Talk:Nair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Kerala / History (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Kerala (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).
 


Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2014[edit]

67.165.234.171 (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done - you have made no request - Arjayay (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Some Nair Hater has posted all nonsense about the community, Wiki is also siding with that fellow by locking his blasphemous article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.206.19 (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC) actually ya some nair hater has posted all these nonsense,,, snake worshiping is not a Dravidian custom as the highest class 0f nairs belong to Nagakshatria they do worship Nagas... and Nagavamsha kshatriya is a subclan of Suryavamsha kshatriya which is an Aryan Kshatriya clan... and these articles are edited wrongly and its in protected mode... tats good because the editor doesnt need one to correct it he states that the one he said is correct... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.90.1.9 (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nair[edit]

air (Malayalam: നായര്‍, also known as Nayar and Malayala Kshatriya) is a Kshatriya caste among the Hindus, mostly found in Kerala, India.[1][2][3] Before the British conquest in 1792, the Kerala region contained small, feudal kingdoms, in each of which the royal and noble lineages, the militia, and most land managers were drawn from the Nairs and related castes.[4] Nairs were prominent in politics, government service, medicine, education, and law.[5] Nairs constituted the rulers, warriors and landed gentry of Kerala (pre-1947). Nairs were traditionally matrilineal, which means that the family traces its roots through the women in the family. The children inherited the property of their maternal family. Their family unit, the members of which owned property jointly, included brothers and sisters, the latter's children, and their daughters' children. The oldest man was legal head of the group and he was respected as the Karnavar of the family or Tharavadu. Rules of marriage and residence varied somewhat between kingdoms.[6] The Nairs are known for their martial history, including their involvement in Kalaripayattu and the role of Nair warriors in the Mamankam ritual. The Nairs were classed as a martial race[7][8][9][10] by the British, but were de-listed after rebelling against them under Velu Thampi Dalawa, and thereafter were recruited in low numbers into the British Indian Army.[11] Only Nairs were recruited into the Travancore Nair Army, until 1935 when non-Nairs were admitted.[11] This State Force (known also as the Nair Brigade) was merged into the Indian Army after independence and became the 9th and 16th Battalions of the Madras Regiment. The Samanta Kshatriya Kolathiri and Travancore kingdoms[12] were originally of the Nair caste[13] The Zamorin Raja was a Samanthan Nair[12] and the Arakkal kingdom of Kannur, which was the only Muslim kingdom in the Kerala region, also had Nair origins[14][15][16]. Nair feudal families such as the Ettuveetil Pillamar of Travancore and Paliath Achan of Kochi were extremely influential in the past and exerted great influence on the ruling clan.


The earliest known description about Nairs state that Nairs (Nagars) are the descendants of nagavamsha soldiers sent by the Nāga Kingdom for taking part in the battle at Kurukshetra during Mahabharatha. Mythology apart, Nairs are thought to be the descendants of Nagavanshi Kshatriyas, who migrated to Kerala from further North.[26][27] According to Dr K. K. Pillai, the first reference about the Nairs is in an inscription dated to the 9th century A.D.[28]

the most widely accepted theory is that the ethnic group is not native to Kerala and the Nairs of Kerala and the similarly matrilineal Bunts of Tulu Nadu are thought to be descendants of the Kshatriyas who accompanied the Brahmins to Kerala and Tulu Nadu respectively from Ahichatra/Ahikshetra in southern Panchala.[30] One finds mention of the Nairs during the reign of the King Rama Varma Kulashekhara (1020-1102) of the second Chera dynasty, when the Chera Kingdom was attacked by the Cholas. The Nairs fought by forming suicide squads (Chavers) against the invading force. It is not clear whether the Cheras themselves were Nairs, or if the Cheras employed the Nairs as a warrior class.[31] The Sanskrit Kerala Mahatmayam, an upa purana of the Bhoogola Purana, calls them the progeny of Namboodiri men with Deva, Rakshasa and Gandharva women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.90.1.9 (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

the article lead should have only general points that are applicable to all nairs.[edit]

Statements that point out to only a particular subcaste or portion of Nair's should be removed from the lead.


This is a very simple and surd logic. Please do the needful as the rest can be described below in detailed descriptions.


103.226.7.198 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC) kcerasera

Lead sections should summarise the article. What bit do you consider to be undue? - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


Firstly, this article lead tends to cover only the medivial nair properties. It points out to a certain era.

Secondly, the lead summary should always be general to all Nair's. All the statements that point out to 'some' Nair's or 'a few' Nair's should be discussed in the detail sections instead of the lead.

I hope you get my points. Thanks.

103.226.7.198 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)kcerasera

the Dravidian people of Kerala are serpant worshippers[edit]

I have 2 points.


1) If you are accepting this author's works as reliable then why object when the same work is used for other areas ? I have noticed that the same author is states as reliable and non reliable based on the admin's luxury. This seems wrong.

2) dravidians are serpant worshippers - how does this imply that Nair's were serpant worshippers ? Are you aware that you are committing to fraud here ?

103.226.7.198 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC) kcerasera

AH, I thought that might be your point. This issue has been discussed time and again. Please read this talk page and its archives. The content is not going to be removed because consensus is to keep it. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello again. I know what consensus means. "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. "
I am hoping we all want Wikipedia and the articles to improve with time.
Instead of having meaningless rules resulting in complex and weird article editing cause the article to turn out to be a total disaster, what is needed is a flexible understanding of the ground realities and thus improving the article as a whole.

103.226.7.198 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Kcerasera

Consensus is not a vote. You need a policy-based reason to overturn the consensus that the works of people such as Kathleen Gough are reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
That's okay. But as far as I see there is no Kathleen Gough here. I see Balachandran Nayar, Krishna Iyer and bala subramaniyan. And these articles are used meticulously out of context to change the actual points that these articles make. Is balachandran nayar via accent publication accepted as a reliable source here ?103.226.7.198 (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Kcerasera
As I said earlier, the lead is supposed to be a summary. I can't see the source cited in the lead but as a general rule we should not need to cite there anyway, precisely because the thing is a summary. That the citation exists is probably because of the contentions that have arisen regarding the claims made. However, that cite in the lead is supported by others in the body, including Gough (see the Religion section).
The lead section is pretty poor generally and could do with a rewrite. However, I'd be surprised if any such rewrite saw the naga worship etc removed from it. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


Too Many Disputes[edit]

The archives show a multitude of disputes against the entire article. This page is currently being managed by Sitush who is self placed moderator with no research degree on the subject. The article is fully edited or presented as he would wish. No regard is given to others edit request even though they comeup with proofs. so its time to go against this through formal channels. I request all to write to info-en-v@wikimedia.org with a detailed description of your complaints. Lets all bind together and report against this injustice. A formal complaint against Wikipedia can also be sent to HRD ministry for calling a group of people as "Shudras" and attempt to humiliate and insult a group of people , without any substantial proof — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simple Thought (talkcontribs) 15:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? You are going to complain to the Indian government? And I know what info.en will say, they will tell you to sort it out on Wikipedia. The Foundation doesn't get involved with this sort of thing. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, the disputes are between people who understand Wikipedia's need to use reliable sources and to only echo what reliable sources say, and those who either do not understand or, for various reasons, want to paint a caste as higher status than it has actually attained. Honestly, if we believed every claim we've heard for every caste we have articles about, we'd have to accept that everyone in India is descended from kings and warriors and nobody ever built the roads, made the shoes, or worked the farms.

    If there are inequities in the caste system, then the answer is to change the system, not to change Wikipedia to rewrite history. If we consider the approach taken by a lot of caste champions here, it would be like black South Africans challenging apartheid by claiming "No, we're white, we always have been" - and how stupid would that have been?

    If a caste has historically been classed as "Shudra" and there are reliable sources to document it, that's exactly what Wikipedia should say about it. If you find the word offensive, then the fault surely lies in those who look down on Shudra castes, not on those who document the historical classifications.

    There is nobody here at Wikipedia trying to insult or humiliate anyone - just to document what reliable sources actually say. And if you take offense at what they say, then that's not the fault of Wikipedia (or of any of its editors) - changing Wikipedia won't change a damn thing in real life! And no amount of petitioning to anyone is going to get us to abandon our requirement for reliable sources - Wikipedia will not be used as a political platform for rewriting documented history. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)