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).

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 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)

@ Alan and zebedee. It's not very tough to understand the fact that as mentioned in the lead nairs are a set of different castes. These include rulers and warriors on a huge scale and only 2-3 of the subsets are low caste. As the dispute herr goes out to be, when it is accepted as a group of different castes it makes no sense in consolidating it to a particular type. You can see even the word renowned king zamorin was Nair and a nairs were mainly a warrior class. You I u can find ample of cited sources. I can get you if you want from the same references used in this article.

The other cases like for example servant worship is stated as a dravidian custom which is totally untrue. It's a nairs specific custom and not a general dravidiam custom. There is still no explanation to that. I don't really care about what Wikipedia has to say since no body accepts Wikipedia to be reliable yet, but I do have to make sure wrong/incomplete information does not get logged here. (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC) k cera sera

The people posting above have conveniently dodged the main issue and created strawman fallacies upon what the original post said. There are several disputes here and Sitush the self placed moderator conveniently uses confirmation bias to choose citations that elucidate his agenda whatever they may be, whilst eschewing anything that doesn't suit him (even if the sources are as good as or better than his). He also uses the historian fallacy on several occasions. Also the wording of this article is rather hilarious and ridden with POV which is against wikipedia's code of conduct, there are a plethora of credible citations to show the nairs are a warrior clan and yet the first few paragraphs of this article have relegated that to " historically involved in military conflicts ", The nairs had their own army named after them, used exclusively by the Kings and yet that too has been relegated to something of a lesser value. Take a look at the ezhava caste article their first paragraphs states all their known professions from being laborers, farmers, ayurveda practitioners and warriors (chekavar section). The Nair article has condensed centuries of their martial history into " involved in military conflicts " that is something befitting of al qaeda or tamil tigers wikipage. No one is asking for a haughty puffed up article ridden with jingoism, all people are asking for is a fairly written article that talks of Nair history properly, or at the very least having a first few paragraphs that articulate what Nairs were known for historically like the Ezhava article's first few paragraphs. ps. There have been several parties who have sued Wikipedia for defamation and won. Louis Bacon even got a court order forcing wikipedia to reveal the personal details of every single person who defamed his company he then went onto sue them for substantial amount. Once upon a time Sitush saved this article from a quagmire of exaggerated claims and today he/she is the one standing in the way of a fair article, undoing all his own hard work. Why is a person who has no research background or contextual background in being a Nair or living in Kerala free to not let anyone else edit this article? Rather silly! He also majorly uses western derived citations that stem from the colonial era, which is as ridiculous as using majorly Indian derived citations on a historical page for British history. Things like this might be why so many educational institutes think wikipedia is still a joke. Sitush is particularly pedantic and skeptical over anything pro-Nair yet he has no problem using sources which glorify ezhavas. Smells fishy! (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

article photographs fiddled again?[edit]

So after I was away for a while and now that I got back I see that the good homely pics of the ancestral home and group of the community members removed and Replaced yet again with a pic of a naked girl?

What rubbish is this? Where is the pic that we all agreed to last year? Why was it removed? (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC) k cera sera

Which picture is that, then? - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Dravidian variety of the Aryan Kshatriyas?[edit]

Hello,I'm new here and I have a question about the article: What exactly is meant by 'Dravidian variety of the Aryan Kshatriyas' ?Does this mean that the Kshatriya classes of Kerala(Thampurans,Varmas etc) are part of the Nair community?I'm asking this question because unlike the Nairs(who were viewed as Shudras by the Brahmins),the Thampurans and Varmas who reside in Kovilakams wears the sacred thread and are mostly vegetarians.But they do follow the Nair customs of Sambandham with Brahmins and Marumakkathayam.I'm totally confused here....

Nair is a group of castes and most of which have no relation to shudra duties. They we definitely not shudra's except in some areas. Thampuran is not a caste. Get your facts right first.

Plus Aryan Dravidian distinction is based only on the basis of native language. This is another thing to be pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I myself am a Nair,and my grandfather told me that as per Kerala's caste system,the Namboothiris only considered Nairs as Shudras.

Thampuran is a title generally applied to the royal Kshatriya Varmas(like Rama Varma Shakthan Thampuran).AFAIK Varmas never identify themselves with Nairs.They have different organization named Kshatriya Kshema Sabha,which is unrelated to NSS.I don't think royal Varmas are related to Nairs,they have the sacred thread and are vegetarians like the Brahmins.Nairs doesn't have the sacred thread and they were not royalty,just nobility.

And yes,Aryan and Dravidian are linguistic terms.But what is the need of Dravidian 'variety'?I think 'Dravidian Kshatriyas' is enough.AryaBharatiya (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

better picture replaced?[edit]

There was a better picture of nair women that was used earlier from the same.source also @

Any specific reason that was replaced by this little girl without a top?

Any pedo bears?

It might help if you at least skim through the pictures that are used before casting aspersions. The picture that you link which shows the women eating is already in the article. The other picture to which you refer has also been in the article for years, although I think someone recently replaced it with a tweaked version of the same thing. There has been past discussion about it and the consensus was that the thing should stay. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)