Talk:Nair

theories of origin requires editing

Vivwiki (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)hi.... This line " After the Saka or Indo-Scythians invaded India in the 2nd century BC, some Nagas mixed with the Scythians in North India. They adopted matriarchy, polyandry and other Scythian customs.[38]" requires to be deleted as the referred book i.e iyer's social history of dravidians does not contain any such references/ lines.( i have the book!).... if anybody has a difference of opinion they may please notify!.

It needs some editing or replacement. Here it is given: "These Nagas were not Brahminical Hindus ; they were, it is believed, or may be conjectured, a Scythian, and therefore Turanian, race which had evidently preceded the Aryans".

Also here, "From the prevalence to a large extent of serpent worship in Malabar, some writers identify the Nayars with some of the Naga tribes of Scythian origin."

Here "There is a view that the Nairs were a branch of Scythians who came down the valley of Kashmir and who worshipped the snakes"

Also, there is even a book, Influx: Crete to Kerala Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Vivwiki (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)good work!... that was very prompt!.. so i think the reference of "social history of dravidians- iyer" may be removed and the above references put instead.

I would like to invite your kind attention to the book written by Sri.Chattampi Swamikal named "Pracheena Malayalam." I request you to go through this book before committing edits according to the view points of historians. Also while I went for searching the origin of Scythians, they have more theories of origin than what Nairs are having. The strongly prevailing theory is that they came to Greek and Iranian land from the middle Asian region which includes India. Also, their chronological dating of theories are younger than that of dravidian archeology.

Download the book "Pracheena Malayalam."

The book is written in Malayalam - Book includes a lot of ancient vatteluthu inscriptions as reference which makes it difficult for an adept translation. Efforts are being put for making it available in English with the help of eminent historians in Thiruvananthapuram, but it would take little more time. The second part of this book also has been found in 2009 from the wife's house of Thachudaya Kaimal, Koodalmanikyam Temple(the only Bharatha temple in India), Irinjalakkuda.

Download the book "Pracheena Malayalam Part 2."

One more point would like to mention is that the names of Eight Great Serpents are as follows in the Bhagavatha purana

       अनन्तं वासुकिं शेषं पद्मनाभं च कम्बलम् |
       शंखपालं धार्तराष्ट्रं तक्षकं कालियं तथा ||

The name Sarkota as 7th in the main article is the name of Scorpion(mentioned in Atharva Veda), that is not a Serpent. In the above verse, names are nine, as Anantha and Shesha are the same - they are called Ashtanagas (Eight great serpents). In Valmiki Ramayanam while Sugreeva describes southern regions to Hanuman, it is mentioned about Pathala, its capital, and Vasuki as the ruler of capital city (Kishkinda Kandam, 41st Sargam, 38th Slokam).

vekramaditya (talk · contribs)

This is English wikipedia. Although foreign language sources can be used, there should be a translation provided - see WP:CITE. Are these books available in translation? If not, can someone please translate the relevant bits. Whilst good faith will be assumed for any translation, it is not unknown for translations provided by Wikipedia contributors to be double-checked. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

varna

does the varna "status" of south indian castes require such early mention in the lead as there is some level of ambiguity.

1) A Handbook for India: Madras By John Murray (Firm), Edward B. Eastwick

The Nainmar or Nairs are the pure Shudras of Malabar, and all pretend to be soldiers; but they are of various ranks and professions...

2) Religion and social conflict in South Asia By Bardwell L. Smith

The Nairs are generallay accepted as the martial class of Kerala, although they are accorded only a shudra status in the caste structure

3) Modernization and effeminization in India: Kerala cashew workers since 1930 By Anna Lindberg, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies

The nairs were a fairly large group who, by the early twentieth century, represented almost 20 percent of the population of Travancore. Along with the brahmans, there were an influential caste, consisting of landowners and tenants who themselves owned slaves. Despite their power, however, they were regarded as Shudras by the Brahmins

4) Will I Be Killed: For Writing the Following Contents By Ahamkaari Will I Be Killed: For Writing the Following Contents By Ahamkaari

If you take the southern state of andhra pradesh, tamizhnaadu and kerala, the socio-political dominant dominant caste names are — vellalas, mudaliyars, chettiyars, reddiars, kammas, naidus and nairs ---- all Shudras!.....

while i will wait for comments about the reliability of these sources — if they are reliable — their existence draws a murky picture of the varna status of nairs. in this case, the nuances are best discussed in the article body and an accurate representative sentence be mentioned in the lead, if necessary. --CarTick (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply

So you are again here with this issue. This issue has been discussed a lot earlier and it was decided that the varna status was not clear and it would be best to leave it as it is. Nambuthiris of Kerala treated everyone (who is not a Nambuthiri) as Sudra. Even other Brahmins were treated as Sudra. Take a look at these sources also:

• [1] - But this land of Nambudri Brahmins and Nair (Nagara) Kshatriyas sent out a religious invasion under Sankara which subjugated the whole of India. The history of Kerala goes hack to the days of the Mahabharatha and the Ramayana.

• I can only see a snippet view. It mentions Naga. It is published by Gyan, a notoriously unreliable publishing house whose works have been questioned both as reliable sources and as unattributed mirrors of WP content. This book appears to be a reprint of something much older. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [2] - The Nairs are included in the Kshatriya class (soldiers) and the castes below Nairs are considered to lower caste such as the Ezhava and untouchables.

• This is a novel, a work of fiction. It says so on the cover! - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [3] - In the southern parts of the peninsula, the Nairs (a species of country nobility rather than a distinct tribe) are considered to belong to the warrior caste. Whether they are the dispersed remnants of the old Kshatriyas, is not yet sufficiently ascertained.

• The very quote you provide says that the author is uncertain regarding kshatriya status - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [4] - None of these people, except possibly the Nairs of Kerala and the Rajus of Andhra, have been viewed by some as Kshatriya

• The very quote you provide says that the author is uncertain regarding kshatriya status - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [5] - Nairs of Malabar enjoyed social power similar to that claimed by Kshatriyas of the North.

• "Similar to" is not good enough. They either are or are not. The article already covers "similar to". - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [6] - The Nairs of Kerala, Mudaliars of Tamilnad, Reddys of Andhra are low castes only in the sense of sacred thread, but for all practical purposes they are equal to the Kshatriya.

• "For all practical purposes" is not the same as "are"/"were". The article already covers this issue. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [7] - Mention is made also of an expedition into Malabar to assist the Kshatriya rulers, the Nairs, against an insurrection of the natives.

• Article published in 1855. Forget it. Too old. Thurston etc are dubious & they are 30 years later. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [8] - The Bhataraka was probably his father-in-law, and the Kshatriyas (the Nairs) against whom the aboriginal Malabarians had revolted.

• Article published in 1880. Forget it. Too old. Thurston etc are dubious & they are 30 years later. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [9] - Nair or Menon caste are considered equivalent to Kshatriya or the warrior caste.

• "Considered equivalent" is not the same as saying that they "were". - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [10] - The war-like Nairs once lorded over the famous state, Kerala. They were of Kshatriya blood, possessed of all the attributes suggested by the name.

• Translation of an earlier autobiography. I would need to ascertain the date of the original Malayam book & also the impartiality + credentials (or otherwise) of the writer. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [11] - The Kshatriya or soldier caste is practically identical with the Rajputs of North Central India, and the Nairs of the south. Outside the three " twice- born castes, the whole of the mass of the Indian people were classed as Sudras.

• Same thing again - it is saying that there is an equivalence, not that they were kshatriya. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [12] - The warrior caste, the Nairs, who claimed to be the equivalent of the Kshatriyas in other parts of India now came into being. Racially they were half Aryan.

• This says that Nairs claimed to be the equivalent. Article already covers this. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [13] - One of the theories propagated about the origin of Paramaras gives notable clues about the relation that sustained Nambutiri (Brahmans) and Nayar (Kshatriya) in Kerala. According to the theory

• Snippet view only here - no context. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [14] - After the decline of Perumal rule in Kerala, the Nayar Kshatriya rulers became powerful.

• Is a short book on dances really a good source for a claim to kshatriya status? In any event, it is vague. "Nayar Kshatriya rulers" might just mean an extremely small number (the royal families of Cochin etc, for example) or it might mean every Nair. It is impossible to determine from this source, whereas the article is moving towards a much fuller, much more precise documentation of the situation. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [15] - This is because for a long period, the Nambuthiri (Brahmin) and the Nair (Kshatriya) communities would begin their education with Sanskrit and would continue their studies in Sanskrit.

• Snippet view only here. The book appears to be about the development of language and there is no real context to determine how much discussion of the Nair status occurs. It could be a throw-away line or it could be something more substantial. It would need to be the latter. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [16] - in the presence of a Namboodiri (Brahmin) an Ezhava ( an untouchable ) had to stand 36 feet away and in the presence of a Nair (Kshatriya) he

• Snippet view only. Ditto. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [17] - Inheritance

• This book quite clearly differentiates between Nair and Kshatriya (see the table for inherited status) - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [18] - "A Nayar or Kshatriya bridegroom holds a drawn sword in his right hand. This procession is considered to be the most spectacular of the entire function."

• Yes, a Nair or kshatriya ... - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [19] Nayar (Malayalam-speaking caste claiming Kshatriya status)

• "Claiming" is not the same as being. The article already discusses this. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [20] Only the Nair (Kshatriya) community and it's subcastes practised matriarchy in Kerala.

• Snippet view only. Looks to be a newspaper or magazine, so it may be a book review? - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [21] - Of the Kshatriyas we find but a few who lay claim to the honours of that caste ; and here I may observe, that it is general throughout India for the different castes of fighting Shudras, whose peculiar dharma or religions duty it is to engage in war and plunder, to call themselves Kshatriyas, although, according to Hindoo history, all that race was annihilated by divine wrath. The Nair of Malabar, who is notoriously of servile caste, will describe himself and his ancestors as belonging to the royal or fighting division; wears the Janeo or thread of the twice born, and demeans himself accordingly.

• 1855 work, and I am not prepared to rely on it for that reason. The issue has been covered in much more recent times and by people with peer-reviewed authority. - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [22] - Within South India, It was only in Kerala that there emerged warrior lineages approximate to the Kshatriya model. Nayar ' Kshatriya-hood ' was thus based on special ecological conditions within the south Indian macro-region.

• "Approximate to" is not the same as "are" or "were". - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [23] - One of the theories propagated about the origin of Paramaras gives notable clues about the relation that sustained Nambutiri (Brahmins) and Nayar (Kshatriya) in Kerala.

• Snippet view only here. No context. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [24] - The Chera Kings the first known rulers of Kerala, were by origin of Nayar

• Snippet view only. Written by what seems to be a Nair. The quoted bit makes no sense me me. What does "by origin of Nayar" mean? I had already requested a copy of page 22 of this work due to an apparent inconsistency, and this quote is not helping matters at all. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [25] - "Chera, Chola and Pandya, who were descendants of the fire, the sun and the moon respectively.

• Chera, Chola etc - forget it. No-one knows enough about them, except by use of Sangam etc. And Sangam etc are considered by modern scholars to be unreliable sources for historical points. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [26] - The Nayar caste took the place of the Kshatriyas

• "Took the place", yes. If you read the entire paragraph it says that kshatriyas did not exist but Nayars were their equivalent, although the local Brahmins considered them to be shudra. It doesn't advance the article one iota. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• [27] - The historical household unit among the Nayar of the Kshatriya caste in South-West India.

• [28] - Nair (Kerala Kshatriya caste)

• [29] - The annual arattu - Taking the image of god for a final purifying bath in a procession headed by his majesty with his Nair (Kshatriya) officers with drawn swords must have been an awe-inspiring sight

• [30] / [31] - for after mentioning an expedition of his into Malabar to aid the Kshatriya (Nair) rulers, against the rebellious natives of the province.

• [32] - All this was done by Nair Kshatriyas under orders of Adiyodi. This chamber is called the Aryan Smoke Chamber.

• [33] - But the bulk of those who carried on the Kshatriya profession (ie warfare) were drawn from the Nair caste.

• [34] - Nayar is the caste corresponding to the Kshatriyas, second in importance to the Brahmans. At present, Nair or Nayar is a title added to nearly all the names of the race, and it is, like Mister or Esquire, assumed as a birthright by any.

• [35] - Gen. Candeth was very proud of his ancestry. "I am a Nair from Kerala. I am a Kshatriya", he had told this reporter at the time of the interview.

• [36] - The Kshatriya, or military class is said by the Brahmins to be extinct. But the Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan in all probability belong to this class.

• [37] - Specifically, the Jews adapted the religious behaviours and symbol complexes of two significant Hindu reference groups: the dominant Nayar caste (particularly the local royal family) and, from a distance, the Nambudiris, the highest brahmin caste of Kerala.

• [38] - The Reddys of Andhra, the Vellalas of Tamil Nadu, and the Nayars of Malabar never accepted the four-fold division. Also, they enjoyed as communities social power similar to that claimed by the Kshatriyas.

• [39] - his very boyhood, because divine Brahmanic qualities filled his veins, though the people of his caste in Kerala are noted for their Kshatriya spirit.

• [40] - Warriors of Kerala in historical times were the Nairs, who, by occupation combined the functions of Kshatriyas with those of the Vaisyas.

• [41] - For many reasons, the Kshatriyas and the Nayars are not different castes.

• [42] - The ethnology of the Nayars is as interesting as their sociology. They claim to be Kshatriyas by caste.

• [43] - The Nayars are treated as Kshatriyas.

• [44] - Perhaps most of the Kshatriyas are Samantans belonging to high caste Nayars.

• [45] - In Malabar warrior lineages did emerge and ruled over larger territorial units; these were the Nayars, who, if not as Shudras, were regarded as Kshatriyas.

• [46] - The Nayars form the bulk of the Hindu population of Malabar, and they are considered as de-casted Kshatriyas.

• [47] - The Nayars, members of the Kshatriya or warrior caste, ruled all those regions for many centuries under various kings and priests.

• [48] - The Nayars, however, are primarily a military caste. Though they have become greatly mixed in recent times, and they are said to be regarded as Kshatriyas.

• [49] - It further relates that the original Newars were drawn from the Nayars and were Brahma-Kshatriya.

• [50] - For instance, apart from the Nayars of Kerala the Kshatriya or warrior order is virtually nonexistent in the South.

• [51] - The Nayars traditionally performed Kshatriya and Vaishya functions.

• [52] - Groups such as the Nayars, whose activities as rulers and professional warriors would normally equate them with the Kshatriya.......

• [53] - The Nayars (traditional warriors) followed Marumakkathayam.

• [54] - The Nayars are Malayalam speaking people, and may be described as the Kshatriyas or fighting clans of Southern India.

• [55] - JC Locke, in his The First Englishmen in India describes the Nairs as the polyandrous warrior race of Malabar. They correspond to the Kshatriyas of the rest of India.

• [56] - Social status of the Nairs (Kshatriyas) in Malabar society at that time...

• [57] - Nairs (Kshatriyas).

• [58] - Kshatriyas and Samantans were originally Nairs

• [59] - The Nairs were given a dominant position in the caste hierarchy and were functionally equated with the Kshatriyas.

• [60] - and Kshatriya Nairs of Kerala.

• [61] - Among them, until recently, only the eldest son was allowed to take a wife from his own caste (the others had to marry Nairs who are Kshatriyas and their......).

• [62] - Kshatriya: Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan belong to this class.

• [63] - Se trouvait flatté du rapprochement, puisque les Nairs, en dépit de leurs pratiques irrégulières, sont rangés comme Ksatriyas parmi les castes nobles.

• [64] - The Nairs (or Nayars), a twice-born caste that constitutes some 15 per cent of the Hindu population in the state, was once a warrior community practising.....

• [65] - Stranieri sono anche i rappresentanti della casta ksatriya, pochissimi di numero anche al tempo in cui il Papi scrive; i Nayar, di casta simile alla loro ma.....

• [66] - Kerala ritual, which he calls the "sorcery," "martial," and "priestly" complexes, corresponding to three caste divisions (Sudra, Ksatriya/ Nayar, and Brahmin).

• [67]- dasarkan kasta adalah kasta Ksatria Nayar yang bersifat matrilineal di Kerala (Gough,1961).

• [68] - Kalarippayattu is traditionally associated with the Nayar caste, which corresponds, in Kerala, to the Ksatriya military caste of the classical Indian tradition.

• [69] - Among the Nambutiri, the predominant Brahman caste on the Malabar coast, any unfaithful wife, whether upper or lower class, was poisoned to death (Lach, 1968: 361). Among the Kshatriya (warrior) class, the Nayar caste was predominant on the Malabar coast. Nayar males were "not permitted to marry, rear families........

• [70] - In the arid hill country which is now known as Rajastan, powerful lords and their arms bearing retainers had been calling themselves Rajputs. These people's closest counterparts elsewhere were the users of the south Indian designations Nayar and Nayaka

• [71] - For example, Nairs are not considered by him as shudras. But there is a line of pollution, and Nairs are much above this line.

• [72] - Dames writes that the Nairs are " classed as Sudras, whereas their real analogy is with the Kshatriyas of ancient, and the Rajputs of modern days.

• [73] - The Nairs had enjoyed throughout Kerala, the status of Kshatriyas.

• [74] - The Rajpoots and Nairs in the Deccan are supposed to belong to the Kshatriya. If the class be extinct, as the Brahmins allege, this may be owing to the peaceful character of the people, their freedom from foreign invasion, and the commercial habits which characterise the Hindoo.

• [75] - Nairs took the place of Kshatriyas.

• [76] - Nairs, who as the warriors of the country, should by analogy be called Kshatriyas rather than Sudras — a curious revelation ascribed to Parasu Rama.

• [77] - Nairs who, being given the function of defence, became analogous to Kshatriyas.

• [78] - The Nairs are also the martial race, like the Kshatriya castes of northern India.

• [79] - Kshatriya, or military class, is said by the Brahmans to have become extinct; but the Rajpoots and the Nairs in all probability belong to this class.

• [80] - As few Kshatriyas came from the North, the Nair chieftains took the place of the Kshatriyas, and with their great grit and adaptability a remarkable military system was established in Kerala under the lead of the Nairs.

• [81] - Nairs, en dépit de leurs pratiques irrégulières, sont rangés comme Ksatriyas.

• [82] - Nayars were members of the warrior or Kshatriya caste, the second highest caste of Indian society. Nayar men trained as professional soldiers.

• [83] - Their enactment are neither documentary records of the ruler-warrior (ksatriya) caste (Nayars) nor the fantasies of poets writing in isolation.

• [84] - The Nayars, though Kshatriyas by profession in earlier days....

• [85] - It was needful that there should be a protector or Kshatriya caste ; so they promoted the ruling race to this distinction, and called them Nayars.

• [86] - Brahmans have mating relations with the female members of the matrilineal Kshatriya Nayars.

• [87] - Themselves tenants of chiefly Nayars (Samantan or Kshatriya Nayars).

• [88] - Others held 12 year kanam lease from those (Nambuthiris or Kshatriya Nayars) with a superior title to land.

• [89] - à celle des Ksatriya (Nayar).

• [90] - Varadpande points out an intriguing parallel with the present day Kutiyattam performers, the Cakyars, who claim their descent from the ancient sutas and are historically the children of the union of Brahman Nambudiris and Kshatriya Nairs of Kerala.

• [91] - The Nayar caste took the place of the Kshatriyas.

• [92] - It was the Prince of Kottarakara, from a Nayar ruling family in the south of Kerala, who produced.......

• [93] / [94] - The two dominant castes—Namboodiris (Brahmins or the priestly caste) and Nairs (Kshatriyas or the aristocratic caste)—stood at the apex of the system of customary obligations and rights, and together they appropriated the largest share of the cultivator's product.

• [95] - He mentions how various peasant castes like the marathas, reddis, vellalas, nayars, and coorgs were able to claim kshatriya status in the Deccan and in south India.

• [96] - The Nayar are traditionally a warrior caste.

• [97] / [98] - Dr. Gundert defines the Nayars as the Sudras of Kerala, raised to the rank of Kshatriyas by their intimate connection with the Brahmans.

• [99] - The military aristocracy of the Nayars, confined to the coast of Malabar, is founded on polyandry.

• [100] - Their persecution by the Maravar (warrior caste of the southeast) and the Nayar (warrior caste of the southwest) was itself proof that the Shanar were a conquered race of early Tamil royalty.
• [101] - In the Apartheid Andhrite Vijayanagar varna system, a semi-Aryan Nair warrior would shoot a Dravidian Sudra Negro at sight.

• [102] - They are considered generally as a Dravidian variety of the Aryan Kshatriyas.

• [103] - These were historically the monopoly of certain savarna (upper caste) Hindus with distinct ‘middle class’ orientation and cultural values, and who benefited from early access to western education. Among them are the Brahmins, Khatris, Kayasthas, the Bengali bhadralok, Nairs, etc. For simplicity’s sake, we may label them ‘Brahmin-plus’ communities as opposed to the Vaishya-plus Old Guard. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is probably the 10th time Cartick is targeting this article. If there is any personal vendetta against any particular caste, this is not the place to do it. Now what happened a few months ago will start again. Everyone's time will be wasted. Varna sttaus for every caste in Kerala is disputed because of the uniqueness in Nambuthiri classification. That is why it was not included in the lead. And why should it be included in the lead? No one in Kerala think it is important. 99% even don't know what is varna. Varna was never important in Kerala caste system. I strongly oppose any intent to change the article. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

one could argue that two sentences in the lead — 1)Nair (/ˈnɑː.jər/), also known as Nayar (Malayalam: നായര്‍ Nāyar [naːjər])[12] or Malayala Kshatriya and 2) Nairs are known as the nagavanshi Kshatriya clan of Ananta and Vasuki descendence. — imply indirectly that Nairs are Kshatriyas. This is misleading to readers as there is evidence from literature — the ones i have posted above — that regards nairs as Shudras. In lot of the references given by Shannon, he makes the case Nairs were Kshatriyas because they were soldiers or because they did what were expected of kshatriyas which is WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis and not acceptable in wikipedia. for example, your reference 38 says The Reddys of Andhra, the Vellalas of Tamil Nadu, and the Nayars of Malabar never accepted the four-fold division. Also, they enjoyed as communities social power similar to that claimed by the Kshatriyas. — it does not say Nairs were Kshatriyas; it only says they enjoyed social status similar to Kshatriyas. 99 says The military aristocracy of the Nayars, confined to the coast of Malabar, is founded on polyandry. — it doesnt say they are kshatriyas. there are indeed references that attest to your argument that nairs are kshatriyas, though i couldnt verify them independently myself. nevertheless, the point is that the characterization of Nairs as malayala kshatriyas in bold in the first sentence of the lead while a number of evidences say they are Shudras is either wrong or minimally WP:Undue for the lead.

In summary, references to both that nairs were kshatryas and shudras should be discussed in the body of the article and an appropriate neutral sentence should then be added to the lead. the word Kshatriya is mentioned atleast 7 times in the article and the article itself is classified as a kshatriya community in addition to a Template:Kshatriya Communities at the bottom. thus, not mentioning Shudras is violation of WP:Neutral point of view policy. --CarTick (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

More than 100 references are posted above which states Nairs as Kshatriyas. And the name Malayala Kshatriya is used widely in Kerala and is given in Shabdataravali, the fist offcial lexicon of Malayalam language. If Nairs are not Kshatriya, then there will be no Kshatriyas in India, as can be seen here. "The Kshatriya or soldier caste is practically identical with the Rajputs of North Central India, and the Nairs of the south. Outside the three twice- born castes, the whole of the mass of the Indian people were classed as Sudras." I don't see any OR or Synthesis here. So I request you to cast aside your prejudices and take a neutral stand. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am confused. Cartick talks about WP:Neutral point of view policy. Is this applicable only to this article? A link posted by S1488 above states:"The Kshatriya, or military class is said by the Brahmins to be extinct. But the Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan in all probability belong to this class." Cartick says for Neutrality we should take Nairs as Sudra. But why this is not applicable to Rajputs, who are also mentioned here. Then there will be no Kshatriyas in India and Cartick will be happy. And we should check the neutrality of the article about Cartick's caste. Everyone knows that Nadars were treated as untouchable even by the Sudra castes of TN (like Maravars and Kallars). They were not even allowed to enter temples (1899 riots was a result). These facts find no mention in the Nadar article. So my question is whether WP:Neutral point of view applicable only here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbie.Smit (talk • contribs) 03:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the Brahmins believe that Vedic Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are extinct. So they regard all other castes as Sudra (which itself is a derogatory word. Sudra in Sanskrit means "cheap", "impure" or "unclean"). "he makes the case Nairs were Kshatriyas because they were soldiers or because they did what were expected of kshatriyas which is WP:Original research" - This statement is utter nonsense as I don't see anywhere in the references stating so. Look at refs - 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 26.etc Nair is the highest ranking caste in most regions of Kerala (Nambuthiris are concentrated in a few pockets). Calling them Sudra does not make any sense. Then regarding the 5 references to Kshatriya in the article. They doesn't deal with varna. They either deal with alternate naming or descent. First one is that they are also known as Malayala Kshatriya, which is true. As noted above this is the reference given in Shabdatharavali, the first lexicon of Malayalam language (and still considered as the ultimate reference for Malayalam language). Second is "Nairs are known as the nagavanshi Kshatriya clan of Ananta and Vasuki descendence" - No reference given for this. Third is "After the war, they encountered Paraśurāma, who vowed to exterminate the Nāgas since they were Kshatriya" - This is a well known myth which can be referenced from a large number of reliable sources. Fourth - "Mythology apart, Nairs are thought to be the descendants of Nagavanshi Kshatriyas, who migrated to Kerala from further North" - Ref given. Fifth - "Grama Padhati of Tulu Brahmins describes the Nairs of Kerala and the similarly matrilineal Bunts of Tulu Nadu as descendants of Kshatriyas who accompanied the Brahmins to Kerala and Tulu Nadu respectively from Ahichatra in northern Panchala." - Referenced and deals more with Bunts rather than Nairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.159.70 (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I am against individual attacks. But after seeing Cartick's edit history in this article, it is getting very difficult to assume good faith. I am forced to believe that he is having some sort of personal agenda. The points noted down by him: Inclusion in Kshatriya template and Malayala Kshatriya grouping. A large number of castes are included in the Kshatriya template, although as pointed above only Nairs and Rajputs have absolute authority to this claim. All these refs are taken from well known neutral sources. In many of them Nairs are given as an example of Kshatriya community. Take a look at Ref4 - It states that Nairs are the only Kshatriya community in South India. Ref 11 is even more up to the point. It states that the Kshatriya caste is identical with the Nair caste. Ref 22 is also similar to Ref 4. Ref 36 states that Nairs along with Rajputs are the only Kshatriyas left. Ref 62 also states the same. Ref 70 also states that Nairs are one of the only two castes of Kshatriyas in India. Ref 74 also states the same. How is it possible to exclude Nair from the Kshatriya template after all these facts? Your main weapon is the fact that a section of Brahmins believe that Vedic Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are extinct. Therefore they see all non-Brahmins as Sudras. But this is not applicable to just Nairs. This is applicable to all caste-Hindus who can be called "Sudras" by the Brahmins and all untouchable castes (including Cartick's own caste) who can be called "Ati-Sudras" (extreme polluted or Dalit). The term Sudra therefore, can be used only according to the definition in Manusmriti, rather than in diverging Brahmin classifications. According to Manusmiriti a Sudra is someone who works as a servant or as a slave to twice-born castes. Brahmins are the ones who do priestly duties. Kshatriyas are the ones who rules the land or serve in the army. Vaishyas are the ones who trade goods or indulges in farming. And Ati-Sudras or untouchables are the ones who are outside Hinduism. You yourself can decide which of these labels will be best suited for the Nairs after going through this: "In these kingdoms of Malabar there is another sect of people called Nairs, who are the gentry, and have no other duty than to carry on war". This varna classification is quite complex and that is why we decided to keep it away. Shannon1488 (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Bhagavd gita says Chathurvarnyam maya srushtam gunakarma vibhagasha Means that the varna is decided by ones guna(three gunas sathva rajas and thamasdepending on ones character and also ones action). Nairs definitely were the warriors and they come under kshatriyas. And sudra means a worried person. In sanskrit the word sudra originate from the word shuk' meaning sorrow. Manusmrithi says

Shoodro brahmanathaamethi brahmanashchaithi soodrathaam kshatriyaajjathamevanthu vidyaadvaishyathadaiva cha

Means "Soodra also is brahmin; brahmin is also soodra; Same can be thought of about kshatriyas and vaisyas"

Even manusmrithi says like this. So there is no need of any dispute over varna. Varna is a term denoting an individualistic quality. All the our varnas will be seen in every human. Nair clans were the warriors and they had more rajoguna compared to others. Their valor accounts for the kshatriya title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malayalakshatriya (talk • contribs) 08:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

random break

i am going to assume i am just talking to two persons as all except Shannon and CM, i believe, are single purpose accounts that exist solely for the purpose of defending this article to death or current account holders who just doesnt have the guts to talk openly, so just logged out to sneak in a comment or past banned accounts.

the problem is that you guys dont even read and try to understand what others write. i never said references dont exist that claim nairs are kshatriyas. i never said kshatriya claims should be removed from the article. all i said is that references to to shudra status ALSO exist and thus, should be included. according to WP:Neutral point of view, when multiple viewpoints about one topic exist in literature, all of them should be discussed in the article; omitting one is violation of that policy. In this case, two view points exist in literature: some claiming nairs are Kshatriyas and some claiming nairs are shudras; but the article mentions only viewpoint. get it now? if you guys have difficulty understanding what wp is or wp policies and how it applies to articles, please feel free to ask me or others. --CarTick (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That is quite complex. You are saying that "Shudra status ALSO exist and thus, should be included". How it is possible? Brahmins (at least a section of them) believe that Vedic Kshatriyas and Vedic Vaishyas are extinct and thus all non-Brahmins are Sudras. (Ref 36, 62 & 74). Are you going to add the "Sudra" term to all the other castes? There are tens of thousands of such castes and are you going to say that all are Sudras? What you are trying to say is that only Nairs are Sudra. There is the problem. Rajputs, Marathas.etc state in their article that they are Kshatriya. You don't have any problem with that. I can give you hundreds of sources which claims these communities are Sudra, since Kshatriyas are extinct. But you are concerned only with Nair article. That is the problem. I have no problem if you add this sentence to the article: "The Kshatriya, or military class is said by the Brahmins to be extinct. But the Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan in all probability belong to this class, though the Brahmins assert that they are only Sudras". But one thing. As stated by us earlier Sudra / Ati-Sudra status should be added to every single caste article from India. My view is that varna is not important in this article and should be excluded. But if you want to add them, then add it to every other caste. Shannon1488 (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Shannon, whether other articles claim kshatriya status is irrelevant to our current discussion. please see WP:other stuff exists. wikipedia is a project in progress; some articles will be better than others and some could be downright wrong and therefore, we can not use "it does or doesnt exist in other articles" argument.

I personally dont think south indian caste articles need to be mentioning the varna. however, this article not only mentions the kashatriya status, it is CATEGORISED under Kshatriya castes. please dont single out one reference to make a point, but rather look at all the references — references given by me and you. in principle, i would agree with the sentence proposed by you with small changes. i would recommend removing the kshatriya category and template. If you wanna keep the category, you should also add Shudra category for balance which i find silly. i support removing both. The "Malayala Kshatriya" in the first sentence is, at best, dubious which should also go or sufficient context should be given which is not a good idea to do in the lead. --CarTick (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So you want everything your way. So I don't see any compromise coming within the next few days. I don't agree with any of your points. Shannon1488 (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

you dont or you dont WANT to agree with me? --CarTick (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all stop your bullying. For the Sudra reference, I also agree with Shannon in adding the Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society link. Only if everything else stays as such. There is no need for a Sudra category as almost every non-Brahmin caste in India is Sudra. And if you still continue your intimidation by using Wiki policies, then prepare for a lengthy edit war. You are not going to have everything your way every time. And your use of WP:other stuff exists. Stop acting. We all know that you are targeting this article because you are a Nadar.Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? Virtually every caste other than the Brahmins? I never knew that, perhaps because I am one of the majority of people who neither live in India nor have any connection to it & therefore cannot make this sorts of information leaps. Seems like a good reason to include the Sudra category, then. Wikipedia is timeless, so there is no rush. Might as well start here. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am just telling you one thing. The meaning of Sudra in Sanskrit is "unclean", "polluted", "lowly".etc. It is a highly offensive word no longer used in India. Using the word Sudra for any caste is like using the word "Nigger" in the article of an African tribe. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have disagreed with CarTick before now and he is aware of me primarily because I am mediating in a sourcing dispute on another article. Note the word "mediate". I have not yet determined which way to jump in that article or indeed this one. At the end of the day, I may not jump at all: it is perfectly ok to have two differing theories etc in an article. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

no, it is not. it is only your imagination. neither Kshatriya nor Shudra is widely known in south india. we are not making up things; we are only writing what reliable secondary sources say. please note, WP:Wikipedia is not censored. --CarTick (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this and this comes under Wikipedia:Canvassing. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

are they also Nadars too? if wikipedia policies are intimidating may be you shouldnt be editing here. --CarTick (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the property of Nadar association. I'll continue editing here. If you have any problem, then sue me. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoever wants nair to be called as a sudra suffer from some inferiority complex i guess. So atleast try to calm yur mind for a better understanding Earlier i have posted references from manusmriti and bhagavad gita. It clearly gives what the term sudra indicates. So better stop here a vain argument. Nairs are always kshatriyas and will be —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malayalakshatriya (talk • contribs) 15:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just concentrate on the facts dear users. His inferiority complex is well known. As some one has previously posted, he has attacked this article more than 10 times. Why should the argument be stopped? Let him blabber as much as he want. We have points to counter each and every one of his arguments. So lets concentrate on those. Robbie.Smit (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that perhaps I should point out to Robbie.Smit the policies regarding the issue of sockpuppetting. For a new user, who has only contributed to this article (and has done that only twice), he appears to know a lot about the personalities involved and the article history. Obviously, this is just a friendly reminder but I am prepared to escalate it if things turn out to require it. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Demands by CarTick

• (1) Dropping of the alternate name Malayala Kshatriya given in the lead.
• (2) Dropping of all Kshatriya references
• (3) Dropping of Nair in Kshatriya Template
• (4) Dropping of Nair in Kshatriya Cat
• (5) Inclusion of Sudra refs

My opinion:

• (1) Not possible, since the reference is taken from Shabdataravali, considered to be the ultimate reference of Malayalam language for the last 100+ years.
• (2), (3) and (4) Not possible, since many of the refs (4, 11, 22, 36, 62, 70 & 74) are giving Nair as an example of a Kshatriya community.
• (5) Not needed, as there is a dispute whether Nair can be considered Sudra or not. 95% of the Indian population can either be considered Sudra or Dalit. Then why concentrate on the remaining 5% and also label them as Sudra? Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

?? Ref 4 is a note about total Malayam speakers (which, by the way, I am considering removing as it is meaningless as far as I can see). - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about the links 1 to 103 which Shn posted here Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

D'oh. Thank you for clarifying. Have you any idea why the Malayam speaker notes exist in the infobox of the article? I mean, not all Malayam speakers will be Nairs and so the figures seem to be utterly pointless. You'll note from the article history that I have been doing a bit of tidying up here for a while (perhaps another reason why you should not have made the assumption that I am in some way CarTick's cavalry). - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Took a look at the infobox. I think you are referring to this. What I can understand is that: Since there is no caste census, there is no accurate way to count the number of Nairs. So based on this and Census data on Malayalam language speakers, the editor interpolated the number of Nairs. Assumption seems to be quite inaccurate. As I know, anywhere around 75% to 90% of second generation Nair immigrants have no knowledge of Malayalam. Therefore these figures under count Nairs very heavily. For example in Maharashtra, it says 80,000 Nairs. NSS there usually quote a figure of half a million.

And sorry for the personal attack. I made the false assumptions after seeing Cartick's invitation on your talk page. I was quite frustrated today... unfortunately did something I had no intent of doing. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That was exactly what I was referring to. I cutting it. Nearly did it a couple of weeks ago but got distracted by something else. It is complete nonsense and your point about the lack of a census etc just makes it more so. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

real concerns not demands

Chandrakantha, you must be having difficulty understanding nuanced english communication — why would you otherwise mis-characterise my concerns? here are my real concerns.

1. ADD reference to Shudras in the article body
2. EITHER remove Kshatriya from the lead OR add both Kshatriya and Shudra
3. EITHER remove Kshatriya from the category because of the ambiguity as to whether nairs are kshatriyas or Shudras as both viewpoints exist in reliable sources OR add both kshatriya and Shudra. i prefer not adding both, because, i believe, category should be only for undisputable facts, which is not the case here.--CarTick (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the definition of Kshatriya & Shudra, Nair are Kshatriyas, there is no doubt on this.86.218.62.158 (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Whose definition? - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And, by the way, CM appears to agree that the Nairs are at least also Shudra, as they are not Brahmans. - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Have a look on the definition of Kshatriya & Shudra on Hindu texts (Bhagavat Gita, etc.). From immemorial times, Nair are linked to the 2nd varna of the Hindu order (rulers & martial nobility).86.218.62.158 (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you have not understood what CM said... He said that according to (at least some of them) Brahmins, there is no more Kshatriya caste who were destroyed by Parasurama and therefore considered Hindu rulers as Shudra. This is a minority opinion but was widely used by western scholars (from the British colonial period) for political reasons.86.218.62.158 (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

by this time, this debate should have been announced in Orkut and we will have numerous such IPs and new accounts appear and make similar passing remarks without having any clue about how wikipedia works. the references that support the Shudra claim are somehow irrelevant. it is best to ignore. --CarTick (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No, we should always at least try to educate the tag-teamers. So, to the IP:

1. you need to provide a reliable source
2. that is verifiable
3. if it is not verifiable in the English language then you need to provide a translation (and it should be a reliable, independent translation really - not yours)
4. it is not up to other people to search for these things: if you are making the statement then you need to provide the evidence
5. you will get a lot of brownie points if you register and use a username - it is not a requirement, but it will make quite a difference to how a lot of people perceive you. Call it human nature.

Until you do all but the last of these things, I shall be ignoring your comments. The same applies to any other IP users who come here in, say, the next 12 hours, and have not made contributions to other talk pages. You may think this is harsh but tag teaming etc is simply not on. If you have come here because of a note on a messageboard or whatever then you may want to consider all of this before actually posting. Other people may listen to you, but I will not. - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

All the refs are given. If you don't want to consider them, it is another pb. There already had been a huge dispute on this subject one year ago. A user called sanam01 [104] (who wanted to add Shudra for Nair) has been banned indefinitely.86.218.62.158 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not good enough. I won't get banned or even blocked for anything I do to this article, because I know what I am doing. Alas, it would appear that you do not despite your apparent knowledge of the history etc. I am not digging around for the refs. Provide them please, and in the manner which I describe above. You will get no more replies from me until you do. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion history, i'm just tired of talking about the same thing again & again. People have given their arguments, reasons many times. Please note that i'm not threatening you by talking about a banned user, i just wanted to keep you informed that there already had been a big dispute on the same matter.86.218.62.158 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

whatever had been discussed, it looks like the discussion hadnt resulted in anything meaningful. why else would they have decided to keep something as significant as shudra out and kshatriya in. may be, you could disclose what your previous avatar was and when was the last time you were banned? --CarTick (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because we have demonstrated that the rank of Nair is Kshatriya. & fyi, I have never been banned.86.218.62.158 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I should once again note down that the last time when some users had an argument with Cartick, their user page was vandalized and they received death threats (10:13, 8 November 2010 edit here and this. So if some users don't want to be identified, then I think it should be permitted. Either you take action against the people who did that, or you allow anonymity. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

DEFINITION OF KSHATRIYA FROM OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONNARY

Kshatriya: a member of the second of the four great Hindu caste. The traditionnal function of a Kshatriya is to protect society by fighting in wartime and governing in peacetime. From Sanskrit Kshatriya, from Kshatra 'rule, authority'.86.218.62.158 (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

For refs concerning Nair-Kshatriya/Rulers/Warriors etc., see above & also the debate with user Sanam001. Talking about Nairs as Shudras is simply ridicoulous. Those who do that are either unskilled or have a biased opinion.86.218.62.158 (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OED says nothing about who is in the Kshatriya group. I do not see the relevance of the quote which you provide. I'm ignoring your second comment: it is rude and still does not address my request. I am not ploughing through 100-odd sources most of which I absolutely guarantee you will be irrelevant to the point you were making when I raised this issue, viz: "According to the definition of Kshatriya & Shudra, Nair are Kshatriyas". - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

this reference explains why Nairs are shudras:Rise of Portuguese Power in India By R.S. Whiteway The ruling and military race was the Nair caste, who like all inhabitants of Malabar except the Brahmans, ranked socially as sudras, the lowest of the four great divisions, because they were converts and not Hindus born. (page 11) --CarTick (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

More rubbish from you. Anyone who converts to Hinduism is known as a Sudra? Nairs are Hindu for the last 2000 years. Even many of the current Rajput communities were converted after that date. Find some real reasons, not excuses. And FYI, R.S. Whiteway is a historian, not a sociologist. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be seeing the same problem that has cropped up in other articles where the (well-cited) issue of Shudra classification was brought up. The question is not "are Nair truly Shudra" the question is whether they have been classified as Shudra at whatever points in the past, and reliable sources have noted their being considered in that caste. There is no reason that both varnas cannot be mentioned, and maybe even a "Varna controversy" section added (as exists for a few articles) to identify the differing schools of thought. I strongly agree that whitewashing out the term "Shudra" when such can be clearly documented using reliable secondary sources, is exactly the sort of POV Wiki needs to be avoiding. We shouldn't leave out properly documented academic statements simply because somebody's feelings might be hurt. If Group X labeled the Nair as Shudra, then that is historically significant and should be included. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You people are not answering to my question. Brahmins believe that Vedic Kshatriyas are extinct and all non-Brahmins are Sudras. So are you going to classify all non-Brahmin castes as Sudra?

This weapon was used not only against Nairs, but also against Marathas (Unlike Nairs, majority of them are farmers and not soldiers). From here: "At this the Maratha Brahmins got enraged and said, The Kshatriya caste has been extinct in Kaliyug. Now there is no upper caste except the 'Brahmin'."

There are thousands of servant castes which matches the definition of Sudra according to Manusmriti and Bhagavat Gita. Then why you people are targeting castes like Nair which does not have anything to do with Sudras? Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"If Group X labeled the Nair as Shudra, then that is historically significant and should be included." - We have already agreed to that. But Cartick wants to add a Sudra category, which is not possible, as Nair is not a true Sudra caste. Shannon1488 (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Shannon, you are mis-characterising what i have said. please read my three concerns in the previous post including about the category. --CarTick (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Shannon, CarTick explicitly says above that given the choice he'd prefer to remove both the Kshatriya and Shudra cats. And the Shudra inclusion apparently isn't "agreed" because that term currently does not appear anywhere in the article. If we can achieve consensus on that term, then all of us should be watching this article to revert any IPs removing the term. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Leave Shannon. I have already told you Kshatriya Cat can't be removed. Nairs along with Rajputs are given as examples of Kshatriyas by numerous sociologists, because Nair is a typical example of a Kshatriya community. If you remove Nairs from the Cat, then there won't be any real Kshatriya castes left. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Chandrakantha, your arguments are more emotional than rational and you dont make any sense. shannon sounds like a more reasonable person to work with, atleast more than you. --CarTick (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with whatever CM posted above. I have already agreed to include the term Sudra in the article. But the Kshatriya Cat and Template should stay. You are the one who is not agreeing. Shannon1488 (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

this not a great option. but that is fine with me. but if the article has to satisfy WP:NPOV policy, both kshatriya and shudra cats should be include once we make a mention of shudra in the body. --CarTick (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." As far as I am concerned Nairs are clearly Kshatriya and there is only a small minority opinion to classify them as Sudra. So I don't agree with the inclusion of Sudra Cat. Shannon1488 (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

no way. it is the other way around. here is the [google books search (over 3000 results) of nairs and sudras. not all of them call nairs as shudras. but there is a large body of sources that call them so. there is no way it is a minority opinion. --CarTick (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To MatthewVanitas

It is really cheap to make unilateral changes to an article, when a group of people are actually discussing the issue. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar ([[User talk:Chandrakantha.Mannadiar|ta

MatthewVanitas made changes in the article which Chandrakantha modified; Chandrakantha is trying to whitewash. I am not satisfied with the current wording because i believe it is not accurately reflecting the reality. it needs to be discussed what we are going to add to the title. --CarTick (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Y'all have been discussing the issue at great length, and the fact remains that key data is being whitewashed from the article, The portion regarding "pollution" and distances was particularly egregious, as whoever wrote it quoted all the material listing who was "lower" than the Nair, and then explicitly left out the material noting that the Nair could pollute the group above them by contact. I am adding properly-cited material here; I can see leaving out the lede mention of Shudra until this issue is resolved (though claims of Kshatriya status should likewise be left out of the lede), but removing the mention of Nair pollution, which is explicitly mentioned in many refs, seems highly POV. Would you object to my restoring the portion noting that Nair cannot touch Brahmins, but may approach them? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"Likewise a Nair could approach but not touch a Namburi." - It is already there. What more you want? Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I see now you just removed the term "Shudra" while leaving the rest, but it was hard to see what you were doing with no Edit Summary provided. While we're sorting out the article, can people please use the Edit Summaries (as I did) to explicitly indicate what they're changing? And please use http://reftag.appspot.com to convert GoogleBooks bare links into proper citations (just takes one click). This article has a complicated and contentious history, so might as well keep the History clear as possible. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add the term "pollutes" then it is OK with me. But right now I am in some sort of trouble. I've to attend my classes within the next 3 hrs and I haven't finished my work. If you could freeze this discussion for a few hours, it will be great. Else, I'll be in quite big trouble. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

we have to come up with a better wording about the varna status to be added in the lead. please make your suggestions here. --CarTick (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The current wording covers both Kshatriya and Sudra. It looks neutral. But again, is this really urgent? Can't you wait for a few hours? Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have to go. Hope you will freeze this discussion until I am back. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

no, it is not neutral. "in all probability" they are kshatriyas = who said so?, "some section of brahmins" call them Sudras = that is wrong. several secondary sources call them so. --CarTick (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Arguing with you is futile. You expect everyone to make concessions and you yourself remain rock-solid on your views. Shannon1488 (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral and accurate language would be something more like "X, Y, and Z social groups believe them to be Kshatriya (footnote), while A, B, and C groups consider them Shudra". Far more important than any ethereal "truth" as to their status is the issue of what others have called them, and what they have called themselves. The measure is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess there are some references that call Nairs Kshatrya-like because of their martial tradition. however, they were accorded only Shudra status. i like you idea of having a kshatriya Shudra controversy section in the body. --CarTick (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Should I type each of my posts 4 times for you? "I guess there are some references that call Nairs Kshatrya-like because of their martial tradition." Earlier I had posted that this was wrong and had given you the refs.

Well.. I have a feeling that since every time we are the ones who make concessions, you are getting more and more emboldened. Shannon1488 (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm fully with CarTick on everything, but as someone just now coming into this argument, I do think that the article at the point I entered it had significant failings in terms of mentioning the Shudra issue, and in mentioning all the proximity/pollution info which made the Nair appear higher-ranking than other groups, but specifically not including info indicating that the Nair were lower than the Brahmin. In that light, I feel less like CarTick is trying to sway the article left of centre, and more that the article is already right of centre and CarTick's general trend is to pull it left. Given that there are statements that the Nair are Kshatriya in some shape or form according to some people (note I say "statements", not "facts"), I definitely agree that claims to Kshatriya-hood should be included in context, but that also notice must be made that there are other groups in India do not at all view them as Kshatriya. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

New additions

I was following what was going here for the past few hours. I'd like to present my opinion about the two new changes in the article.

• Varna status - I reserve my opinion for a later date
• Pollution to Nambuthiri - The recent edit was completely one-sided. A Nambuthiri will be polluted by the touch of anyone who is not a Nambuthiri or a Samanta Kshatriya. #4.Eda Sudham is from their official site. A touch of non-Nambuthiri Brahmin (according to Nambuthiri, they are the only Brahmins left. Others are Sudras) pollutes a Nambuthiri and that pollution is known as Eda Sudham. On the other hand, the top most subcaste of Nair, known as Samanta Kshatriya (there are only a few families) does not pollute Nambuthiri with his touch (Samanta Kshatriyas are "born-again" people who are granted a status similar to Nambuthiri). The usage of pollution in this article is completely one-sided as the only caste which does not pollute the Nambuthiri with his touch is a sub-caste of Nair itself. Axxn (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you dig up a ref from a published book by an academic, rather than by an association which promotes a given caste? Don't get me wrong, it's interesting, but I'm not sure it meets WP:Reliable sources. I still wouldn't say it's "one sided" to note that Nairs (in most cases) can't touch Brahmins; if we can devote sentences to people lower than Nair, it seems evasive to leave out one small sentence covering a group higher than the Nair. If the Vedic hierarchy in this region of India is relatively straightforward, it should be made rather explicit in the article.

Not a personal dig on you, but my great concern in such articles is "caste-cruft", and one aspect thereof is that some editors are willing to include any and all info, regardless of sourcing or proper context, that makes Caste X look good, and then question and fight any addition which even slightly detracts from said caste no matter how reliable the source or how cohesive the writing. There's just often this caste-cruft double-standard where praising a caste to the skies is easy, but putting in any information which compromises their "awesomeness" is taken as personal insult by editors unwilling to take NPOV. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, what I can say? There is a saying "Jaundiced eyes saw everything as yellow". I made the point that no non-Nambuthiri can touch a Nambuthiri without pollution, including Nairs. And you resorted to attacking me. I have just one doubt. Since this revolves around Nambuthiris, why it is included in the Nair article? Should it be included only in the Nambuthiri article? And if you include it here, then why only this article? Axxn (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out why a lot of editors are edgy about anything that smacks of caste-promotion on Wiki, as it easily turns into a self-serving morass. In the same way as you may feel accused of keep the article over-sunny, editors like myself sometimes feel we're being accused of slandering some caste when in reality we're trying to keep caste articles from becoming "Facebook pages" for people who happen to have that last name and want to "polish" their image. I'm not accusing you of doing that, I'm saying that such is what has many of us edgy.

I only came to this article this evening, so have no objections to adding whatever to the Nambuthiri article. What I do object to is earlier editors picking-and-choosing citations to give a promotional view of the Nair vice an objective one. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To Sitush - Why did you removed the section about the Mannarasala serpent grove? The book was written by a neutral person (a Tamil Brahmin, who is a well known historian. And it is important as far as the Theories are concerned).

Plz see this also. Axxn (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If people cited properly then things like this would not happen. If people used and read edit summaries (as I did) then questions like this would be fewer. To answer more fully: the citation referred to page 3 of an unspecified volume; the book is over 40 years old and so the sentence needed reworking anyway (you cannot use the present tense for something that applied over 40 years ago); the article already has far too many references to serpent worship etc - there was no pressing need to have one more in a paragraph which is really discussing how the Nairs migrated across the regions. - Sitush (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Duarte Barbosa

The article contains a quote allegedly from Barbosa that starts "Plato may have borrowed the family law of his Republic from that of the Nairs ..." This is a translation, obviously. I do not have a copy of the edition referred to in the footnotes. but do know that nothing similar appears in translations of the Barbosa work which I have seen. Please can someone scan the relevant page of the cited source & email it to me for verification. If this cannot be done within a reasonable time then I will probably remove the quote because, as I say, it does not match any version which I have seen.

Of course, it may be a translator's note. This is fine, except the introduction to the quote would need to be changed. Either way, I would like to see the relevant page please. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

the actual introductory note given with this quote was as follows

'from the manuscript written by Duarte Barbosa in 1510, it is conjectured'

succeeded by the quote: later some other user has edited into present phrase, it is to be replaced.

the quote in the article is available from the following

Premitive Civilizations or - Outlines of the History of Ownership In Archaic Communities, page 485, Volume 1, By Edith Jemima Simcox

Not only this author, many other authors have mentioned about Duarte Barbosa mentioning about nairs as credible and earlier account of reference.

1. A survey of Indian History by A.Sreedhara Menon

2. An illustrated handbook of Indian arms by Wilbraham Egerton Egerton

3. Dhow Cultures and the Indian Ocean: Cosmopolitanism, Commerce, and Islam By Abdul Sheriff

4. Chattampi Swamikal also has referred to Barbosa in one of his book 'Pracheena Malayalam'.

5. Original translation of the Manuscript titled as 'A description of the coasts of East Africa and Malabar' Translated by Henry E.J. Stanley

As E.J.Symcox describes the primitiveness of civilizations in the book from which quote has been taken, it deems as most relevant in this article which specifically can point to the ancientness of the clan.

vekramaditya (talk · contribs)

I have no issue with Barbosa. I am well aware that he wrote much about India etc during his travels. My issue isn't even with the introductory sentence to the quote. It is the quote itself, which quite clearly is not from Barbosa. Thanks for pointing out where you think it has come from. I'll double-check that & then amend things to suit. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And, lo & behold, it isn't a quote from Simcox either. The page you give does not use these words, although it does "sort of" talk of the subject. So where did the quote come from, then? - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Quote is from the same book referred as above, quote is as follows-

"Plato may have borrowed the family law of his Republic from that of the Nairs, who also bear a considerable resemblance to his class of guardians; and the undoubted resemblance between Cretan or Spartan and Malayali usage makes it almost certain that Plato had in his mind a phase of Cretan custom developed in a direction approaching more or less closely to that of Malabar"

Premitive Civilizations or - Outlines of the History of Ownership In Archaic Communities, page 485, Volume 1, By Edith Jemima Simcox

First published in 1894

Given reference is from 2010 edition, page 485. Also reference to Barbosa's translation has been given as third reference of that page

"from the manuscript written by Duarte Barbosa, it is conjectured" this was the introductory note to the quote when quote was inserted in the article. Someone else has changed the introductory note to the quote as "Duarte Barbosa wrote in 1510 AD that" which is not correct and to be replaced as you have pointed out.

vekramaditya (talk · contribs)

Ah, sorry. Both myself and the article are using the original book rather than some reprinted edition. I don't trust reprints from many subcontinental publishing houses as I've seen too many issues with them in the past (including entire pages left out etc). I will try again to find it in the original. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Excellent work on your part, by the way. Well done.

Unfortunately, as you note, the comment is just a conjecture. It is also a second-hand conjecture, being repeated (without any opinion for or against it) in 1894 on the basis of a translator's thoughts from many years previously. I've removed the entire thing: this is way too vague to be of use. If it is significant then it will have been covered in more modern works.

Are you aware if any of the other books you mention discuss this possible connection to Plato's Republic ? Mentioning that Barbosa wrote of the Nairs is not difficult to prove, but it is not really the point that I think past contributors were trying to make. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Section removal - Bunts of Tulu Nulu

I have just removed the entire section entitled Connection with the Bunts of Tulu Nulu (see this diff).

I initially just fixed obvious errors in a quote, then noted that 50% of the quote was not in fact in the source being quoted. Then noted that another citation only confirmed one sentence rather than a paragraph, that a further citation made no mention of the Bunts ... and so on. Since much of the content was in any case uncited, and quite a bit of it appeared to be original research and synthesis, my conclusion was that this must go for now. I think that it may originally have had some minor purpose and has grown as a consequence of some wild POV-pushing & (probably) more than a few re-writes.

If someone wants to recreate it then that is fine but please do so in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Malayala Kshatriya

the word in bold in the first sentence of the lead has two references: one i can not access and the one i can access has the following sentence. "It might perhaps be deduced from the inscription No. IV., that Ushavadata succeeded his father-in-law; for after mentioning an expedition of his into Malabar to aid Kshatriya (Nairs) ruler;...." That sentence was converted by WP:Original research of the editors from here into Malayala Kshatriya. Google books search of "Malayala Kshatriya" brings out 7 results; none of them says that Nairs are Malayala Kshatriyas. In fact, this book says "In the same way, in Kerala, Malayala Kshatriya chiefs took Nayar wives,..." google scholar search come with one result which is an article based on wikipedia. Thus, the bold sentence with scanty or no evidence in the opening sentence needs to be removed. please feel free to present your evidences and discuss here first if you want to put the word back. --CarTick (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree here: the burden of proof is on the includer, not the deleter. Consensus is not necessarily required to remove the phrase, but is required to re-insert the phrase. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and is reverting the edits. Reference is already given many times - Shabdataravali is regarded as the final reference of Malayalam language. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

this is your opinion and this is not how consensus building works. you have to show the exact quote from Shabarataravali and then demonstrate why it is considered to be an authoritative and reliable source. your opinion can do didly here. --CarTick (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Talking about concensus, we have already agreed to 50% of what you have demanded. If you want 100%, then I fear even after that you will make new demands. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

that shows your lack of understanding of what wikipedia is. i dont demand anything because i want it and neither is wikipedia some kind of business where people make a 50-50 compromise. who is that "we" you are referring to always? there is no "we" and "you" in wiki-editing. --CarTick (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Temporary Request

I request all editors except Sitush to refrain from editing the article. Cartick and MatthewVanitas have repeatedly shown disrespect to fellow editors by making one sided edits, even while the discussion was going on. Since Sitush is regarded as neutral by everyone here, let him make the edits if necessary. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To Sitush

Are you going to listen anything we are arguing here? We have posted a large number of references and none of them has been even considered. Our simple questions are not being answered yet. If your view points are the same as that of Cartick, then please make yourself clear here. We have wasted a lot our time trying to put forward our arguments. And it seems none of our posts have even been read by you people. If you agree with Cartick, then there is no use of an argument here. Why we should waste our time? But I am quite sure that you will repent later for supporting a caste fanatic who attacked another community because of jealousy. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am merely following what I perceive to be the policy. In the case of a content dispute it is always wiser to remove the disputed content and discuss the matter. By doing this we are at least not presenting incorrect/contentious/dubious/one-sided/whatever information to the general reader. It is pretty much a matter of common sense.

As to whether CarTick is correct on this point, well, right now I could not possibly tell you. I have asked for some specific refs because there is no way I am trawling through 100-odd of them to resolve yet another (to me) rather silly issue of pride. I do understand that it means a lot to people who are more involved. Might I yet again suggest that someone who is more familiar with those refs perhaps picks out 10 or so which they consider to be the strongest in favour of their viewpoint? CarTick or someone else could do the same for the "other side".

I have no viewpoints on Indian matters. I think that I have already said this here. I have certainly said here that I have not always agreed with CarTick in the past and we have had our differences as a consequence. However, I think that there may be some mutual respect with regard to the fact that we do as a rule treat each other courteously, which it seems to me is quite a rare thing in this particular area of the project. If you are courteous to people then you are more likely to meet with a similar reaction, which means that when differences of opinion do occur there is no tendency to dig one's heels in. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

i believe, starting with 10 references is a good way to begin. I have 10 references supporting Nairs are Shudras in this sub page of mine User:CarTick/Sandbox2. i am looking forward to seeing Shannon presenting 10 strong evidences (from the 100 above) supporting his claim. --CarTick (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to select 10 best refs. You decide the rest. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Good, both of you. That is the way to make some progress in this matter. I've got other things to do, of course, including a sources review elsewhere and responding to the comments of an article - Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer) - that I pretty much wrote single-handedly and is now in the Good Article review process. There is no rush to select the best: the world is probably not going to stop turning tomorrow, and hopefully Wikipedia's own little world will not either. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, that is great. BTW Shannon, apart from the Kshatriya/Shudra controversy, if you want the term "Malayala Kshatriya" included in the article, we need references that use the EXACT term to address Nairs. --CarTick (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Here you go: User:Shannon1488/Sandbox. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This edit was really an unwanted one. I think after this and the removal of Malayala Kshatriya term, the article is at almost 100% where Cartick wanted it. I don't see any real chance that the views of users like me is going to reflect in this article. I am quitting from this debate. Let Cartick have the article according to his views. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I consider any decision to quit to be an undesirable outcome. However, it is ultimately up to you what you do. I'd suggest maybe taking a breather for a day or two and then coming back. Maybe even take a breather from the entire project for that time.

I will go through your sources nonetheless. All I can say about the edit that you refer to is that it is cited & therefore in principle is ok. I haven't actually checked whether the citation is reliable etc but will do (no offence intended to the inserter, MV). - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The diff given implies that I added the "Penny Cyclopaedia" ref to support Shudra status; however, note my edits instead used a 2003 publication from a California state university, which is far more credible: [105]. I do not know why my RS was removed and patchy Victorian books inserted, so I'll track down my original ref and fix that if I may. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I don't like to cast aspersions but that sounds like someone who realises what I'm like regarding sources and was attempting to subvert your contribution. If that is indeed the case then I will not be my usual happy self. An 1839 self-educational rag, deliberately toned down to suit its market, is clearly not an RS. I will AGF for now but think that I may have to keep a closer eye on things. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The revision has been done by MatthewVanitas and it seems perfectly ok to me. It is a good citation and a neutrally phrased statement. Bearing in mind both that Wikipedia is not censored (so if it causes offence then that is "just tough") and that it does not exist to favour or promote one viewpoint over another, I think that any naysayers will probably have to live with it. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And this was the edit which originally removed the MV insertion. Why did you do this, CM? - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sitush how could you tell "it seems perfectly ok to me" whereas there are so many refs stating that Nair are Kshatriyas ????... Really incredible!!!... Then you assert that you have a neutral POV on this matter.... CM writing was more accurate, i will tell you why & put it back with appropriate refs.Rajkris (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The tests as to whether or not it are ok is well-known to you: reliable, verifiable etc. Please do not start POV-pushing here. The article states two differing academic positions. Nothing wrong with that. - Sitush (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

the article is at almost 100% where Cartick wanted it -- the issue is that "where he wanted it" is not at some far end of the spectrum. The two sides are not "definitely Kshatriya" or "definitely Shudra". The point some have been pushing is that the word "Shudra" should appear nowhere in the article, and the word Kshatriya prominent. CarTick's argument has been that since both terms are used in academic/reliable sources, both terms should be used, and any usage of either must be clearly cited (the the removal of Malayalam Kshatriya as not supported by RSs). I fail to see how noting the complexity of the issue makes one side "lose" the argument. Nobody is trying to purge properly cited and contextualised" info noting that the Nair served a military/aristocratic role in many cases, were sometimes described as "Kshatriya" or noted as being a uniquely Dravidian parallel evolution to a similar role. I think the article is moving towards the "middle" of NPOV, and I fail to see how this is a negative trend. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

NAIR: KSHATRIYA/SHUDRA STATUS

Definition of Kshatriya from Encyclopeadia Britannica:[106] "The legend that the Kshatriya were destroyed by Parasurama, the sixth avatar of Vishnu, as a punishment for their tyranny is thought by some scholars to reflect a long struggle for supremacy between priests and rulers." (This detail is very important).
Nair were originally the rulers & martial nobility: [107] and please see the other refs given.
Though nairs were Kshatriya (rulers, warriors) by occupation, they were considered as Shudra by some of Brahmins (especially Keralla Brahmins), see refs given, i will use one of them.Rajkris (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Some content from the Britannica was removed by me because it was a copyvio, but I do not think it related to what you are saying here & in any case as long as you do not copyvio or close paraphrase then you are ok. I actually do not personally rate the Britannica as a source, but it does pass all the tests. It used to be very good but nowadays spreads itself a little thinly, I feel. - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As a generality, other encyclopedias are not great refs, as like Wiki they are an amalgamation of sources, vice clear and explicit texts from individual scholars with reputations to uphold. Not opposing it here necessarily, just noting that it's not the preferred option if others are available. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. They are tertiary sources and should be the absolute last resort. I've noticed that Indian contributors seem to love the things for some reason. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I have been too rude. I agree it is a very complex matter. The problem is on the definition of Kshatriya; to sum up quickly (i really don't have time for details, too much busy in my professionnal life):

1 Very specific definition of Kshatriya from orthodox Brahmins(included those from Kerala): all Kshatriyas have been killed by Parasurama and therefore there is no more Kshatriyas...

2 General definition of Kshatriyas (given by Britannica and others): Hindu rulers and martial nobility

Some of the authors took the POV of Kerala Brahmins and considered Nair as Shudras, others scholars have taken the general definition of Kshatriya and therefore considered Nayar as Kshatriyas.

I have been studying India and especially Indian caste system for many years and what i can tell you is it is something very complex. I know that nowadays many castes claim Kshatriya status without any proper prooves (and i'm in war against them) but this is not the case of Nairs, they were Kshatriyas by occupation eventhough they were considered by Local Brahmins as Shudras. I will complete MV sentence and give the appropriate refs.Rajkris (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have completed MV sentence and added the refs, i will add one or 2 more if i have time. I have removed the notion of 'cultivator' because Nairs were not considered as Shudra by local Brahmins because of their profession. Nairs were rulers & warriors of Malabar coasts from at least 1000 years.Rajkris (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, fyi, when in the url of an Britannica article, it is mentionned 'EBChecked', it means that the article has been checked & approved by Britannica board. This is the case for the Kshatriya & Nair articles.Rajkris (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I realise that things have moved on in the article itself since you wrote above, but thought that I had better comment nonetheless.

I have no idea how you intend to prove the "very specific definition of kshatriyas from orthodox Brahmins", but would emphasise that (as I think you are actually aware) the caste system in Kerala was very different to the rest of India. This is evidenced by numerous modern writers, two of which are currently cited in the article & are published by university presses. You would need to prove that the assertion of a different system in Kerala is incorrect before you could then make the assertion that the Keralian kshatriyas even existed in any great numbers, as they did elsewhere in India.

The Britannica article is referring to kshatriya and the Brahmanical system throughout India, which is unfortunate but a not uncommon problem with tertiary sources: they end up providing overviews rather than specifics, otherwise their size would be the same or greater than the secondary sources upon which they rely. Another example of this is the Britannica entry for Kerala, which manages to cover the entire subject of that state in 2500 words - a remarkable, if misguided, achievement.

I accept entirely that authors may hold POVs. Of course they do, but it is not particularly relevant to Wikipedia. Provided that they are reliable sources and provided that the article does not give undue weight to one POV over another, there is no problem. Modern works by confirmed academics which are published by respected publishing houses will be de facto reliable in the Wikipedian sense. Older works are usuallyless reliable if something newer exists because there is a presumption that the newer researchers are "standing on the shoulders of giants" and have taken account of the previous studies. Newer researchers also have better methodology and tools, and often have the benefit of discoveries such as new texts or archaeological evidence etc. This is Wikipedia, with all its faults etc; if you do not accept how it works then go contribute somewhere else would be my suggestion, unless you want to raise the entire issue of how it operates at RfC (and, frankly, you won't get anywhere if you do).

Your last point, regarding your studies etc is quite simply original research. I am not denying that you have done this and I am certainly not denying that you indulge in "wars", but it means precisely nothing here, sorry.

I will begin soon to work through the selections provided by CarTick and Shannon. I note, by the way, that even Shannon appears to have been slightly concerned with your recent actions, hence the removal of an unfortunate comment you placed on your own talk page. You may wish to take heed of this & I would be pleased if the subsequent email that Shannon sent you was of the "calm down" variety. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as the 2 POV (Kshatriya & Shudra) are mentionned according to academic sources, it is ok for me.Rajkris (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have struck some of my last comment in this section (timed at 12:53, 24 May). My sincere apologies to Rajkris, whom for some reason I got confused with CM. There has been that much to-ing and fro-ing that my brain malfunctioned. My bad, especially since Rajkris and myself have only recently bumped into each other with absolute agreement regarding a huge reversion on another article (and without talking to each other!). - Sitush (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

were all nairs in the military and formed the ruling class?

please see this reference. it classifies Nairs into several groups. i am not sure if the reference is reliable.

1. Kiril Nairs who are cooks
2. Shudra nairs who are farmers
3. Charnadu Nairs who follow the same profession as te above
4. Villiam Nairs, farmers and also carry palaks for kings and namburis
5. Wattakatta Nairs, oilmakers and cultivators
6. Attikourchi, cultivators
7. Wallakatra, barbers and cultivators
8. Wallatera, washermen
9. Tanar Naimar, tailors
10. Andora, pot-makers
11. Taragon, weavers.

if it is reliable, it raises the question whether all nairs were in the military and formed the ruling class? --CarTick (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't particularly like to rely on something published in 1860, but your general point is valid. AS aware as I am of the so-called "traditional" occupations of various castes, I struggle to believe that each and every member pursued that occupation. In fact, I'm not even entirely sure that the majority did because it seems obvious to me that the most prestigious of the possible occupations is always the one that they are associated with. I've seen similar lists in Thurston etc.

I really do not understand why these issues appear not to have been discussed academically in much more modern times. If you consider the heat that they create here it is difficult to see why at least some moderate warmth should not exist in the modern academic community. In fact, I am convinced that, somewhere, they have been discussed. We just have not found it yet. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

it is particularly difficult for an entire caste to be the rulers or military class or whatever it is unless every small village was a small kingdom and it required thousands of rulers. just exaggerating a bit, but i believe you get my point. i agree with you about the reliability of old materials though. i searched "nairs barbers" in google books for books published in 20th century, this is what i get. quite interesting. this book published in 2005 says that the barbers of Nambudhiris and Nairs were called Vilakkithala Nair. The potters and weavers and oil extractors were included among the nairs. just being published in 2005 doesnt make it reliable. --CarTick (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the Government classification of castes for reservation, the castes such as Vilakkithala Nair, Andora Nair, etc are not included in Nair caste. These castes are considered backward classes and fall under OBC (Other Backward Caste)category, and enjoy reservation. Menon, Pillai, Nayanar, etc are falling under the term Nair, and for Nair caste there is no reservation and considered as a forward caste. So, please do not get confused with names like Vilakkithala Nayar. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.164.10 (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely true. There are subdivisions, and some subdivisions may be OBC while others are forward. Don;t forget OBC is really about protecting employment opportunities etc & so the fact that some are in it and some are not actually enhances the probability that not all Nairs do the same job. Although that is obviously true today anyway. Do not confuse the past with the present, please. - Sitush (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Your statement proves that you don't know anything about the caste situation in Kerala. Castes like Vilakkithalavan and Veluthedan were counted separately in Travancore, Cochin and Malabar censuses. Sociologists might have thought otherwise, but never in the history of Kerala they were treated equal to Nair proper. Even during the 1968 Census, they were not counted as a part of Nair (although some other castes of disputed origin were included) They have their own caste organizations. They are not members of NSS, the Nair caste body. Even in matrimonial sites, they are listed separately. And moreover in orthodox regions of Kerala like Kollam and Trivandrum, riots can easily break out if intermarriage between Nair proper and Nair inferior occurs (Same was true for Illathu-Swaroopathil or Kiryathil-Swaroopathil intermarriages until 1920s, when Mannam united these three proper Nair castes to form a single united organization called the Nair Service Society). 122.177.147.250 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, we have a citation that says they were counted as Nair subdivisions in 1891 & 1901. Where is your citation for the opposite, please? You can rage as much as you like but without a citation nothing will change. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not a Nair and have never edited this page before. But seeing the recent version of the article, all I can say is that it is not balanced and is highly insulting to the Nair community. It would be a good idea to get someone from Kerala (non-Nairs) to give their views on this. Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"not balanced", "highly insulting"? Give specific quotes here to support those points. And I, for one, am non-Nair and non-Indian, and I find this "whitewashing" of caste history to be highly POV and inappropriate. Please clearly cite these phrases you find objectionable, as I'm just not seeing it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Mister Matthew, I have already told you that I am not interested in what is going on here. I was just going through, perhaps happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and made a simple comment. But if you want to provoke me by replying rudely, then I swear, I am not like these non-confrontational Nair guys. I'll tear you apart. Like all other communities in Kerala, my community also suffered extreme humiliation from the Nairs. But bygones are bygones. Many of my best friends are Nairs. And I appreciate them for their friendly behavior and helpfulness. This is essentially a Nair vs Nadar fight, and I'd rather sit back and enjoy the show. I don't think Sitush is a Nadar, after seeing this - link, which is evident from his edits as well. Nadars from SIUC / CSI groups are well known for their slum behavior, and both of you (you and cartik) are not an exception.

I am just making this post because you are acting like a Hollywood film star. You are acting that are not aware of what is insulting going on here. Can you go to the street and tell face-to-face to anyone what you wrote here. I am not sure how many of your teeth will remain intact if you do so. link - This is one of your edits. A few quotes:

• Under Nair polyandry the only idea of blood-relationship conceivable would be through females, as the uncertainty of fatherhood would prevent the acknowledgment of kinship through males - Here you are saying all the Nairs are bastards.
• Nairs practiced a form of marriage in which several unrelated men can have a wife in common - Something which is highly disputed and most probably a work of fiction.
• Upon reaching puberty, she would begin to have relationships with men outside her marriage - Here you are saying that all Nair women were prostitutes.

I am again assuring you that I don't have any problem with these, but you should stop acting like I said something which is totally irrelevant.

Once again, you Nadar guys are calling Nairs as bastards and Nair women as prostitutes. But what about your own women? Nadar women were treated nothing more than mistresses, not only by the Nairs, but also by the fishermen and Muslims. And there was no force involved, unlike the middle-eastern harems in which women were forcibly abducted. My grandparents have told me that Nadar women considered it economically and socially beneficial to have physical relationship with men belonging to powerful communities like the Labbais. I have just reminded you that whatever you write about Nairs can backfire on you. So stop shouting at me and concentrate on your work, i.e adding degrading stuff to this article. Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You're edging on violent words here, suggest we stick to academic debate. So you're essentially agreeing that the stated polyandrous issues are factually accurate? If such documented facts are "insulting", well that's in the eye of the beholder, and again we're not going to censor Wiki in order to please one group or another. So far as "unbalanced", what positive and distinct aspects of Nair culture do you feel are being ignored in favour of more controversial content? We're already clearly documenting that the Nair were a warrior class, administered landholdings, were ranked above many other classes, etc. All we can do it try to be inclusive of the many facets of Nair history.

So far as your speculation on other editors' backgrounds (which is itself inappopriate), I'll save you some time and clarify that I'm not Nair, or Nadar, or Indian of any sort. I got involved in Indian simply because there was a need for outsiders who are not emotionally invested in caste struggles and glorification. I wouldn't know a Nair from a Nadar if he walked up to me on the street, so it's not like I have some great vendetta against one caste or another. When I see a caste controversy, or any of several clues which indicate that the caste story is not being told even-handedly, I simply search academic resources for keywords "shudra, kshatriya, dalit" and the name of the caste. If it turns out that a complicated caste history is being varnished to make a caste look more prestigious, I enter to balance out the article. That being the case, how is writing clearly-cited facts about Nairs going to "backfire" on me? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And I am from Manchester, of an English stock that traces its roots back at least 600 years. I would also draw attention to the fact that there have been plenty of illegitimate children in, for example, the British royal family. No-one I know of seems to have an issue (excuse the pun) with mentioning this. Honestly, some people here need to develop the ability to separate emotions from actions. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

i am neither nadar nor nair, i am from India though. is best to ignore these vandals. he is pretending like a non-Nair. let us not legitimise them by responding. he didnt speak one sentence that was in any way useful for what we r doing. --CarTick (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

polyandry

Nairs are very well known for practising polyandry in the past. i had once attempted to add some information about this and couldnt get anything in except the link Polyandry in India. A simple [google book search] and google scholar search brings out multiple number of results. due to the abundance of sources that discuss about nair polyandry, i would suggest we add a paragraph about it in the article body (atleast a few sentences) and mention in the lead as well. --CarTick (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

OK... now start this once again. A few months ago you tried this cheap stuff. Now you got your backers here, so you can try again. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

and that is your argument not to include? --CarTick (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your mental balance is not good right now because of extreme anti-Nair hatred and caste fanaticism. You need to undergo a mental checkup. That is the reason. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be one of those "personal attacks" there. I'm inclined to agree with CT, as plenty of Google sources specifically discuss, in a reputable academic context, Nair polyandry, and also Nair relations with Kerala Brahmins. Again, clearly scholars have seen fit to research these matters, so what reason can there be against including it here? If you want to claim that there's nothing Notable about Nair polyandry, then why have so many professional academics covered it? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, both with the personal attack point and the content issue. I've seen polyandry discussed on other caste articles and see no reason for it to not exist in this article if the sources are provided. I am getting very close to reporting someone for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Please, calm down and remember that Wikipedia is not censored and this article does not belong to the Nairs but rather is about them. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

added a bit about polyandry. sorry about my edit summary. anyway, there is a lot of information in the literature and some are contradictory and confusing. i believe the topic is so vast and notable it is even worth a separate article like Polyandry among Nairs. at that point, a comprehensive summary — if necessary — can be added. please feel free to correct me if i have made any mistakes. --CarTick (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. By nullifying the consensus (reached after the Admin Innervation in Oct 13, 2010) you are showing your true colors. We asked you first whether you are going to listen to any of our viewpoints. We asked this because many of us work for a living unlike Dalits like Cartick who live off the money which government gives to him. I work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week and whatever contributions I made to Wikipedia was from my spare time. If I knew you would ignore all of our viewpoints, I'd have stopped this the first day itself. And don't forget to start the Polyandry among Nairs yourself. At least you can show Cartick that you are also capable of taking the lead in insulting the Nair community, rather than playing second fiddle. I congratulate you for your shrewdness. You never showed off your affection towards Cartick, and this made some of us believe that you may be neutral. And I congratulate Cartick for his hard work. Even earlier he tried on more than 10 occasions to destroy this article. After 18 months of hard work, it is paying off finally. Like Napoleon Bonaparte said:"There is nothing called impossible in my dictionary". But I don't have much to say about Matthew Vannitas. He has neither the skill nor the talent to do something like this, if he is alone. I couldn't find any positive qualities in him. This is my final day in Wikipedia and I am never going to visit again until all three of you die. Since other users like Shannon has already quit because of your bullying and harassment, I think now your triad is free to add whatever you wish to add on this article and other articles which are related to Nairs. And finally, one small request to you. If you are banning me, give me 5 mins. I want one final post in the ANI thread which I've started. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(sigh) Wikipedia is not censored. We've been through this before, far more recently than last October. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not too happy about the Victorian source in the polyandry subsection. Surely there is something newer, something better? - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

which one? 45 to 47? i can certainly look for something better. guess you meant 45. it was published in Science, one of the best journals in modern day. see this link for verification] that it was indeed science journal. it is a peer-reviewed journal and has a high impact factor. but, i am not sure if it had the same quality at that time. --CarTick (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

this book The Nayars today by Christopher John Fuller discusses Nair polyandry extensively and i am not able to access all pages. if you can help and provide more context, it will be awesome. Miriam Koktvedgaard Zeitzen's book which i was able to access this morning, i cant access anymore. it is weird how google books works. --CarTick (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Fuller's book will be useful for writing the entire article. i am tempted to buy it; it is about 20 dollars in Amazon. --CarTick (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Fuller is definitely RS - Cambridge University Press publication, 1977 etc is all good. There are used copies on Amazon for US$5 or so. I, too, may buy a copy but need to check the UK price as am not working at the moment due to heart problems. Good work, btw, on providing more recent sources for polyandry. I have not gone through them in detail yet but they are clearly RS & you have attempted to provide both sides of the debate. This is what a lot of Indian articles desperately need: if people spent less keyboard strokes arguing the toss about status etc and more of them actually researching & adding useful content then, hey, the number of Good Articles covering the subcontinent would likely grow significantly. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

oh. sorry to hear about that. hope it is a manageable problem. thanks for the compliment. i still wanna add some information about how the practice came into existence and why it disappeared, i am looking for an academic consensus on this. we will see. i guess the biggest problem is availability of resources and people being unable to understand and appreciate WP:NPOV policy in its right spirit. --CarTick (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The other marital/procreational trend I'm seeing in some gBooks is the practice of Nair women liaising with Brahmin men. I think an earlier poster on this page made some offhand reference to it; it appears to be of the general "it's advantageous to have friends/fathers in high places" thing, and smacks a bit of compensated dating. Again, clearly a delicate topic that needs to be approached professionally to avoid any sensationalism or judgement, but I recall quite a few RSs covered the practice. Does that cross-caste fathering also somewhat fall into the Polyandry section, or a subsection thereof? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It was allegedly very common, applying to all but the first-born son. In fact, this is one of the issues that overlaps also with the kshatriya discussions. I have not dug very deeply into it as I am still trying to fix the numerous existing issues in the article (the citations are often appalling), but I've seen references to it in the same manner that you have. It definitely needs adding in somewhere but you point is valid: do not just jump in there with info on this, rather do some rounded research beforehand. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarify: my last sentence is not aimed at anyone in particular. It is a general comment in case someone picks up on the research. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

i am almost done with this section with whatever references i have. i will add interesting tidbits as and when i see them. please feel free to edit, add and remove contents, most importantly copyedit my writings (my writing skill is not that great, just enough to survive). we can remove the under construction tag whenever you get a feeling that we have reached the point. --CarTick (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Shungoonny page number, please

Please can someone let me know the relevant page number(s) in this old book by Shungoonny where it refers to the Kula-Sangha-Vazhcha ruling system. I cannot spot it but it may be a transliteration issue. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

i tried searching all independent words using the search bar, which i am sure you must have done. nothing. --CarTick (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if someone else comes up with it, although I am inclined to bin the cite anyway as being an (a) old and (b) mostly tertiary source. I'd rather that people had an opportunity to correct the issue. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the entire sentence. It had three cites, none of which mentioned any of the words in the phrase, nor any obvious variant on the phrase "robust and efficient". The cites are all used elsewhere & so I suspect some weird pasting error, but I ain't searching the history for it. Especially since GWeb, GBooks and & GScholar searches also revealed nothing. It is a dead end as far as I am concerned. There have been plenty of people active here lately who could have picked up the cite request tag. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Kerala State Gazetteer

Can anyone get hold of pages 20-24 of Adoor K.K. Ramachandran Nair's Kerala State Gazetteer. Volume 2, Part 1 and email it to me, please? Page 22 is the most important one, but I would rather read around it a little. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent addition of Fuller from JSTOR - copy from Sitush talk page

Robbie.Smith has just posted on my talk page that:

Of the neutral sources, atleast 5 supports it (Logan, Gough, Fuller, Panikkar & Thurston) and only one opposes it. And you still changed it to "Some" commentators. This is the exact quote: "Thus, we can begin by looking at the Kshatriyas and Samantans, the two castes to which the kings and chiefs claimed to belong; however, most unbiased observers (Dumont [1961:27] is an exception) have concluded that the Kshatriya and Samantan subdivisions should be treated merely as supereminent Nayar subdivisions" Robbie.Smit (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am moving it here. My response is:

• I changed it because you used the word "unbiassed", which is itself biassed. Thurston & Logan are totally pointless cites, Panikkar probably is & so that leaves two. This is "some", no more.

  I had already requested a copy of the article prior to your message. I am prepared to AGF with you to some degree & hence did not remove the contribution entirely, but I also know that you have adopted an extreme POV position on this and so decided to tone it down pending reading the source myself. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that CarTick then removed it, which I feel is wrong unless he has the article available. OTOH, Robbie.Smit's edit summary in reverting that was also wrong: it is not vandalism & you can get into trouble for calling something vandalism when it is not. Be careful. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I see from your quote that you have breached a major policy. I am about to warn you for copyvio. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What is this? I didn't copied the entire verse. I had removed some words from it. It was only 50% matching. "However most unbiased observers have concluded that Kshatriyas of Kerala are merely super-eminent Nāyar subdivisions" instead of " however, most unbiased observers (Dumont [1961:27] is an exception) have concluded that the Kshatriya and Samantan subdivisions should be treated merely as supereminent Nayar subdivisions". Robbie.Smit (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It is close paraphrasing. See your talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Some commentators have concluded that the Keralite kshatriyas were "super-eminent" subdivisions of the Nairs is quite confusing to me. does it mean there were other subdivisions and what about them? it lacks context without that information. --CarTick (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a confusing quote, and probably a confusing situation, although I already knew that there are/were umpteen subdivisions. I have the article & am gutting it, so hopefully things will become a little more clear some time not too far into the future. I've read right through it twice now, had a break (the other source review) & hope to crack on with this tomorrow. Robbie.Smit perhaps didn't appreciate just how useful this thing was in general because he was homing in on one particular issue. But he found it, and it is very useful - good work. There were a couple of other citation he added which were (IMO) not great for the purpose he intended but look promising overall. I just haven't got enough hours at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

the subcaste section looks good. good job. now i understand what you meant; robbie smit did a good job in revealing that valuable resource. it is interesting how he has misread the source and it seems to be quite opposite to what he wanted it to mean. --CarTick (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The subsection needs more sources. I think it is too reliant on one at the moment, but have a plan. The main section on caste needs sources & a rewrite. Robbie.Smit's misreading is a common issue, nothing personal to him. A lot of people grab a sentence or two without reading round it, especially if they're searching to prove a point rather than to develop something more generally. I would be surprised if I have never done that, but it was probably quite a long time ago. We learn by our mistakes, no big deal. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

North-South divide

I've just read the excellent Fuller source provided by Robbie.Smit, "The internal structure of the Nayar caste". There is far more to be had from this than just some petty point-scoring about kshatriya and it again reinforces my belief that people should read around something that they Google etc rather than just grab a bullet point.

Anyway, Fuller mentions that there were significant differences between the Nairs in the northern and southern regions of what is now Kerala, and that information on the northern Nairs is scanty. This could go some way to explaining some of the contentious points which have been raised here time and again, although I am aware that caste articles in general attract blinkered POV warriors etc even when the information is staring them in the face.

CarTick, you recently added "She admits her knowledge of Travancore region is scanty" in reference to Gough. I am not sure that this is the best phrasing in the world given what Fuller says, but I haven't yet got access Gough. Can you check, please, and perhaps remove the "her" from the sentence if that is appropriate. Leaving it in if it is not appropriate tends to make her appear to be somewhat unreliable (which I know from previous readings, is not the case). - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. i hope there is more you could read than the couple of pages i could read in his book from the google book review. Fuller may be right in that Gough says she has scanty personal knowledge, which wouldnt necessarily mean that her knowledge itself is less. --CarTick (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Nair marriage itself is a little bit more complex than the current definititon in the article. it is one of the widely researched yet complex and less understood topic. this is from this article

Nayar marriage is of interest for three main reasons. The first of these is the "definition of

marriage"-there were two ceremonies (the talikettukalyanam and sambandham rite1), rather than one, which could be called "marriage." The second is polyandry, for which the Nayars have been controversial and exemplary from the time of McLennan (1970[1865]) to the present (see, for example, Ramanathan 1979). The third, of particular concern to South Asianists, is inter-varna hypergamy: a custom rarely practiced in the rest of the subcontinent, although allowable

in Hindu scriptures (Manu 1969:402ff.; Tambiah 1973).

OK. Have you got that article or are you just going off the precis? - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

precis? --CarTick (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Summary / extract. Eg: JSTOR usually show one page of the article for free. BTW, from that quote, it looks like there are two types of marriage and two types of ceremony. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

i have it. i will read the article and write a summary by the end of the day. however, i am worried that Melinda Moore's view of nair marriage will be the consensus view on this area. i will post the summary regardless and we will see where we can take the subject from there. Nair Taravad is an area that needs to be written about as well. without that context, their marriages wouldnt make much sense. --CarTick (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what view it is if it is reliable etc and not WP:FRINGE. Alternative views can always be brought in. I understand the concern about weight but I think that as long as the under construction banner exists and there are several people clearly actively involved with the article, it is not an issue. What we do need to be wary of is if either Moore or Fuller are using the other persons's work to buttress their position. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

do you want me to send you a copy? --CarTick (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested to see it but do not feel that you are obliged to do so. I could get it from someone else if I ask nicely. - Sitush (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

dont worry. i can send it to you. i guess you or i need to send an e-mail first before i can send the attachment. i doubt if wp-mail allows attachment. --CarTick (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

sent you the article. the article contains a lot of information about thalikettu, and sambandham rites. while you have merged the practices under the marriage section, the rites and ceremonies can be added in the relevant subsections. well, that is just one of the ways we can present this information. please feel free to start editing based on the article i sent to you. no restrictions whatsoever. --CarTick (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have started using it. Good stuff. Keep on doing the same. I would like to find a bit more about the contrary position at some point, for the sake of balance. I'll dig for some Panikkar/Chandu stuff. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Gough devides Kerala into three based on marriage practices. Is Fuller doing only two? --CarTick (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No, three. It is just that I've only got so far with it at the moment. There are actually three mentioned already in the article, briefly. - Sitush (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

hypergamy

i see the note you added about "shortage of women", which is interesting. but, what strikes me as even more interesting is that all the Brahmin kids, not being allowed to marry with brahmins but only with nairs and the kids becoming nairs, must have impacted the brahmin population. --CarTick (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is the reverse consequence. Look at China with their (still partially enforced) "one child per family" rule in order to control population growth. It might be worth digging around a bit for something about this issue. There has to be a reason why Brahmins practised hypergamy here but not elsewhere (assuming that they did not - I haven't yet read the article you sent me but I see that you have). Logically, the reason for not doing it is as your point mentions. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Urmi-Payattu.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Urmi-Payattu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

subcastes and their professions vs kshatriya/shudra

the summary in the lead about kshatriya/shurda can be contextualised with various subcastes and their professions. --CarTick (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The lead needs rewriting from scratch, but this cannot be done until the body of the article is sorted out. I really wouldn't bother adding much content to the lead right now. But feel free to take out any obvious problems. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

it could be done in the body to begin with; the kshatriya/shudra conundrum needs to be somewhere in the body anyway. on a separate note, it would be nice if we can find some reference that tells us clearly what was the differences and similarities between these different subgroups. the section seems to convey that the difference was probably occupation, but what was the similariy then? it may be subtle, but a bottomline would be good. also, what is the difference between a "subgroup" and a "subcaste"? --CarTick (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The subcaste/subdivision is already explained: longevity. geographical spread, numbers etc. These are largely sociological/anthropological/enthnographic semantics as far as I can see. Why can the similarity, as you call it, not just be when, where and to whom they were born? I am English, which is because of that. I think that you may be reading too much into this, but perhaps more will come out when I (or someone else) start properly tackling the truly dreadful Early History section.

Everything needs to be in the body. Leads are to summarise the body. Eg: your additions to the lead earlier today re: the "marriage" rituals are far too detailed and will be cut back eventually, if not by me then by someone else.

There is no conundrum regarding kshatriya/shudra. As things stand now and in the Wikipedian sense, they were not kshatriya. Some high-ranking caste members considered themselves to be, and this is already dealt with in the body. Although more citations would be useful. Whether the fact that they were not kshatriya means that they must have been shudra is, I think, an inevitable consequence but I'm not up to speed on what truly qualifies as a shudra. Now, if somewhere down the line we actually get a decent citation for someone other than themselves believing that they were kshtriya, then at that point there might be some explaining to do. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

present and past

i am not complaining we are making the mistake but we should be careful not to confuse the readers with the past and present. most of what is in the article is about the past, which is the case with most of the indian castes. the present status of most of the indian castes is pretty boring from an academical standpoint; the unique practices (like polyandry) that some castes were known for have mostly disappeared. --CarTick (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Leave it for the readers to decide which is boring. The present status of Indian castes, if available with references, should find a place in a wiki article. The editor is not supposed to make his wiki article interesting with such story worthy material like polyandry. Each fact should have its place. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 07:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Panikkar

Don't go too mad using Panikkar. The writings of a caste member whom we know had an axe to grind and did his stuff nearly 100 years ago do not really make the grade. Handy for some points, but not to base entire sections on. IMO. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

agree with you. i thought that the "description" of a family structure would be less controversial and also he decribes them better than western writers. honestly, i did not understand clearly what tharavad, thalikettu and sambandham were until i read him finally; it was good for the basics. well, i still have some issues which i am not entirely clear. in any case, i will use melinda moore's article to provide some balance. her articles are way too complex, i have to read a few other articles to understand her. you are doing the same for Thalikettu section with Fuller's book, which is good. guess it will all work out well eventually. He has a nice article on religion which i thought i will write about, but if you are objecting, may be not. --CarTick (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No, do it. It is old, unreliable sources and "fringe theory" ones of all ages that are problematic. Whether or not something is controversial here, it needs to be verifiable per the guidelines & policies. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Upper cloth controversy

this article started by me — which was later modified by POV warriors to fit their message — need some reworking and summary of it belongs to this article as well. --CarTick (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Better term than "Superstitious beliefs" ?

I think that "Superstitious beliefs" sounds a bit subjective, and a bit demeaning. Is that truly the standard word for this type of section, or can we maybe find something a bit more neutral? Or is it that "superstitious" just sounds more negative in my dialect of English, but is more neutral in Indian or British English? Just wanting to avoid any appearance of "picking on" the Nair by making their cultural beliefs sound silly of backward, as opposed to just interesting views of the paranormal. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry, if it sounds so; it is solely due to my genuinely poor proficiency in english language. in fact, the reference itself used that term. please feel free to change; i am open for anything neutral. as a matter of fact, these beliefs are not unique to nairs; it is very hard to find references for these kind of things though. --CarTick (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

missing references

for cicisbeism (e.g. Gait in Census 1911, India: 239), Chandu Menon (G. O. M. 1891, Encl. C:10). this is all i could get; i cant access the bibliography section of the book. the book says "few writers" and then refer to only one reference, therefore it may not be a bad idea to remove the sentence. --CarTick (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

recruitment

see this interesting conversation i had with a "new" user here. --CarTick (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Too much of personal vendetta

The list of references provided should deem it fit for this cartick to consider finding a better place or even, a better job. Rather than on the subject, which is very clear and well referenced and argued by Chandrakantha, this page should be framed and put up for display for future editors to refrain from assuming good faith in cartick's edits. What is he trying to say with his new section, recruitment? I wouldn't find it surprising when the stream of IPs do turn up, for personal motives of such editors should be made public and be dealt with appropriate coverage in all sources of media. One would find it wise enough to ignore his edits/ interruptions summarily. Rather than taking this as a personal attack, cartick, consider this as my earnest advice for your concern. Your interruption has resulted in this page ending up in total mess, making no sense. Such a high importance page for India bites the dust! I should ask, aren't there good volunteers in the India project page to take over this page? Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 07:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just look at the so called conversation between the "recruit" and Cartick. It seems to me that Cartick himself recruited this guy. Also note that the "recruit" is most active in articles like A.Nesamony, a topic in which Cartick is also active.

And what happened here was that some users thought Sitush might be neutral and therefore put their points forward. Just like his unique modus operandi, Sitush ignored all of them and edited the article according to Cartick's wishes, well supported by Matthew Vanitas. Axxn (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what, specifically has "bitten the dust"? What about the page is worse than it was last month? MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You won't understand. Because you have no knowledge about this subject. Axxn (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This article has no proper structure and what it is, is just a set of info assembled in an odd fashion. It could have been better. As I said, it is best to summarily ignore cartick. And I don't think it is bad to recruit people to improve this article.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 08:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There were some knowledgeable editors around here. The triad drove away all of them. Axxn (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The same is going on in Tamil Kshatriya page.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 10:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That article was started by Suresh Varma. He is in quite a lot of personal trouble and I don't think he will be able to contribute to Wiki anytime in near future. Cartick nicely made use of the situation. Axxn (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Suresh might take his own time. There should be no problem for the cart user with his resuming his contributions later WP:CIRCUS. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 10:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please could I just point out WP:OWN. I have no idea what the references to Suresh Varma's "situation" refer to, but no-one "owns" a Wikipedia article. I would also warn people against "recruitment" as this may be construed as WP:CANVASS etc, even if it happens offsite.

Honestly, if people actually followed the policies and guidelines instead of just selectively quoting them, things would run a lot smoother. FWIW, you can insult me here as much as you like but if you remove etc a single item cited to Fuller, Gough etc then it is disruptive - these are well-known anthropologists publishing in respected academic journals. You have to divorce yourself from what you would like the article to say and concentrate on being neutral. If you cannot do this here then go look at another article where you can. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Could I also just point out that Chandrakantha apologised to me by email, and you will see my reply on his/her talkpage. Also, that the article was started in 2004 by a (then) user with an IP. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Sourced Content by Sitush

• From Fuller: "Thus, we can begin by looking at the Kshatriyas and Samantans, the two castes to which the kings and chiefs claimed to belong; however, most unbiased observers (Dumont [1961:27] is an exception) have concluded that the Kshatriya and Samantan subdivisions should be treated merely as supereminent Nayar subdivisions". This and many other sources prove that the Kshatriyas of Kerala were highest divisions of Nair.

Sitush is trying to remove the refs and insert POV. Robbie.Smit (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And now, the second one of the gang has removed my edits. Robbie.Smit (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop with this "gang" foolishness, it's bordering on personal attack. You're deliberately misquouting the reference (which you also didn't bother to take literally 10 seconds to turn from a bare URL into a proper footnote using http://reftag.appspot.com). The reference says: "Some Nayars 'ripened' into Samanthans and Kshatriyas"[108]. If you even read the rest of the page, it clearly indicates that this ripening was a form of upward social mobility. If anything, the reference implies that the Nair were not Kshatriya, since they only became (in some cases) Kshatriya and Samnthans later as they "ripened" (increased in social/political stature). Do you disagree with this reading of the citation? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

All the Kshatriyas of Kerala were Nairs. That is a truth, seen from numerous sources. Can you cite, an example of any Kshatriya clan in Kerala which was not Nair? (Not even expecting a reply from you, because I am sure that you don't even know the meaning of the word Kshatriya). Robbie.Smit (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's "seen from numerous sources", how about you provide a source that you're not explicitly mis-quoting? Odd you would have to stretch a source so far if there are plenty of other good options. I'm not reuqired to prove any negatives, the onus on you is to provide evidence, not for others to disprove your uncited or mis-cited claims. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The source itself supports what Robbie says. Everyone knows that all the Kshatriyas of Kerala were Nair. Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No it does not. But you are welcome to find someone among the "everybody" who can be cited here to support your POV. And make no mistake, it is POV. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There are many, many, many wrong things that "everyone knows". If this information is so widespread and undeniable, you should be able to find indisputable, explicity, reputable academic citations for it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Srinivas additions by Robbie.Smit

Robbie.Smit has for some weeks insisted on adding original research regarding the status of the royal lineages, using Srinivas as his evidence. He has misread Srinivas, whose views (including about the varna system in the area) are already documented at Nair#Subgroups & now include a citation to the same exact source that he referred to. Should he be reverted one more time, and then revert back himself, then he'll be on a block. I have warned him about this. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

He has misread Fuller again, also. Fuller's views are also well-documented in the article and the quote he keeps using is taken out of context. Fuller's is a complicated article but needs to be read from the start and not cherry-picked, otherwise you'll get the wrong idea. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to argue anything to your gang of three. It is a waste of time. Your only aim seems to be to paint Nairs as Sudra, removing all the references we have put saying any sort of silly excuse. Let me see if someone neutral comes here. Don't threaten me with blocks. Because you operate in a gang of three, you can easily intimidate users like me and win edit wars. I hope admins will notice this. Robbie.Smit (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I deliberately added a table from Fuller's article the other day in order to avoid this warring. I checked with people about copyvio issues before adding it. The table shows the various categorisations of Nair, made at different times by different people. Nowhere does it mention Kshatriya or Samantan. It is a direct copy from Fuller, a respected anthropologist who is citing other anthropologists. There can be no dispute about this: it is as clear as day that none of these people categorises Nairs as K or S. - Sitush (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If the Kshatriyas were not Nair, then from where they came? From the moon? Robbie.Smit (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea. It is not my problem. My problem is that you are inserting original research. You cannot say something that is not supported by the citation you use, employing a (perhaps logical) leap in order to make a connection. Srinivas is explicit if you read around the chapter instead of just grabbing the quote. His views were incorporated into the article some time ago; I have today added the specific bit you mention in order to remove doubt. So, the sentence you referred to is now in the article, in context and in a section discussing caste ranks etc. What's the issue now, then? - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The citation in the above section states that Kshatriyas and Samantans were Nairs. And you people are trying to downplay it. Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Negative, you are the one specifically obscuring the statement that this status changed over time. You had "Kshatriyas and Samantans of Kerala were Nair"; citing the same reference I changed it to "Due to social mobility in Kerala's fluid environment, some Nair came to be considered as Kshatriyas and Samantans"[109](with full citation), which is again what the ref actually says. Although honestly it's kind of redundant since we cover that same issue later in the article. Are you just refusing to recognise the term "ripening" and agree that it means "changed from one thing into another"? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they came to perceive themselves as Kshatriya etc. This is what the caste section discusses, and is precisely why it should not be in the lead. The issue is too complex to summarise in a meaningful, accurate manner in the lead. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Serpent groves

The article says that every Nair family "will have a serpent grove". I find this hard to believe and think that it may be a grammatical error, being intended to refer to the historic tharavadu communal units of extended family which no longer exist. So, "would have had a serpent grove". Can someone confirm this statement, and indeed supply the citations requested for many other assertions regarding serpent worship etc. If not then I'll delete it for now - it can always be added back if/when something does turn up. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's what the article says right now:

Nairs are known as the Nagavanshi Kshatriya clan of Ananta and Vasuki descent. The serpent is worshipped as guardian of the clan among Nair families. Every tharavadu and/or major family will have a serpent grove in the compound/estate of the family. In present days, almost 90% of the temples in Kerala have serpent deities worshipped inside.[citation needed]

and

According to Hindu mythology, Nairs are the descendants of Serpent Anantha and Vasuki. Nagas are described as the sons of Kadru and Surasa who were the wives of Kashyapa. Kadrujas migrated to the Southern part of the Indian subcontinent and Surasajas remained in the North.[citation needed]

Should not be too hard to sort out, I suspect. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair: Ruling / Warrior status

This book is a good ref, i will add it: [110]please read pages 303 to 312; for instance this: "Nayar chiefs and Nayar soldiers are first mentioned in three copperplate inscriptions, tentatively dated late seventh, mid-eighth, and early ninth centuries.... All these districts were famous Nayar chiefdoms in the later periods and persisted until the eighteenth century. The plates suggest that Nayar chiefs with private armies had emerged as vassals of the Perumals at least by the ninth century. By the mid-thirteenth century, at the latest, the greater Nayar chiefs had become independant small kings,..." page 303). Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a good, reliable source. I've not read it through properly yet but in principle there s/b no issue with using it here. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting ref from same book: "The Nayars as the ruling and military castes, formed the core of this aristocraty..."' page 298.Rajkris (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I knew that you would do this. There is no support in the book for them being kshatriya. If you use if for that purpose then it will be removed instantly. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I will add it to support Nair as rulers and warriors of Kerala; This book tells clearly that the Nairs were the ruling and military caste of Kerala for the last 1000 years at least. Now we must get clear concerning the status of Nair in the Hindu Varna: Kshatriya or Shudra. One question to you Sitush: what is being Kshatriya for you ?Rajkris (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does the book say that they were kshatriya? It does not, therefore you cannot use the word. It does not matter what I think. I knew exactly where you were going to go with this right at the outset because you have been POV-ing about it all over the place. Find a reliable source and we're good to go but, as you are well aware, modern academics (and this includes Gough) have denied that there was a genuine kshatriya class. It is all discussed in the article already, including a table that contains Gough's classification of the Nair rankings etc. Do not put words into her mouth, please. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not telling that i will use this book for Kshatriya... But What is genuine Kshatriya ?Rajkris (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No use in asking this. He doesn't know the meaning of the word Kshatriya. Axxn (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There is an article on Kshatriya. Perhaps you will find your answer there. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So you agree with the definition given there right? " It traditionally constituted the military and ruling elite of the Vedic-Hindu social system outlined by the Vedas and the Laws of Manu." Axxn (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

it may fit the definition but we, wikipedia editors trying to define it, is original research. text book case. --CarTick (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not say that I agreed with anything. I said that you perhaps will find an answer to your question there. You are putting words into my mouth. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the definition the definition given by britannica: [111].
Here is the definition from Oxford English dictionnary: "Kshatriya: a member of the second of the four great Hindu caste. The traditionnal function of the Kshatriyas is to protect society by fighting in wartime and governingin peacetime. From Sanskrit Ksatriya, from Kshatra 'rule, authority'".Rajkris (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Now tell me what is the definition of Shudra ?Rajkris (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We have already covered Britannica and OED, and you know this. They do not apply. For Shudra, perhaps you will find the information you seek at the article for it. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, you don't even know the basic fact, i.e what is Kshatriya and what is Shudra. Then how you are going to decide whether Nair is Kshatriya or Shudra? Robbie.Smit (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

besides original research, there is another major issue, WP:Undue. while some of the Nayars (no body knows how many, but it seems like a minority) may have done things which wikipedia editors like Rajkris and Anand may want to classify under the Kshatriya varna, hightlighting this tiny minority's profession in the lead while omitting the occupation of the majority of the Nairs is WP:Undue. --CarTick (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow..Cartik, that is supercool. Tiny minority right.... So what was the occupation of the majority? "The Nayars were originally a military, land-owning aristocracy. The males were trained in arms from an early age, their limbs constantly anointed with oil until they became so light and nimble that they could wind" - Gbook Robbie.Smit (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I can provide you more links for that. Axxn (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

cartik, Nayar were always known as a military and ruling caste!... Stop your POV... Here are some more refs: [112], [113].Rajkris (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not assume the extent of my knowledge. I have been helpful here and name-calling etc will earn you a block for personal attacks. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It cannot be denied that some Nairs were chieftains, rulers etc and that some Nairs fought. Going beyond that is original research unless evidence is provided. I have fought but it doesn't make my mother a fighter; I have run businesses, but that does not make my brothers business managers. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... the diffreence between "some" and "vast majority" is what we are talking about here. Robbie.Smit (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Do not threaten me.Rajkris (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Who has threatened you? CarTick? - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You: "Please do not assume the extent of my knowledge. I have been helpful here and name-calling etc will earn you a block for personal attacks.", it was for me no ?... Rajkris (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, Robbie.Smit - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sitush read the refs we have given (which tell that the Nair were by tradition rulers and warriors). Do not ignore them. Do you have refs which tell that only a minority were warriors & rulers ?... The heirs of a noble is noble... This is the basic principle of caste.Rajkris (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to take any info provided by any reliable source and provided that it does not constitute undue weight. So far, I have seen nothing but remain open to suggestions. To say that the heir(s) of nobility are nobility is in fact OR, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link I was searching for the last 10 mins. The Nayars alone had in former times the right to bear arms and every Nayar youth left his family to join a local military and gymnastic school where he was for several years instructed in the use of sword, bow and lance. - Habitat, Economy and Society.

I am confused. This Ref says "every Nayar youth". According to Sitush, it should have been "some". Robbie.Smit (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Not every one of them was a ruler etc; not every one of them fought. What is so difficult to understand? The quote supports my view. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Rajkris, do you simply not understand that we are not here to decide what the Nari are, we're here to describe what the Nair have historically been described as? That's why there's no "conflict" between covering both Kshatriya and Shudra labels. Further, since we aren't making decisions, but are listing past perceptions, it is totally and absolutely immaterial whether you or Sitush or I feel that "what the Nair did sounds a lot like what a Kshatriya is". Either you are unfamiliar with WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis, or you're being deliberately obtuse because they get in the way of your POV-pushing. So which is it? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Nair have historically been described as a ruling and a military caste. See all refs given.Rajkris (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

1) we are not going to call the military/ruling class of nairs as Kshatriyas because it would be original research for us to do so. 2) if we are going to mention the Nayar rulers in the lead, for balance, we should also mention the profession of all nair subgroups covered in the subgroup section. any takers for this idea? --CarTick (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources? - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

that is an issue. some of the linked articles already mention their profession; i am not commenting on the reliability of those sources, i dont even know if sources exist for those claims. --CarTick (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We have provided all the refs telling that originally Nairs were rulers & warriors.Rajkris (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You have provided a reference saying that some Nairs were at one time rulers and fought battles for something or another (ownership of cattle was the most common reason for fighting back then, but the book in question doesn't mention that). I've already said that as far as I am concerned, you or anyone else can enter a statement to that effect, cited to the book which Gough co-authored. I think that you need to give it some context, though, eg: they were initially vassals of some other group, the time period involved etc. I would expect to see it in the History section, which presently needs quite a lot of work. I am currently reading around in order to fix that.

I don't think anyone is disputing this. The dispute centres on the lack of proof for the conceptual leap which claims they were kshatriya, in the face of very considerable evidence to the contrary, including from one of the authors of the book that I feel is ok to use.

My reading around, by the way, includes taking a look at the book which Robbie.Smit mentioned - I did not need to even look at it to point out the problems regarding what he was trying to use it for, but that does not mean that it is a book without merit. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your blatant misinterpretation of the sources is not surprising, as you are also threatening other editors with fake warnings and wiki policies. You want to paint that "some" Nairs "once" fought battle for "someone". The traditional duty of the Nair caste was fighting (if you know anything about caste system, then every caste in India has some traditional occupation). In Kerala, Nairs were the only ones recruited as soldiers, no other caste members had the right to be in the army. Out of the 160+ kings, almost all of them, except for three Brahmins were Nairs. Also your statement - "ownership of cattle was the most common reason for fighting back then, but the book in question doesn't mention that" shows extreme bias. I'd like to ask from where you get this idea. You are getting more and more shameless in showing off your bias. If you read Travancore Manual, the details and reasons for the battles are given there. Well, I had lost hope in you earlier also, and I'd request other editors take up the matter in ANI if they don't want to turn this page to some third rate hate-speech and propaganda filled mesh. Shannon1488 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Travancore Manual is not a reliable source - it is old and based on even older works, among other things. My comment about cattle was meant as an aside but there are modern, reliable academic sources that refer to it, one of which was provided to me only this week ([Essays on Indian history and culture). I have no problem accepting that every caste had a traditional occupation (although I have not seen much evidence to support this), but it is not proven that every caste member followed that occupation. I have no idea whether every Nair had the right to be in the army but there were certainly other castes who were in the armies.

I would appreciate your sources for all of your comments, please, including that three kings out of over 160 were Nairs. The book recently introduced here, co-authored by Gough, does not seem to say that & nor has any other which I have read. Have I mis-read all of them? If so many Nairs were kings then presumably they were fighting each other most of the time? Please do not forget, I am only reading the books and articles given to me by others here.

Finally, out of interest, did the women fight; and what did those who fought do when they were incapable of doing so any more? I presume that women made up somewhere close to 50% of the Nair population, that some Nairs would have always been unsuitable as fighters, and that others became too old/ill/injured to fight. And what did people do when they were not fighting? Yes, there were prolonged territorial wars (such as those conducted over the pearl fisheries) but I have never seen anything to indicate that everyone was fighting all of the time. I presume that they must have been being taught in kalaris by the (lower) Kaniyar caste that ran those schools? By the way, the Kaniyars had more than one "traditional" occupation".

I am not at all sure why you think that I hate anyone. All I am doing is following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If they upset you then why not ask for them to be changed? This can be done, you know. Alternatively, provide some policy-compliant references & "facts" instead of indulging in POV vitriol. Honestly, if all of this is so well known then it will also be well documented. So far, I have seen not a lot and most of the useful items which I have seen provided by Robbie.Smit etc have unfortunately not only disproved the points being made but proved points that you & others seem not to like. That is not my problem, it is your problem: you cannot cherry-pick the content of your sources. - Sitush (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, can you read this [114] from page 143 to 145 and tell us what do you understand ?Rajkris (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't see them, sorry. It says that they're either unavailable or I have reached the viewing limit for the book. Can't be the viewing limit issue because I've never looked at it before. However, Sir Harry Johnston died in 1927 and the book may be this one from 1913. That makes it about the same time as Thurston, which is not a good sign. I'll read it, if you can confirm the page numbers (seems to start on p 142 in the thing I can see). FWIW, if a book is available at www.archive.org, hathitrust or similar then that should always be the one referred to, rather than GBooks. They are more widely available & they are the originals, rather than some knocked-off copy that often has missing pages etc. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is this one & I confirm for the pages. Please & tell us your opinion.Rajkris (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure what you are expecting me to say because you know my view of these old works, ie: they are unreliable. Johnston was not even a specialist, but rather a popular writer who also wrote books on S America, W Africa etc. He does not appear to cite any sources, which means that it is not an academic book (even Thurston manages to do that). He manages to compress everything about the Nairs into 2 or 3 pages, which is plain ridiculous as they are worthy of much more than that. He says that they were warriors but is vague about it; he says that they were not kshatriyas ("practically equivalent ... [but] were really a war-like aboriginal tribe") , although they had self-promoted themselves to that status, which merely confirms what we already know. His comment about them being aboriginal seems possibly to be contrary to other stuff in the WP article that says they moved into what is now Kerala from elsewhere. He does not explain how nearly 500,000 Nairs were able to live outside towns or on their own estates. He barely touches on sambandham & the other culturally significant matters for which the group is famed. He says that they were one of the two "superior classes", together with the Brahmins, which is plain nonsense: where, for example, are the Samantans in his worldview? What are you expecting me to say? It is impossible to rely on this for anything more than the briefest of references. He simply does not provide more than a brief, glossy overview that has nothing to support it other than his own reputation for exploratory derring-do in the backwoods of just about any part of the old British Empire. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your response was as expected. You like References only which a particular set of users feed you.

He does not explain how nearly 500,000 Nairs were able to live outside towns or on their own estates - Slavery was outlawed in Kerala only during the 1830s, and most of the Nairs owned slaves. Even if they didn't owned any slaves, it doesn't mean that they can't survive on their own.

He barely touches on sambandham & the other culturally significant matters for which the group is famed- Sambandam and other things are used by a lot of people to defame the Nair community. But that doesn't mean that they deserve 50% of the space in the Nair article.

He says that they were one of the two superior classes - Is this so difficult to understand? There are only two groups of upper caste people in Kerala. Brahmins and Nairs. Samantans are a small subdivision of the Nairs and not many people treat them as a separate subcaste. William Logan in Malabar Manual has written in quite some detail about this and you can also refer the court case against Logan in this regard (Even the term Samantan was first used during the 1850s and last used during the 1920s in general Malayalam usage).

One more thing. I stopped editing caste articles almost a year ago. I am here just because I have heard that an organized set of people have successfully elbowed out their opposition through unfair means. Axxn (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, there is no "organised set" of people here; you're referring to several of us as an "organised set" simply because we all three are applying WP standards, which is the only real commonality we have. We don't accuse everyone disagreeing with us as being some conspiracy, so please extend the same courtesy. Additionally, your use of the word "defame" is telling; so covering an extensively-documented practice is "defaming" simply because you don't like it being talked about? And your idea of restoring balance is to cherry-pick references to build up the best possible image of a group, including pretty clear synthesis/OR making logical leaps not supported by reliable references? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You expect courtesy after all this? Your only significant contribution so far to Wikipedia is adding the derogatory slang Sudra to almost all high caste articles. You people have turned this article to a piece of propaganda with hardly any factual accuracy. If someone from India reads this article (I mean someone neutral), he will find it difficult to control his laughter. If anyone is cherry-picking the references, it is you. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that I've done massive work on WP ethnomusicology, Afghan tribal systems (Pashtun, Hazara, Aimaq), technical firearm articles, Shia Islam, etc (are none of these "significant"?), my addition of "Shudra" to "high caste" articles has been in every single case properly-cited. My intent has not been to "defame" anyone, but to balance out articles which are grievously biased in favour of "glorious history" and Kshatriya claims, when (especially in cases like Kurmi, Kunbi, etc) 20th century academic sources explicitly trace political attempts by these castes to re-define themselves in the modern era. These are pages about castes, not pages for castes, so it's certainly a glaring ommission to spend most of an article giving legends about divine descent, give no mention of Brahmin's clearly categorising them as Shudra, and then not mention 20th century attempts of newly-powerful agricultural castes to re-write their histories. That's why I dropped in to help at Nair, the article simply has way too many vaguely-sourced assertions of awesomeness, and tip-toed around or ignored any past practices that modern Nairs may be embarassed about regardless of how well-documented. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Anand, seeing your edits in other areas in wikipedia, you come across as a smart guy. hence, i am surprised that you dont see the difference between acadmic work by Fuller compared to the reference we are talking about in this thread. In the case of Fuller, he has dedicated the entire article/book for the Nair group, he has done extensive research and discussed everything in context. On the other hand, the book The Great Pioneer in India, Ceylon, Bhutan & Tibet's main focus is not Nair at all. so, the author, as Sitush points out, hasnt done any extensive research on this particular topic, but rather superficially collected information from reliable/unreliable sources that fit the central narrative of his book. see, there is a huge difference between the two. the main job of us, wikipedia editors, is to go through many different sources and then decide which sources and information are reliable. if the job is just to include everything that has ever been written about a topic, a cleverly designed bot might do just that. why are we here? --CarTick (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You cherry-pick one or two sources which support your view. Then you misinterpret that source to suit your view even more. This is what happened with Fuller. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Fuller article was brought to my attention by Robbie.Smit, as is noted here around the time that he did so. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah and he added something in the lead from that source also. You removed his addition and added something which was exactly the opposite of what Fuller said. Shannon1488 (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I used the same sentence but with the correct context. And since Robbie.Smit provided the source I am not sure how this fits into your worldview that an alleged gang of people are only using their own sources - RS is not one of those I think you would include in that alleged gang. You also haven't explained why such a naughty gang would have used a Nair writer for balance. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sambandham was covered by Panikkar, who apparently was himself a Nair. His views are included in the article. I'm not ecstatic about his writings purely because of the age factor, but he does tick most of the boxes: it is a critique, it is well written, it of reasonable length to demonstrate "depth" of coverage etc. And including an "insider's" view which matches those basic criteria allows us to provide balance. I believe that you can thank CarTick for doing most of the Panikkar stuff. Odd, that, if you are insistent that CarTick is anti-Nair, he has provided the Nair's own counterpoint to the discussion about sambandham. To me, that demonstrates neutrality.

Slavery is not something I mentioned. I said that he did not explain how 500,000 Nairs were able to live outside towns or on their own estates. It is nothing to do with slavery, but rather geography and demographics. That is a lot of people living in small communities dotted around a region. He doesn't name any of the towns, let alone any of the Nair-populated areas, which is odd. Presumably 150,000 or more of them (the adult males, my very rough maths) were in armies, since Johnston gives no dates for what he describes. That was quite some army/armies. Johnston explains none of this, but any critical thought process would be asking these sort of questions and supplying answers to them. His is a "boy's own" book, sorry. I don't know what anyone else thinks here but I, for one, would be reluctant to introduce information based on such a source.

If people actually helped to expand the article where it needs doing, eg: answer my question above about serpent groves etc, then there proportion devoted to sambandham etc would be less, would it not? - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You are acting in a such biased manner and want us to provide you links for serpent groves? Right now the article is 99% inaccurate. Let it remain so. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my bias is towards creating a good article. I think your figure of 99% is excessive but there certainly are large chunks which are inaccurate. They are the ones connected with Early History, Etymology, Nair Brigade etc, all of which have citation requests. Given that this is an active talk page, I propose that on 1 July 2011 we delete all items still containing a cite request from May 2011 or earlier - the requests should have been fulfilled by then and, if not, then the statements cannot stand. Of course, that will leave it with even more emphasis on what someone called defamatory material. Tough, because no-one can say that some of us did not try. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Then go ahead and delete those sections. No one will provide you anything. You have again and again proved that your intentions are something else. This article can be saved only after you stop your editing. Shannon1488 (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Ypu speak for the entire world, do you? I'll wait, thanks, because I have a little more faith & am also doing some reading of my own using books recommended to me by Rajkris both here and at another article. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets say that I speak for those who have a good knowledge of Indian caste system, rather than those who don't have any practical knowledge about the subject. And I will me more than glad to hear Rajkris's response, after you turn down the sources provide by him also. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you propose to "save" this article, at whatever point Sitush falls off the planet? Might I surmise that to "save" this article you intend to remove large portions of fully-cited text (particularly those that you feel reflect negatively on the Nair, or which do not look "proper" to modern morals), and to introduce "everybody knows this" text which you feel require no citation, and also happen to illustrate how outstanding and special the Nair are, and require no citation? If your intent differs from this, I'd be very curious to hear it. In all seriousness, if you want to start working on a draft of a post-Sitush Nair article on your userspace, I for one would be interested in seeing how your interpretation of the Nair issue differs. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I'd rather ignore you. You are the one who bombarded the article with the Sudra term even when the discussion was going on. You show no respect to fellow editors and you still expect others to respect you. You are the one who personally attacked Anandks007 (using double meaning words referring to his surname so he couldn't understand, which I immediately put to his attention), Riyaaz.Pookkoya and many other users active here and still complained that you are at the receiving end. Let Sitush delete whatever he doesn't like. I will wait untill someone neutral like Rajkris or Manorathan comes here. It will encourage others to speak out, knowing doing so is not a waste of time. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A), I did not "attack" anyone. B) What are you describing as "neutral"? How is it neutral to leave out polyandry, how is it neutral to insist on retaining text that cannot be substantiated with citations? How is it neutral to remove properly-cited text, ignoring the credibility of the source, while making no attempt to add citations disproving it? The other editors you mention have brought some good references to the table, but they have also had POV issues in applying wishful-thinking OR to quotes which in fact say quite different things. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Shannon summarized the situation very well. No one is asking your trio to leave out polyandry and such things. What we asked you is to give equal importance to other things as well (Things for which the Nairs are actually famous for). We were the ones who posted "properly-cited texts" and added good citations. But you specifically picked one or two of the points out of a hundred plus and modified it in such a manner that it lost the original meaning. Each and everyone outside your trio has agreed to the fact that you are the ones who are having POV issues and OR. And you stand out of the three in creating such a bad taste around here, as Shannon pointed out. It is useless to argue with you people who came here with predetermined aims. I will also wait untill someone neutral appears here. Robbie.Smit (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In the middle of all these, let us not forget Robbie.Smit's account was created specifically for this discussion and Riyaz Pookoya's account has hardly any edits outside this debate and Shannon has never edited on anything unrelated to Nair. --CarTick (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

And you are being accused of being anti-Kshatriya by more than 25 people (here and at Tamil Kshatriya). Your only serious edits are in caste articles. That means there is not much difference in our patterns. Shannon1488 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Cartick, I may be having very few edits in Wiki. But so far no one has accused me of bias. That is the difference between me and you. I don't have any intention to degrade or abuse anyone. I am proud of my ancestry and I can trace my lineage for many many centuries starting from Hadrami Arabs of Yemen who migrated to Kerala. You are probably a Christian Dalit convert who dumped his religion because you have no pride in your heritage. If you want to win a debate, argue about the facts presented in that debate. Accusing other editors of incompetency will do you no good. (By the way, two editors have already pointed out that you people doesn't even know the meaning of the word Kshatriya and Sudra, a very basic thing in caste hierarchy). No wonder your friend edited that the Shaikhs are Ahir converts. You want to say that all Muslim aristocrats are descendants of cowherds? Do you know how silly your claims are? Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please list these people. I cannot get anywhere near your figure. And regardless of what CarTick does, my edits extend well beyond caste articles. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I for one am trying to give equal weight to other things; CarTick has done so also and has provided some balancing opinions from Panikkar etc; MV appears to be doing a little work round the Nair Brigade area. It is a difficult task in part due to the non-collaborative spirit of people here who say that they know a lot about the subject. I think that the project as a whole would love some help fixing all of the cite requests, for example. One outcome of this would be that the proportion of the article devoted to the recently expanded areas would fall. I can do it myself, but it is a long haul. If you check out Paravar then you will see what happens when I strip down an article about a caste and start over. Something similar is likely to happen here. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Cite for Nairs being Nagavanshi Kshatriya? Comments on Nair military and snake worship footnoting

Nairs are known as the Nagavanshi Kshatriya clan of Ananta and Vasuki descent.

I've tried searching for this under all variant spellings on gBooks, finding nothing. Can anyone find us a good cite? I am not thrilled that multiple citations of Shudra status in the Brahmanical system have been removed despite copious footnoting (and I've run across plenty more in other searches), and yet we're including this claim in the lede and infobox with zero citation. All must assuredly agree this is not a fair way to approach neutralising the article.

That aside, I've been adding cites on the Nair military history; I would submit we should re-title the section "Military history" vice "Nair brigade", as the scope of the section is becoming much larger than that, and we can probably find good cites for Nair military history back to the 15th century and fighting the Portuguese. Also been adding cites on snake worship, though I can't find anything as explicit as the "nearly 90%", so does anyone object to removing that and replacing it with fully-cited quotes on general prelavence of snake temples? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Retitling & serpent stuff: do it. The Nair Brigade article itself needs an overhaul but let's have something right somewhere about this caste before tackling too much other stuff . I am wilting! You've done well with the cites this last hour or so.

I could not find the Ananta/Vasuki stuff either. I suspect that it comes from the ancient texts, so it may exist in a commentary on them. However, since the ancient texts are plain wrong there is no harm in removing this cruft. It can always be expanded on under the "Mythology" subsection I created, which is going to start with a critique of those texts anyway. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, and continuing to expand MilHist. I can't access Commons right now, but if anyone wants to add any pics from this site[115] that's be awesome. They're unfortunately low-res, but we can always replace them if we find better scans. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There are four citations attached to the sentence "Nairs dominated the civil, administrative and military elite of the pre-British era in Kerala." I cannot see any of the sources which are cited and, more important, the sentence seems to me to be both very bland & suspiciously overcited (suggesting that it might be synthesis). As it is written, "pre-British era" means anything before the late 1700s, which is a long time and plainly was not true during the Chera dynasty. I just strikes me as being a bit POV-vy but, obviously, I cannot really prove this one way or another because I cannot check the citations provided. Furthermore, it looked out of place in the section even before my recent edits to it; it now looks only slightly less out of place, a non sequitor of sorts. I am not sure how to handle this. - Sitush (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"Supereminent divisions of Nairs, known as the Kshatriyas" !!!!

Please have a look at this sentence.

"Supereminent divisions of Nairs, known as the Kshatriyas and Samantans were next in line and the Nairs were below them."

This seems really absurd. If "Nairs were below them", how can these castes be sub-divisions within Nair caste? Also I don't think "Kshatriya" is a sub-caste of Nairs. The reference 48 reads as:

The matrilineal Nayars of Kerala in southwest India constitute a populous caste, which contains within it a large number of subdivisions. In contrast to the ideal model, on which most standard descriptions appear to be based, these subdivisions fall into several analytically distinguishable categories. There is a core of a few large, stable subdivisions and a fringe of many small unstable subdivisions. The latter are created and eliminated by several processes, one of which, treated in detail, is connected to the famous, hypergamous marriage system of the Nayars. The statuses of tali-tiers and sambandham partners act as diacritical markers of a subdivision’s status. Modern changes in the subdivision system are briefly considered. A distinction between stable and unstable statuses in the caste system is introduced, and doubt is raised about Dumont's and Pocock's theories of caste.

SOME YEARS AGO, Pocock (1957) drew attention to a number of the sociological problems posed by a populous and widely distributed caste like the Patidar of Gujarat. In this respect, the Nayars of Kerala, whose estimated population in 1968 was around 2.9 million, or 14.5% of Kerala’s total population (Govt. of Kerala 1971: App. xviii), closely resemble the Patidars. The Patidars, however, differ from the Nayars in having but few named subdivisions (Pocock 1972:56). The Nayars’ marriage system has made them one of the most famous of all communities in anthropological circles.

This paper attempts to analyze the internal structure of the Nayar caste. It does not set out to analyze the Nayars’ marriage system per se, although it does try to show how the famed cross-caste hypergamy of the high-ranking Nayars—involving Brahmans, Kshatriyas, and Samantans—was linked to the subdivision system within the Nayar caste.

Have a special attention here:

"..cross-caste hypergamy of the high-ranking Nayars—involving Brahmans, Kshatriyas, and Samantans.."

What does this mean? Does this ever sound like "High-ranking Nairs were Kshatriyas" or something similar? Or is it the other way round? i.e., "The high-ranking Nairs were engaged in cross-caste hypergamy with (higher castes like) Brahmans, Kshatriyas, and Samantans." Which one make sense? --KondottySultan (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You were banned last month in the Malayalam wiki for adding caste hatred. Now you are here? Cartick will be overjoyed. Shannon1488 (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You told in a talk page in Malayalam WP that I was banned from English WP. Here, in English WP, you say that I was banned from Malayalam WP. You people are coming across as good stuff for laughter. Do you think the others don't have common sense? I was never banned from any Wikipedia projects since I started this account. See MY EDIT HISTORY IN MALAYALAM WIKIPEDIA.

By these kind of lies, you can cheat only those users who cannot read or understand Malayalam. --KondottySultan (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No one is a fool here. If you have any points, then talk about it here. BTW, I am not talking about your current account. Shannon1488 (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Then what on earth you talk about? I never had any other WP account except this. Evenif I had one, you can't tell because I am using a dynamic internet connection and my IP changes each time. Now, stop your technique of changing the subject, come to the point of this section. Do you have any justification for this sentence?

"Supereminent divisions of Nairs, known as the Kshatriyas and Samantans were next in line and the Nairs were below them." --KondottySultan (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Offcourse you are using a Dynamic IP and no one can ban you. But what was added to the article is directly from Fuller. Do you have any problem with Fuller? Shannon1488 (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No. It is not from Fuller. It is from YOU. The sentence was initially:

"The Kshatriyas were next in line, then the Samantans and the Nairs were below them."

You altered it as:

"Supereminent divisions of Nairs, known as the Kshatriyas and Samantans were next in line and the Nairs were below them."

You are pushing your POV that Nairs (or at least some of them) are Kshatriya. --KondottySultan (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Read Fuller. Get some sense. Shannon1488 (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked into the full argument above but it has been apparent for some time that Shannon has not read Fuller through from start to finish, which is why Shannon misunderstands what is said both in the article and in the book. Fuller is not the easiest of people to read, I admit. Perhaps this also explains the misconception that Shannon holds, even more so if English is not Shannon's first language (I have no idea whether it is or not, but even to someone like me it is quite heavy going). - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Earlier I was fighting three of you. Now it is four. Let me see what I can do. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not fighting anyone. I am merely pointing out policies, improving the article, contributing content from reliable sources in a manner that reflects what they say, etc. If you consider that to be fighting then perhaps it would be best if you found another outlet than Wikipedia because, like it or not, this is how Wikipedia is intended to work. There are plenty of alternative means of promoting whatever it is you are wanting to say. Wikipedia is not the only outlet. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You are again getting me wrong. I just want all the facts to be represented. Anyway I am about to get banned from this topic very soon, so will make my points quickly. There are no Kshatriyas in the world as far as Nambuthiris are concerned. The so called "Kshatriyas" and "Samantans" which you find in Malabar and among Malabari immigrants to South Kerala, are Nairs who got elevated in caste system. As I have added many sources here, stating that all the Kshatriyas of Kerala are of Nayar origin. I just want to mention that. If you claim that they are not of Nair origin, then please tell me who they are. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources from SN Sadasivan

SN Sadasivan is a well known anti-Hindu fanatic. I don't know how people can add sources from his works, even though they find neutral works written by foreign authors unreliable. Shannon1488 (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

S. N. Sadasivan himself was a Hindu and a younger generation contemporary and follower of Hindu religious leader and social reformer Sree Narayana Guru. Then how come you brand him as "anti-Hindu fanatic"?? --KondottySultan (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Because his books spew venom against each and every aspect of Hinduism. It is useless to argue against people like you. Shannon1488 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I request you to be sensible. This is not a forum for pushing your POV. This is a TALK PAGE. You get it? --KondottySultan (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have the same advice for you. This is not the place to dump your POV and caste hatred. Get it? Shannon1488 (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

S N Sadasivam's wiki page throws more light on this book. It is full of unverifiable claims, like Tirupati being a mahayanist buddhist temple and the like. Also, in the very book, there is a statement that the cited statement is one of the Nambudiri myths. morelMW^illiam 11:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you please show me what caste hatred I have dumped here???!!! --KondottySultan (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Syrians were treated by Nairs as untouchable in most areas of Kerala. Read this. Shannon1488 (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The link you provided does not have any account of Nairs' mentality. It simply says the Syrians may touch a Nair (and still remain non-polluted) while it is not allowed (by the rigid caste system) in many other parts of the country (which will make them polluted and forced to take bath). This is another reference for Syrians treated Nairs as untouchables, not vice versa. --KondottySultan (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The link says that in some areas Syrians are permitted to touch a Nair, but in some other areas, they can't touch them, because the Nair will get polluted. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

See this also. Syrian can't enter the house of a Nair. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

See this. Syrian Christians are "lower ranking" community, which got upwardly mobile due to the infusion of money. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Here - "Nayars were bound to suffer a relative decline when a lower ranking community, such as the Syrians rose". Shannon1488 (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Copy of conversation thread

Copy of conversation initiated on my talk page, as this seems to be the more appropriate place for it:

Please show at least a bit of sensibility

I removed the Sadasivan quote from etymology because it called Nairs as dogs. (Since you don't know Malayalam, I doubt you will understand the real meaning). Sadasivan doesn't give any reference for this and it is not given in Jatinirnayam as he claims. But you reinserted those quotes. Don't stoop this low. Shannon1488 (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The book is a reliable source as far as I can see. It also says that the story is legend, not that it is true. Furthermore, you cannot rely on the primary source (Jatininayam) as this is considered to be original research. You are breaching policy, I am afraid. - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. You are not only insulting me, but 4 million others. If the works by Sadasivan are reliable to you then, I see no point in talking to you. Sadasivan claims the quote is given in Jatinirnayam. But there is nothing even remotely related to this there. I am disgusted by your behavior. Shannon1488 (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not insulting anyone. I didn't even add the bit you are referring to. We are merely reporting what has been said in a reliable source. This book was written 10-11 years ago. If it is so massively wrong then there must have been a rebuttal in another reliable source, surely? Find that source, would be my advice. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI thread - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Caste_hatred_at_Nair Shannon1488 (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, please don't push us to the limit. Axxn (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, I have explained how to counter this. The solution is not to remove it. I vaguely recall having doubts about Sadavisan somewhere else but (a) I did not enter this information and (b) the solution is to comment (sourced) in the article that Sadavisan is hotly disputed by [name of source]. In the interval, I shall look deeper into the guy.

Alternatively, cut the comment from the book and paste it here until the issue is resolved. So not keep reverting it as this is plain disruptive. I have no POV on this entire subject; you lot have all demonstrated POV time and again here, and I seem to recall that a least some of you are members of the caste. - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me the source for what you added from a single source other than that of Sadasivan? This is like adding information about Jews based on Nazi propaganda. Axxn (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This is your revenge isn't it? I told you no one will give you any citation. And you immediately added that the word Nair is derived from dog. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

My revenge for what? I didn't add anything. I reverted the removal of a cited source. I have said that I am prepared to check that source, as someone who did not add the thing in the first instance. Please stop attacking, and please stop canvassing other users on their talk pages. Ask them to look at the page, sure, but if you insert your own view into the request then it might be construed as canvassing. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The disputed content has now been expanded to include both that references to dogs were not traditionally considered to be derogatory and that Sadavisan himself explicitly doubted the credibility of the interpretation. Can we not, erm, let sleeping dogs lie? Whatever may have previously been construed as offensive certainly cannot be so now. It is in fact a pretty benign comment. Nowhere did it make any claim that Nairs are dogs, and now it even queries the claim that it does make. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I added the material from Sadasivan; he appeared to be a legit author with a legit publisher, and his writing appeared academic in nature. Note that a I specifically mentioned what I was adding in the Edit Summary (a nicety too often ignored in this debate), and I also provided at the top of the section the specific cite that all three etymologies are considered to be unlikely. Again, I think too many folks here do not understand the difference between "we are deciding once and for all The Truth" and "we are recording and compiling the observations and theories of academics writing on the topic." If folks are obsesses with the former, they will never be pleased until the article contains, and only contains, their personal and deeply-held beliefs on the subject. Personally, I have no emotional involvement whatsoever with the Nair, wouldn't know a Nair from a Namboodiri from an Untouchable if they walked up to me on the streets of Philadelphia. That's why my edits (and Sitush's) are NPOV, because we don't have an agenda, but are simply trying to find the most educational and reliable information we can on the subject. Unfortunately, some of you are seeing this as "negative" because you'd produced an article which deliberately left out anything you felt didn't abet the Nair's claim to awesomeness, so you see its inclusion as an attack. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If this piece of POV from Sadasivan finds such weightage in this article, then there is no reason why the other sources cited by Shannon shouldn't be here. And the sources were added by MatthewVinitas without consensus. Shannon, why don't you take the lead from him? morelMW^illiam 20:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not POV because he proposes and criticises the point. You have demonstrated previously on another article an inability to appreciate how these matters work. You said at that time, after you returned from your recent block, that you would keep away from this stuff. My suspicion is that oyu are only here now because Shannon canvassed you. Please do not whip up an already delicate situation. Positive contributions are welcome, but sh*t stirring is not. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What are the sources that he supports these with? Jayachitranirnayam, as Shannon pointed out, doesn't seem to support them. This source should be discounted altogether as there is not enough consensus in the talk page. Another thing, consider switching to a more appropriate language. You can start with reading other posts in WP talkpages, like mine. Thanks.morelMW^illiam 21:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Shannon cannot use Jayachitranirnayam to support any point because it is original research using a primary source. Sadavisan can. That is just the way Wikipedia works. I'm not saying that it is right, but it is how it is - and there are some good reasons for it. - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone asked for another cite regarding the etymology based on "dog". I have just started looking and found this. I wouldn't call it a "reliable source" because I only have snippet view & so no context etc. However, it does mention the possibility of that etymology, however dubious, and was written some years prior to Sadavisan's work. Sadavisan, whom I can see fully, also notes that etymology as dubious, and this is reflected in the article as it currently stands. So, not a great piece of support but maybe something better will turn up. - Sitush (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

...And now I've suddenly made a connection that might explain some of the recent angst here, bearing in mind the numerous attempts to keep the polyandry section out of the article. Apparently there is an old saying, "Nairkkum Nayakkum Achchanilla' and this translates as "Nairs and dogs do not know who their father is". Taken from p. 158 of this 1969 journal on folk-lore, published in India. Is this what all the upset is about? If it is then I am sorry for it but Wikipedia is not censored. - Sitush (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Request expert aid from WP:WikiProject India?

Shannon, are you going to, as the ANI folk suggested, request fresh eyes with India expertise from WP:WikiProject India? If you'd rather, I can go and request. Bearing in mind that, whichever of us files the request, is must be neutrally-phrased so as not to be WP:canvassing, so something like "we could use some experts to weigh in on some contested issues about varna, polyandry, and etymology at Nair" and not "evil, terrible jerks are attacking the article!!!". Please let me know if you'd prefer to be the one to add a request at WP:INDIA; if you'd rather not or don't reply, I'll add the request on Monday morning, US East Coast time. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this article from editing by all bar admins for 12 hours, because emotions are running far too high and far too many people are squaring up for a fight rather than trying to calmly discuss it like the grownups that we're all supposed to be -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)