Talk:Nair

My recent removal from the Religion section

I have just removed this. The first two paragraphs merely repeat that which is said in the paragraph that precedes them; the last paragraph - about Tip Sultan - is something that was removed from the article some months ago on the basis that it is specifically with regard to Tipu Sultan, who already has a perfectly decent article that is linked to from this one. Stuff about his sword is of no particular relevance to the subject matter here and the back and forth between India and London is primarily a nationalist issue (rather like the Elgin Marbles) & is out of place in this article. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I know you removed the most important part. All thats included in that portion is that a lot of nairs were killed in a war. You dont allow the complete part i.e the outcome of the war how Tipu sultan was defeated. The Nair Dewan of Travancore Lord Raja Kesavadas again defeated the mysore army near aluva. I can understand your emotions anyways. Your grudges might be reasonable. But what you're doing in not ehical as far as I can understand. I would rather try to reove the entire article from Wikipedia itself.

Vineet Nayar1 (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've removed your contribution again, sorry. You appear to be pov pushing in an attempt to glorify the community when there are perfectly good article dealing with these issues & which are already linked. For your info, I have never added any content to the Religion section nor, IIRC, the Military section. All I have done is try to keep things in order. I do not even understand why you want to add this stuff where you do - surely the military section would be more appropriate, if anywhere? - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Vineet Nayar1: Please remember to avoid personal attacks and stick solely to Wikipedia:policies and guidelines, and why something is or isn't best for the article. It doesn't matter what our personal opinions. Please try to "assume good faith". Accusing someone of having "emotions" "grudges" or of doing something "unethical" are not helpful in a discussion on what should or shouldn't be included in an article. I'm not sure why you would want to remove the entire article just because you disagree with a few statements being removed by someone. That wouldn't solve anything. Please try to stick to the reasons you think that information should be kept, or propose a possible compromise that could enable you and Sitush to both agree on what should be done. Thanks. MsBatfish (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Why was his contribution removed ? I saw he had all the references to prove it ???? Any comments? MsBatfish ?? sitush ? SItush has been pushing his pov which is clearly evident from the crap article that exists over here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.40.22 (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

While most sources used are in accord with Wikipedia guidelines, the way some sources are deemed unreliable and some others reliable, atleast is not consistent. My edit (Dec 17 2011) on Caste System, citing Francis Buchanan-Hamilton's A Journey from Madras through the Countries of Mysore, Canara and Malabar was reverted with the comment that Hamilton is not a reliable source. In fact I was only providing a source for the statement made, and which seemed like POV pushing, making it sound as if it was only Brahmin's position, while the entire caste system including Nayars deemed so.

I would content Hamilton's is as or more reliable as James Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. The work was recently republished by Cambridge University Press with subtext books of enduring scholarly value. Also Book of Duarte Barbosa is used as a source to make an important statement (to which it is no good a source as per WP policies). I even see many sources in the citations, by less reliable authors and random publishers, like Sadasivan. N, L.A Krishna Iyer's Social History of Kerala, an Encycolpedia of Political History among few others.

There is no reason to presume Hamilton was biased to provide such an account and it is in context and as per him from talks with 'prominent Nairs' of that region. Even Barbosa's account, used as reference in another place, gives the same account. Also there was no source to the statement made. I would like to revert the undo, unless there is a better reason.

I have a suggestion for the etymology section, which I had posted under another topic, Edit request from , 28 October 2011 a few days back. The etymology section is not much informative. Legolas95 (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You missed the second, more important part of my edit summary, viz "the situation is far more complex than this, as the article already explained.". It took a long time to arrive at a version of the article relating to varna that appeared to be at once comprehensive and acceptable to various people, and your addition added nothing to that, I agree that some of the other sources used could be considered to be unreliable but a lot depends upon the context in which they are used. For example, Barbosa has a historical purpose and even modern writers accept that he is a better source than the native Indian histories of his period: sometimes we have to use the "best of a bad bunch". This is not necessary in the case of Hamilton, where they are plenty of other sources.

The etymology section was cut back due to continuing disputes. If you check the article history then you will see that it offered four or five possible etymologies, including one related to the dog theory which you refer to. I do not have a problem with reinstating that but others may do. - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You missed the point that there was no source for the statement. Implying it was only Brahmans position is POV pushing, particularly when you dont have a source.

Agree that Barbosa serves an historical purpose, but that is certainly not providing etymology in a footnote. There must be mention of possible etymologies even if you want to pass the judgement that the etymology is uncertain from a convenient source. Also what are the 'better sources' you have for a 19th century Kerala social life?

WP policy is to include the different point of views in case of disputes than to provide none. And just to make clear, I am not for including the dog story, which is just another of countless absurd Brahmanical myths. I was just referring to the possible related etymologies of the words.Legolas95 (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I did not miss any point. I merely referred you to the history and the recent consensus. We can't go overturning consensus every day - give it a few months and try again. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 December 2011

"On the coast of Malabar there lives a tribe called Nair. The male members of this tribe cannot have more than one wife, but the women are allowed to choose several husbands. Probably the reason is that the Nairs belong to a martial race and their profession is fighting and hunting. Just as we discourage the marriage of the soldiers in Europe so that it may not interfere with their profession of fighting, the Malabar tribes have also decided that, as far as possible, the male members of the Nair tribe should be excused from shouldering family responsibilities. As, owing to the tropical climate of the area, it is not possible to ban marriage totally, it has been decided that several men should have only one wife, so that they may not be heavily burdened with family responsibilities and their professional efficiency may not be affected." (Abu Zahir al-Hasan, Arab traveller)

Please include this quote as is in the "Polyandry" section. This gives a justification for the practice. Source: http://www.al-islam.org/womanrights/11.htm 49.137.120.185 (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is that a reliable source? He was writing 1200 years ago. How do you explain that the practice of polyandry occurred among other castes of the area who were not military? And how do you explain it applying to those subcastes of the Nairs who were definitely not military? And why have we so far not found a modern scholar who refers to this thesis? It makes little sense, IMO. - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The provided link is an online version of the book "Woman And Her Rights" written by Ayatollah Murtaza Motahhari.

Ayatollah Murtaza Motahhari (مرتضی مطهری; February 3, 1920 – May 1, 1979) was an Iranian scholar, cleric, lecturer, and politician. Murtaza Motahhari attended the Hawza of Qom from 1944–1952, and then joined the University of Tehran, where he taught philosophy for 22 years. Between 1965 and 1973 he also gave regular lectures at the Hosseiniye Ershad in Northern Tehran. Murtaza Motahhari wrote several books on Islam, Iran, and historical topics. As of mid-2008, the "Sadra Publishings" has published more than sixty books of Motahari and about 30 books written about Motahari or quoted from his speeches. Some of them are described below.

On May 1, 1979 Murtaza Motahhari was assassinated by gunshot by a member of the Furqan Group after leaving a late meeting at the house of Yadollah Sahabi. Ordibehesht 12 (1 or 2 May), the Persian date on which Murtaza Motahhari was assassinated, is celebrated as "Teachers Day" in Iran. Murtaza Motahhari is the father in law of Iran's former secretary of National Security Council Ali Larijani. It was by Motahhari's advice that Larijani switched from Computer Science to Western Philosophy for graduate school.

In honor of Murtaza Motahhari, a major street in Tehran (Takhte Tavoos--Peacock Throne in English) was named after him upon his death shortly after the Iranian revolution in 1979. Murtaza Motahhari Street connects Sohrevardi Street and Vali Asr Street, two major streets in Tehran. (Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morteza_Motahhari)

Ah. I did not realise that. Aside from the fact that it is probably a copyvio of Motahhari's work (not our problem, as long as we link to the book and not the website), I note that she merely relates the tale, as provided by Montesquieu: she appears to make no comment upon it & so the validity still looks dubious to me. However, as before, I won't mark your edit request as answered - let's have someone else look at it. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

N Not done article is not protected. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning marital history and kalaripayattu in the lead.

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 by the British

Added the the above block. Please discuss if you find anything wrong with this. I think there should not be any problem with the above addition.

And pease dont delete this section. This is for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineet Nayar1 (talk • contribs) 20:06 A January 2012

I reverted your addition in the interval between you inserting the thing and posting the message above. The wording of the above amounts to a fait accompli, which is not a sensible way of dealing with an article which you know to be contentious. Best to discuss changes here first.

If you search the article talk pages & archives then you will see that issues such as having martial race in the lead section have been considered extensively - try this. There has been much consideration given.

You are welcome to propose new sources but if you are going to do so then you need to provide as much information as you can, eg: links to GBooks or ISBN numbers etc. In the event that those are insufficient to satisfy other people then you will need to be prepared to provide copies/transcripts of the relevant portions.

Finally, the phrase "The Nairs were known for ,,,", as used by you, needs clarifying. The very fact that issues such as kalaripayattu and martial race have been so awkward here suggests that these things are not in fact something that the Nairs were known for, when compared to the extensive coverage of other aspects of their lives. I am not saying that you are wrong, but rather that it would need careful examination and wording. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There has been a huge discussion on these. And it seems like there are a lot of people opposed who would not like to have something good mentioned about Nair's. It's evident with users named Nair, Panikkar etc(Supposedly fake usernames) who claim ill about the nayars.

The only thing that could be done is editors/admins be fair, do their reserach and decide. Seriously you can still find people and books claiming/stating stuffs like Nayar for dogs and similar things. But I think people can clearly distinguish between what the truth is and add points and references that should be having an overall positive outlook.

Statements like dog origin are clearly understandable as personal attacks towards a community with grudges even if they cite a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineet Nayar1 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the indents in your post above. I hope that you do not mind.

Wikipedia is not about showing "good" or "bad". If you approach it from that angle then you will most likely become dis-satisfied very quickly. It is about providing information that is verifiable using reliable sources, balanced in emphasis and neutral. Believe me, I am well aware that there is a lot of name-calling regarding this article: I am the one at whom most of it is directed, as you well know. I stress yet again that I have no connections with India at all, nor with any religion. Just about the only thing that someone might legitimately try to tar me with is ownership of articles, but that has been tried before at venues such as WP:ANI and has failed because it was abundantly clear that I was working within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

As I said above, if you have some decent sources - as your edit summary & insertion suggested - then please could you provide more complete information regarding them. I must say that it is pretty unlikely that I'll accept having the martial race theory in the lead because (a) it is discredited and (b) there is the awkward issue of Nairs being disarmed after 1857 ... but if you can provide verification then it could certainly be reinstated in an appropriate place within the article body. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I got my rebellions mixed up above - I meant 1809, as the article says, not the Indian Rebellion of 1857. However, I have just spotted a rather serious concern relating to the removed contribution. It says:

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.

Which is a POV-pruned version of

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 by the British, but were delisted after rebelling against them under Velu Thampi Dawala"

Now, the second of these quotes comes from a modern book, and therefore the POV-pruned example removed from the lead is a likely copyright violation. Worse still, that modern book is page 281 of the dreaded Tyagi, Vidya Prakash (2009), Martial races of undivided India, Gyan Publishing House, ISBN 9788178357751, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vRwS6FmS2g0C . Nothing published by Gyan is reliable ... but this example is particularly egregious.

I am afraid that you are going to have to provide us with copies/links to the sources that you used. Your copyright violation and your apparent deliberate misrepresentation (even though the source is terrible) has caused alarm bells to ring in my head. Have you read our basic policies? - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Serpent worship

I recently reverted this edit, which had the summary "Removed the dravidian custom reference since the referenced book does not bear the statements that has been cited. Please do not revert without confirmation. The snake worship is a Nair custom and not a general dravidian custom."

I had not entered that statement or source but it took all of a minute to find that, whether or not the issue is mentioned on page 112 of the source (as originally cited), it is definitely mentioned on page 85. I cannot see page 112 to confirm or deny, so I simply reinstated the thing using the alternate page number. To be honest, I would have thought that someone as interested in Nairs as the remover clearly is would have known that this custom is not limited to that community. Other south Indian communities - including the Ezhavas that seemingly every Nair knows of - follow the practice. Sometimes it pays to do a little research on related articles, such as Snake worship, to see if citations can be found before deleting something from an article that has received extensive scrutiny over the last year or so. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Romans worshiped serpents as well. My point here is that this section should be more about Nair's. If Nair's worshiped on a major account, it should be more about them. Why mention that it is a Dravidian custom? It's not a general thing. No other community worships serpents like Nair community. Its very peculiar. That is really unwanted.

Also the statement, 'The Nair were historically involved in military conflict in the region.' Seriously ? Out of the whole paragraph, you add only this line ? This is what's called exploitation.

Vineet Nayar1 (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I had put a 'citation needed' tag for the statement snakes are worshiped as guardians of the clan by Nair families. Why was it removed? It doesnt suggest to me as a self evident truth. Legolas95 (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

British/Indian Government records to be given more importance rather than random authors.

Firstly to start with, I dont think the caste thing can be sorted out anytime soon.

(Nairs were considered kshatriyas by outsiders mainly due to their duties as a warrior and other features but Nabudiris didn't considered them as one. Now should this be decided by the description of duties they performed ?? Or should the consideration of Nambudiri's be taken into account noting the fact that the nabudiris even considered other brahmins as inferior to themselves.

PS: Going by Mahabharata it states castes on the basis of the duties performed viz Vaishya : trader Brahman : Worshipper mainly Kshatriya : Warriors and so on.)

Now, about the remaining facts IMO, the government records should be given more weight when opposed by random authors. I see a lot of govt research journals and documents which can be cited as a totally reliable source and can be added to the article.

I've found a lot of govt records like 'The Asiatic journal and monthly register for British and foreign....'. The content is total research most of which should be unbiased.

Who? Where? What? When? Why? This is all far too vague for me to make sense of, and right now it appears that no-one else is talking to you here. Please can you clarify.

Also, please can you sign your posts (typing ~~~~ is one way of doing it, and you have been advised of others previously). - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I didn't get you. I just made a point that it should be better to give more preference to govt records against random authors. I don't think it's difficult to decipher since i've used basic English to make my point.

Lets not use the 'have been discussed earlier' excuse to discard a source and actively participate unbiased to make the article better. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineet Nayar1 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You are not going to get your way unless you give some specific examples: commanding others to do this or that without supporting evidence - who? what? where? when? why? - is pointless and will end up frustrating both them and yourself. I would also appreciate some clarification of who these "random" authors are, and why you consider them to be "random". Furthermore, some clarification of which government's records you are referring to and why you think that those are superior sources to those already used in the article.

Finally, with regard to your comment that "Nairs were considered kshatriyas by outsiders mainly due to their duties as a warrior and other features but Nabudiris didn't considered them as one. Now should this be decided by the description of duties they performed ?? Or should the consideration of Nambudiri's be taken into account noting the fact that the nabudiris even considered other brahmins as inferior to themselves." Have you actually read the article? All of this is dealt with. If you think that it is unclear then please propose an alternative, with sources to support it. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 4 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)

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)