuff was tagged as "dubious". - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You may note that the stuff about the Travancore State Force regarding which you raise objections has cite requests tags next to it. If you take a look at the history then it is my bet that this info relates to the article as it was before the alleged "u-turn", ie: when it was massively pushing a point of view, and it was probably me who tagged it.. Not having been involved in writing the military bits, I would have left it for people who had been reading up on the subject. If I am correct - and I will check - then certainly it can be deleted now if nothing can be found to support the statement. I'll take a look. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the TSF stuff was introduced by User:MatthewVanitas and it was sourced to Sadasivan. I tagged those statements as dubious and then, 13 hours ago I replaced the "dubious" with full blown cite requests. We need to do some digging. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say "that Nairs originated from Ezhavas". What it says is "Pullapilly has suggested that the Nairs may share a common heritage with the Ezhava caste." A common heritage is not the same as a common origin, and the bit about "common parentage" is clearly stated as being a theory. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Nair/Bunts issue has been discussed to death here - please search the archives and history if it still concerns you. I really do not care whether they are Indo-Scythian or Martian relations: there are dozens, if not hundreds, of I-S communities & so singling out the Bunts is undue weight. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Sitush also rejected my Encyclopedia citation. Trust me that's when you know someone wont allow you to correct the article.

Vineet Nayar1 (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed your indenting again (well, actually, I've outdented it), sorry. I am unsure of what you are referring to here. Which encyclopedia? Where did I reject it? Can you give me a diff or the date/time of the message where I did so? And have you read WP:TERTIARY ? - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Sitush here. Glorification or defamation is not the purpose here, but being objective is. Your concern that some origin theory is 'less glorifying/defaming' is rather childish and the sources you offer for your theory are not more reliable than hearsay. Most of the sources used here are confirming with WP policies, including Pullappilly, and is strictly stated as his opinion. Of course there will be other theories as there is no universal acceptance of any one view, but there should be reliable sources to vouch for those.

I do agree with your second position though. Not just that the statement made has no citations, but is totally irrelevant and transgressional to go into such claims and 'details'. I am removing that entire sentence and merging the two paragraphs into one, and I hope it would be discussed here before reinstating it. An uncited unwanted comment need to stay off untill its purpose and validity is made apparent.Legolas95 (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for deleting the irrelevent statements. It makes a lot of sense. Again I would say Pulapilly's 'suggestions' are not adding any value and he is just shooting in the dark. His observation of similarity between these communities to point to a common ancestry is totally absurd. Ezhavas are of paternal descend, are not martial and are not known for 'serpant worship'. The rituals during different life stages are common for all regional hindus who are of non-hindu background, not just between Nairs and Ezhavas. So this 'suggestion' is also a low point of this article. The origin section is important for any article, so please correct this too. There are better findings by many other academicians on this like G.M.Parinikker, Zacharia thundiyil, Malabar manual or the most reliable Madras manuals, Asiatic research etc. Most of these references point to a Newar/scythian mixture of Nagas as the origin. Malabar manual also cites vellala mixture with Naga tribes as origin. You could mention any of these or a couple of them in the origin section. Also Naga/sepent worship is not a dravidian custom, if then, it should've been more popular in places like Tamil Nadu. Nagas were a group of people who were spread all over india. Anantnag (Kashmir) Taxila (Sindh) Ananthpur (Andhra), thiru ananthapuram (Kerala) are all famouse Naga settlements. In south india, they are found in Andhra, tulunad and kerala. Also the 'Portugese Era' section says the portugese popularised the tern 'Nayar', this is again a dubious item, as it was not possible for anyone to change the caste status during that time when caste was the basis for anything and everything. Till the end of 18th C, kingdoms in these region strictly adhered to the caste based society and caste based occupation outlined by Sankaracharya, and it was impossible even for the kings, the clergy (azhvancheri) or even any other ruling force to change the caste of a person, though there were a few thiyas of n.malabar and kuruchiyas of wynad who could also carry arms like most of the Nairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyasan (talk • contribs) 06:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I couldnt find any reliable reference for your claims. Even Nagas as a people/tribe is poorly attested and seems more mythical than historical. Unless you are providing reliable sources to back your claims, this exercise is pointless, plus I think this issue has been discussed before. The Portuguese popularizing the term, which was till then just a title, is taken from the book cited (and the work it cites for reference is also reliable), although the wording is slightly different. The etymology of the word Nair as well as various Nair surnames suggest their role as titles, so I dont share your concern of extreme improbability over that. Matriliniality is not exclusive to Nairs, it was practiced by some Ezhava castes, Muslim families and even some tribal castes. Nor is it popular among Indo Scythian groups, and how much origins or socio political circumstances are behind it is debatable. If you are to provide reliable references to back your theory, it will be given due respect. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to help yourself decide what kind of sources are deemed reliable.Legolas95 (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

whatever is written above (regarding the origin) can be referred in Malabar Manual (citing Asiatic research) in the chapter called "people of malabar" sub section 'Nair'. BTW, noone can be candid about all these different versions of origins including whatever is mentioned as wikipedia rilable sources, and definitely if Pulapilly is such a great source as per Wikipedia, then i have no faith in this article getting corrected anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyasan (talk • contribs) 06:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Malabar Manual is not a great source. It is old and, as you infer, it relies on even older studies. Pullapilly is a modern professor, recognised by his peers and published by a reputable press. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

huh..you make me laugh...what do you mean by 'modern' research regarding the origin of an ancient community.did he have a time machine. He is just suggesting (on what grounds, did he conduct any genetic study or is he citing some other 'reliable source') .nothing is mentioned and you have so shabbily added his suggestions to the main section of this article. Suggestion is nothing but POV. I know you are hard pushing your POV here..but don't think that the readers are fools..There are many scholars who are more accepted than Pullapilly..this shows that you have no context of what people of Kerala are and is totally out of synch with the ground realities.This articles is not reaching anywhere..thanks to the neophytes.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyasan (talk • contribs) 16:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that I am keeping you amused. Such things are always a bonus. Have you ever heard of the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants"? Isaac Newton used it in order to illustrate how what we know, interpret and understand now can only be so because of the work of others who preceded us. This has an immense relevance to the notion that modern sources are likely to be better than old ones. The modern academics can assimilate all that has gone on before and bring to bear "new eyes", new ideas, new methods, new intelligence/information etc that extend or modify what is, after all, always a series of hypotheses rather than "truth" (no such thing as "truth", here or anywhere else). If you think that they are unaware of the people who wrote in the Asiatic Society Journal 150 years ago, or of the works of Barbosa etc then I am afraid that you are wrong: most modern academics do mention older sources etc such as these. Mind you, some of those older sources are truly dreadful even though some misguided people here at Wikipedia love them, a classic example being James Tod. He is a great means of demonstrating just how bad the so-called "greats" were and just why it is so dangerous to use them now. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

as usual you are beating around the bush..thanks for the lesson on modern approaches but you didn't tell how Pulappilly fits in there, and why and how you can push his suggestions which are mere POV into an important section of this article. Writing about a community cannot be done at a lab (for all whatever you say as modern today, will be proved as obsolete or wrong some time soon).you need lot of patience, passion and understand the dynamics of living in a certain area where this cimmunity existed and continue to exist, you need to read/see/feel many things yourself before you stand on someone's shoulder. Knowledge from books need to be compounded with experience to make it perfect. As far as i can see, you are just trying to push someone's agenda and is not keen on improving yourself or the quality of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyasan (talk • contribs) 04:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an imperfect project. One of its possible imperfections is that it takes no account of the personal experience of its contributors. Day-to-day life in Kerala etc is utterly irrelevant to us unless it is documented by reliable sources. I feel that you know that this is the Wikipedia way but do not like it. If so, then that is just your tough luck, sorry. I will not be responding further to your comments until you begin to supply reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My recent removal

I have just removed

Their social systems are very close to Bunts in Karnataka and Nagas..Nairs are classified as forward class both by kerala and India governments.

There are several reasons for this:

1. www.nairs.in is not a reliable source
2. Tyagi is not reliable (& it is Tyagi, not "Vidya Prakash" - those are just his first two names)
3. Forward caste issue is dealt with in the article body and the issue is complex. There is a consensus not to include varna & this sort of stuff in lead sections
4. the other sources are vague, and we know from the reliable sources in the article body that the Nair social systems are similar to groups other than these - how long a list do we provide?

- Sitush (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese/British admixture in Nairs

".. On the other hand, Hindu Nairs have been influenced by the western European gene pool based on high prevalence of alleles B*07 and Cw*07..." (A crypto-Dravidian origin for the nontribal communities of South India based on human leukocyte antigen class I diversity: R. Thomas, S. B. Nair, M Banerjee)

Leaving behind their historical explanations, this genetic study has a great anthropological importance. It is a clear evidence for the admixture of Portuguese, British and Dutch blood in today's Nairs. The Portuguese were the first Europeans to arrive. It was Portuguese who popularized the term Nair which was a mere title until then. Nair men served in Colonial armies as infantry soldiers. The Portuguese soldiers had numerous Nair mistresses and since the Nairs followed 'Marumakkathayam', the children born from these unions were classified as Nairs and were brought up in tharavadus.

Portuguese army (Parangi Pattalam) had its main barracks at towns such as Kannur, Thalassery, Calicut, Cochin, Quilon, Attingal, etc Nairs in all these areas are fairer than those in other areas. The Menons of Valluvanad are the only Nairs without European admixture. This is why the Valluvanad Nairs (Menons/Mannadiar) consider Travancore Nairs (Pillai) and Malabar Nairs (Nambiar) as inferior castes.

Portuguese/British admixture in Nairs

".. On the other hand, Hindu Nairs have been influenced by the western European gene pool based on high prevalence of alleles B*07 and Cw*07..." (A crypto-Dravidian origin for the nontribal communities of South India based on human leukocyte antigen class I diversity: R. Thomas, S. B. Nair, M Banerjee)

Leaving behind their historical explanations, this genetic study has a great anthropological importance. It is a clear evidence for the admixture of Portuguese, British and Dutch blood in today's Nairs. The Portuguese were the first Europeans to arrive. It was Portuguese who popularized the term Nair which was a mere title until then. Nair men served in Colonial armies as infantry soldiers. The Portuguese soldiers had numerous Nair mistresses and since the Nairs followed 'Marumakkathayam', the children born from these unions were classified as Nairs and were brought up in tharavadus.

Portuguese army (Parangi Pattalam) had its main barracks at towns such as Kannur, Thalassery, Calicut, Cochin, Quilon, Attingal, etc Nairs in all these areas are fairer than those in other areas. The Menons of Valluvanad are the only Nairs without European admixture. This is why the Valluvanad Nairs (Menons/Mannadiar) consider Travancore Nairs (Pillai) and Malabar Nairs (Nambiar) as inferior castes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.0.9.53 (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nairs of Kerala- Nairs of Kerala has a glorifying past. Most of them were rulers of a small areas often in connection with the kings. There were frequent marriages between Nairs and Brahmins. Of course, there are some Nairs within the caste were considered as backward class. But that doesn't mean Nairs are not a forward class in Kerala. Majority of the Nairs belong to this forward class without any reservation. No human can claim 100% genetic purity. But Kerala Nairs have mostly fair skin, peculiar face structure, special customs similar to other similar casts such as Thevars in Tamil Nadu, Blunts in Karnataka, Marathas in Maharashtra, Rajputs in Rajasthan, Jat from Punjab and Dogras from Jammu and Kashmir. Nairs social systems clearly identify themselves as Nagavamsi Kshetriyas. Regarding the comparison with Ezhavas, I am not against any comparison or mixing of the community, but the truth should prevail. Ezhavas and Nairs had very different customs and social status in Kerala. All Ezhavas are eligible to receive reservations as Other Backward Classes from India and Kerala Governments. Ezhavas outnumbered Nairs long back, now in Kerala there are less than 12% Nairs compared to 24% Ezhavas, 24 % Muslims, and 12 % Syrian Christians. Therefore the Politicians will not support Nairs anymore. Muslims, Ezhavas, and Christians can rule the state without Nairs. This is what is happening for the last few decades. The statement, Nairs of Kerala: A race destined to be refugees in its native land is becoming more and closer to the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebbarmaSi (talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese/British admixture in Nairs - A Lie

1). There is no evidence for any admixture of European blood in Nairs during during medieval or modern times since it is clearly mentioned in genetic studies that present Indian population have evolved in Pleistocene and early Holocene era and not in historical periods.

2). It is a lie that Nairs served in colonial armies as soldiers. In fact Nairs actively shunned colonial armies and career of a mercenary was viewed as beneath dignity. In many part of Malabar, it was only after independence that an army career was viewed with respect. Before independence, only paupers and bankrupts joined army.

3) I suggest reading Richard Burton's account of Kerala written in 1851 - he clearly state that it was quite difficult to catch glimpse of a Nair woman as they were kept out of sight of outsiders by their men and he also add that if someone tried to molest a Nair woman, her kinsmen would swift to retaliate with knife. ("Goa and Blue Mountains", 1851)

4) Only European power to have decisively defeated Nairs are British. Portuguese, Dutch and French came nowhere near what British attained in closing days of 18th century and early years of 19th century. More important - Portuguese were only a few thousands strong even at height of their power in 16th century. So small a population could in no way have impacted a community like Nairs which even in pre-modern era was several hundreds of thousands strong.

5)Nairs of Walluvanad are in no way special or inferior to rest of Nairs. This is a recent invention that is influenced by the prevalent prejudiced notion of Walluvanad being the land where Malayalam language and culture is found in purest and best form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.3.103 (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sig:Ajayan

I am discounting Burton because of its age, but if you provide some reliable sources then your points would be considered. Nothing will happen until you do, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about page

Hi, I am person addicted to Wikipedia, I refer wiki for each and every doubt. Recently i went through the "Nair" page and found it completely changed from what i had seen few months back. Being a Nair myself, some of the sections did hurt my feelings. Few comments were unnecessary and uncalled for. Few authors are trying to highlight the dark side of Nair community, which i feel is not correct. Of course one should talk about both sides of the coin, but giving more weight to a particular side is a biased way of writing. This is my personal opinion though. Citing each and every line from a particular book/author does not add up to the quality of the page. Hope wiki administrators bring this to their notice.

Thank you! Manish Nair --Anjaanaatma (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, citing each and every line is exactly what should be done. The only thing that should be in this article is information taken from reliable sources. If there are other reliable sources with other information that you think should be included, please feel free to provide them. If you're not sure what a reliable source is, please feel free to post the sources here first and someone can advise. If you think something in the article should be removed, please explain, but note that we won't remove just because you feel it's negative or hurtful--again, we go by what the sources say, not based on feelings. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Missing and For Gods Sake Whats Going on???

The last time I went through the article, It had an infobox. Now what happened to that? Why was it removed and for what purpose? Why only negative features about Nairs are updated in the article? The article has lot of weasel wordings and yet no tag has been put. And I do see some veteran editors behaving like rookies and constantly reverting the edits leading to edit wars. Now whats really going on here? arun talk 23:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And may I know why this is_unreliable ? arun talk 23:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That particular book is unreliable because it is published by Gyan Publishing. It has been established that often Gyan publishing takes material published by other places, including quite often Wikipedia itself, wraps it up into a bigger book, and sells it. Sometimes they check what is written, sometimes they don't; sometimes they even make alterations to previous texts without saying they're making alterations. Wikipedia itself can never be a reliable source for other Wikipedia articles, and that's true even if the info is "published" by another publisher. So, as a general rule, because we have strong reason to believe that Gyan does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which is a quote from WP:RS summarizing the key determiner for whether a source is reliable or not.

The infobox was removed because, after discussion here and at WT:INB, it was found that there was basically no reliable information that could go into an infobox for most cases. Since no official surveys have been conducted since the early 20th century, we couldn't include info about population, location, languages, etc. In many cases, the information was much too complicated to put into an infobox; "religion", for instance, cannot be summarized in a word or two for a caste like Nair (since it varies over time and region); similarly, for many castes, varna status is disputed and thus cannot be summarized there either. Once we really started to look at what we could verifiably state, there was nothing particularly useful that could be said in an infobox. As a side note, infoboxes are not used on the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia, and it's a mistake to think that articles "should" have them; they're really only appropriate where there are hard facts (things like population or official name for places, birthdates or spouses for living people, foundation dates and major products for companies, etc.)...for castes, there really are very few hard facts that can be done in a word or two that are current, accurate, and verifiable.

As for your bigger concern about the article, a lot of work has been done to make this article more neutral. Previous versions contained more positive statements, but they were unsourced or soruced with unreliable references. However, if there any specifics that you think should be changed, please bring them up here. If there are more reliable sources that we're not including, we should definitely consider including them. If there are currently included sentences that should be removed for being unreliable, or reworded for being POV, please bring those up. But please keep in mind that NPOV does not necessarily mean "positive"; it means "reflecting what reliable sources says, particularly the best quality academic sources". Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine then. But see to it that the article gets a neutral tone. Will provide reliable resource asap. arun talk 03:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this link reliable? arun talk 03:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I can only see it in snippet view. - Sitush (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And what about this? This one establishes Nairs to be foremost warriors. arun talk 03:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see any content at all for this one. - Sitush (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this source reliable? arun talk 03:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, in my opinion, unless you can explain why you consider it to be authoritative. To be honest, in a field as well documented as the Nair community, there should not be much need to rely on websites as sources. More generally - and this comment applies to the two other sources that you mention above - the status of Nairs as warriors is already in the article. There was much discussion here about the weight that should be placed on that aspect of the community's history, given that it did only form one element of the whole. A search of the archives for this page might assist you. There is an archive search box somewhere near to the top of this and I think that "warrior" or "martial" might be useful terms to try. Obviously, if you have new information that usefully expands on those discussions then please feel free to mention it here. - Sitush (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Kalaripayattu ???? anyone? 141.160.26.251 (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Sambhavi Kumari

It is mentioned in the article, yes. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere in a corner ? yes. and serpent worship ? a mere dravidian custom ? is that what its about ? u could well have written it as a human custom as well. It's full of ambiguity. 116.203.64.215 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi 116. If you think part of the article is inadequate, you are welcome to suggest a replacement or addition backed by reliable sources. Just tell us what you'd like it to say, and provide your sources for it, and I'm sure one of the regular editors will help -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Kalarippayat is not included in the article. Inclusion as "Kalari" a word while saying about 'Desavazhi' does not seem to be sufficient. Kalarippayat is the base of history of Nairs, the clan is renowned with this military training expertise. I like to suggest that it requires a separate section to address this. Pprasadnair (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources? There have been many disputes about this issue in the past, primarily due to the involvement of Ezhavas in the same martial art. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How come involvement of Ezhavas in Kalari make it untouchable for Nairs? Now what do you mean to specify here? Both Nairs and Ezhavas practised Kalaripayattu. Now, no one is demanding here that Nairs discovered Kalaripayattu. Nairs practised Kalaripayattu extensively like Ezhavas. arun talk 16:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources? - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Check this out. Now dont say this one is fake! arun talk 16:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yo might wanna check this as well! arun talk 16:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This one will be good too! arun talk 16:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This one is a snippet but it tells a lot! arun talk 16:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see the first two that you mention; the snippet view is never acceptable, and the other book has been rejected previously because its primary subject is dance. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why cannot you see the first two! I can see it from my system. Because you dont see it , does not mean no one can contribute from that book! Also every one is free to edit Wikipedia and contribute! The first two books are authentic! I do not know why the snippet view is not acceptable as it also provides authentic information and that too from authentic source. Dont bother about the other one but I am going ahead with the first two source! arun talk 17:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The first two sources come from the author A. Sreedhara Menon. It cannot be neglected! arun talk 17:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that we couldn't use the first two sources: I said that I cannot see them & therefore cannot comment further. Snippet views are never acceptable because they lack context. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

May be snippets lack content but they do provide information. They also hint that the topic is covered in the book. There is no problem in citing the book. That snippets got 4 sentence and 1 incomplete sentence. Those 4 sentence clearly mentions that Nairs did practice Kalaripayattu. So the authentic source accepts Nairs got military background! The first two sources also clearly mentions this. Also, the sources are from an authentic author! arun talk 17:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No. We have been burned too often by stuff like this. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

BTw, if the point of this exercise is to verify that Nairs have a military background then you may want to stop now. The article covers this in depth and we have had numerous discussions regarding the issue. Some Nairs did, some did not. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The second source clearly mention the martial arts practiced as Kalaripayattu. If you are unable to view it, kindly ask other wikimates to check the links and confirm! arun talk 17:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said that it did not mention that subject. I simply cannot comment on something which I cannot see. I'll get a copy from somewhere, eventually. For that matter, you could provide one yourself. - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why like this?

...................Sorry to say. But high caste Nayars are primarily a military & noble class which is undisputed. If that is case how can you provide a clear picture about Nayars if their military past is not covered properly? This is problem here - coverage on military aspects of medieval Nayar life is scant. Secondly, there is no mention anywhere about militarism of Malabar Nayars and the struggles they waged on Mysore armies and their role in Pazhassi Struggles. Also why so much coverage about caste system? It ought to have been put into a seperate article on Kerala caste system....................ANONYMOUS, March 6, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.64.197 (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean.....????.

First of all mr. anonymous IP ,What point you are trying to make and what changes do you want to make in this Article??And secondly i have to say that ur Understanding of Medival Nair life is Scant.You may read books written by European travelers who visited malabar in 15th to 17th century like Daurte Barbosa,Pyrad de laval,Alexander hamilton ,Varthema (available in gbooks ).These travelers tell you more about so called 'Nayar militarism' ,how nairs at that time were trained ,Number of Nair army men under each local ruler,military Dress and ammunation of a nair Soldier.As per Travancore State Manual(Nagam Aiya,1901)the description of a medival Nair soldier is :

They were formerly a military caste and were celebrated for their martial virtues .They invariably carried arms with them consisted of swords ,sheilds,bows,arrows,hand grenades etc.According to Mr.Elie reclus(in his ‘primitive folk’ )that “nayars of the ancient type were so many spartan warriors ,so many knights of a court of love.All knew atleast to read and write,but the chief part of their education was carried on in gymnasium or in fencing school, where they learnt to despise fatigue,to be careless of wounds and to show indominatable courage ,often bordering upon foolish temirity.they went into battle almost naked ,threw the javelin with equal address backward and forward,and drew the bow with such skill that their second shaft often split the first.Their extraordinary agility made them the terror of every combat in jungle or forest.On the smallest provocation they devoted themselves into death,and having done so,one would hold his ground against a hundred.Those attached by the prince to his person made it a point of hounor not to survive him”

To qoute another writer:- “the military dress is a pair of short drawers ,and his peculiar weapon is a thin but broad blade,hooked towards the edge like a bil-hook or gardener’s knife ,and length of a roman sword,which the weapon of the chiefs often exactly resembles.this hooked instrument,the inseparable companion of the nair whenever he quits his dwelling on business,for pleasure or for war ,has no scabbard and is ussually grasped by right hand,as an ornamental apendage in peace and for destruction in war.when Nair employs his musquet or bow ,the weapon described ,is fixed in instant by means of a catch in the waist-belt,with a flat part of the blade diogonally across his back,and is disengaged quickly whenever he drops his musquet in wood or slings it across his shoulders for the purpose of rushing to close encounter with his terrible instrument.”

Also your argument that "there is no mention anywhere about the struggles they waged on Mysore armies and their role in Pazhassi Struggles" is Wrong completely.The Main commander of Pazhassi Army was Edachena Kunkan nair,and the others leading army men were Edachena Othenan Nair,Edachena Komappan Nair,Kaitheri Ambu Nambiar,Kannuvath Nambiar,Palloor Eman Nair,Palloor Rayarappan Nair,Chuzhali nambiar,Peruvayal Nambiar and so on.For information about these Brave freedom fighters read മഹാച്ചരിതമാല:പഴശ്ശിരാജ,from D C books or see the movie pazhassi Raja.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinuvenu (talk • contribs) 16:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is simple - Those who have good knowledge about Nayar military life must prepare and post much better writings on Article Section. At present what is there on Nayar militarism is not rich in detail not does it cover all periods. If someone were to write a detailed chronological essays on the topic, it might be of much value and interest...

I don't think sitush will allow any efforts to improve section 'Military history' in the main article even if someone come up with evidences/sources/references .It would be a good Idea to write a new Article on 'Nair militarism' where we can have all the informations and names included.Also this article could be tagged with the section military history in the Nair(main article).I am looking forward to some really good Wikepedians to help me in that matter.--Vinuvenu (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There are already articles on aspects of what you term "Nair militarism". Almost certainly, I will be proposing one of them for deletion before too long because it is hopelessly sourced. However, my main point here is that (a) Wikipedia does not host "essays" and if you create another article with the intent of somehow getting round a content dispute on this article then you are almost certainly creating a POV fork. It is not a great idea. Just come up with the sources here, and we can legitimately fork the article if necessary. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

About a quote

I had put a William Logan quote in "Marriage" section in noon but have disappeared. What is wrong with that quote? Citation was given with page number also.(Ajaynambiar11 (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)).

The reason for removal was given in the edit summary, which you can see more of if you click on the "View history" tab towards top right of the page. I agree with the removing editor. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)