Talk:Nair

nair is not nagar

 it is difficult to believe that the word nayar have originated from nagar.because nagar is  neither a Aryan community nor a Dravidian community.its a community in nagaland and they have nor any similarities in culture or physical appearance to nairs in kerala.as told in the article 'kavu' is not known as 'sarpa kavu'.most of the are maid with the intention of environmental purposes.as shown in a picture in this article there were not sculptures of snakes in every 'kavu' .most of them were with out it.naturuly snakes made these 'kavu's a compact shelter. so in the course of time people who  made these 'kavu' came to worship snakes.like the sea became the goddess of people who lives by sea and hill became the god of the people who lives in hills.and can not be traced back to a 1000 or 800 years.swathy,swetha

Usable images from Malayalam Encyclopedia

I think this article can include images from the "Nair" article in Malayalam encyclopedia (Government of Kerala). These images are copyright free (available under GNU Free Documentation License) and can be used in Wikipedia. This article contains a no. of rare old images. → Chekon (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm really going to have to go dig into these! Good looking out! From what you've seen so far, is there anything we can use for the "traditional practices" section? I imagine photo documentation might be difficult, but is there any photo evidence showing an extended/hypergamous/etc family? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There is one photo of a Nair "Koottukudumbam" (Joint family). Is this what you are looking for?→ Chekon (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you ever know that you're my hero, / and everything I would like to be? / I can fly higher than an eagle, / for you are the wind beneath my wings... Outstanding! Way to find a pic for an otherwise hard-to-illustrate section! I'll see what I can do about getting it uploaded properly, and I'll have to dig into that source more. Is it necessary to know a regional language to be able to get full benefit of that site? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2011

Kalarippayat and Nairs

I don't understand the significance of photo of Kalarippayat in this article. Kalarippayat is a general martial art of Kerala and it was practised historically not only by Nairs, but other castes such as Ezhavas, Nadars, Syrian Christians, Muslim Moplas, etc. Many historians believe that Chekavars, the well-known Kalarippayat warriors were Ezhavas. So, a statement like "Kalarippayat was practised by Nairs" is like putting a photo of an Aeroplane in the article Germany and saying, "Aeroplanes are used in Germany". → Chekon (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You raise a good point; have you checked the refs to see whether they express any particularly unique/distinctive ties between Nairs and Kalarippayat? If the Nairs are no more involved in K. than the average Keralan group, and K. is no more linked to Nairs than any other Keralan group, I could see removal. If there is some way that Nairs strongly identify with K. in a way that others don't, or played a significant role in its popularisation, I could see a small inclusion. Kind of like how (to build on your Germany comparison) an article about Alaskans may mention float-planes since that vehicle is a disproportionately popular form of transport for Alaskans living in isolated areas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

They were known for it, as far as I've been able to find out over the last few months. Although there is a discrepancy regarding the Kaniyar Panickers, which I queried here a few days ago. It is a valid image for this article, especially for the majority of the world who will not have a clue what it is. I think that pretty much all the world, perhaps excluding some tribes in the Amazonian rainforest, know what a plane is. That is a chalk and cheese comparison, I am afraid. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

The "Nair Regulation" of 1919, 1925

Not sure if getting deeper into these would make too-long a section of an already long article, but I suggest that I or others can look into making a few new articles to link to regarding the "Nair/Nayar Regulation" acts, which occurred in 1919 and 1925. A brief Google Survey shows some interesting political ties and controversies, so I'll try to glance at that in a bit. Just wanted to float the idea in case it causes anyone's little ears to perk up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

One separate article, covering all the Acts, would be my way of doing it. You're going to get a lot about the NSS in there, but the NSS article itself is shocking. YMMV. - Sitush (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Any reason not to direct palm brandy to Arrack?

The article mentions "palm brandy"; as I understand it, palm toddy can just be a basically-fermented beverage, whereas a "brandy" would be a distilled beverage. The article Arrack doesn't specifically cover Indian distilled palm drinks, though it covers a similar distilled toddy of Sri Lanka. What say, should "palm brandy" redirect to arrack (which is a general term referring to a lot of distilled drinks in the Islamic-influenced world and adjoining areas), or to palm toddy, though the term really refers (by logic) to a specific variant of distilled toddy? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dangit, this appears to be more complicated than I thought:

“ which exudes, in 12 hours, some 30 to 60 ounces of a translucent sweetish sap with an agreeable taste, which is either_ drunk greedily in its raw state under the name of "toddy," which is a pleasant and wholesome beverage, or the sap is evaporated down to dryness, when it yields a brownish yellow substance called Jaggeri, or Goor, which is crude or unrefined sugar. This same result may be also obtained by macerating the flowers in water and then separating by boiling. Sometimes the sap is allowed to ferment and then distilled to separate a sort of brandy, more commonly known as "arrack," which is not, however, to be confounded, as it has been, with "palm wine," or palm brandy (as some authors have unfortunately done), which is the product of the Maldive or Butyrac nut.American druggist and pharmaceutical record. American Druggist Publishing Co. 1897. pp. 130–. Retrieved 10 June 2011. ”

Huh, do we need a new article just for this? I can do that as needed. What thinks? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on Hough for anything. It would need some extra sourcing for pretty much everything he says. I would even be wary of using him as a historical source without some more recent support. Equally, is the palm brandy referred to in this article a statement from a reliable source? Could that writer have got things confused? - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It was a footnoting error, the quote is actually from the American Druggist, so a bit more useful source on pharmaceuticals. I can dig into the source of the "palm brandy" in Cochin or wherever. In whatever case, it does appear that there may be an article to be made on "palm brandy", if, as above, more sources indicate it's a nut product vice distilled-sap toddy. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought he was being unusually clever and detailed! He normally seems to wield a 2 mile-wide brush while wearing a blindfold. There is definitely an article there, if the sources are up to it. American Druggist, eh? Bet that's a cracking good read ;)- Sitush (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

images

too many images and it is best to substitute them with Template:Infobox caste. they may be more suitable at List of Nairs though. --CarTick (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the composite image at the top of the page then, yes, it needs to go. Not because it is "too many" but because it gives undue weight to those people who are featured cf all the others who are not. As you say, it isn't even particularly relevant. This rationale applies to all the main caste articles. - Sitush (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The "composite caste image" seems to be quite popular in these sort of article. Might it be best to go to WP:WikiProject India and get some sort of consensus prior to dealing with what appears to be a fait accompli "format"? And do you have any suggestions as to what would tend to be the best sort of lead image? I think pages tend to look a little bare without a lead image. Maybe 1900ish anthropological photos or 1800ish engraving showing traditional dress/environment, or is that going to open us to accusations of the "British gaze"? MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually do not care unduly what WP India say about this particular issue. It is a straight breach of Wikipedia policy since it gives undue weight to those featured. That will always trump whatever a project may think, unless they can get the policy changed. The composition is also totally irrelevant: the subjects are not referred to in the article. If we cannot find some suitably inane, all-encompassing alternative then there is nothing wrong with leaving it blank. That is not a breach of anything. There will be more than sufficient photos elsewhere, thanks to your efforts. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion re: direction, copied from my own talk page

Presently, the Nair article has no logical sequence. It seems like a collection of scattered information. Many of the matters mentioned there are irrelevant to the article, and can be removed to make the article a more specific one. You are putting as much information as possible to give others an impression that you are 'improving' this article, I am afraid. --KondottySultan (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You can think what you like about it, no problem, but you do not have consensus for some of the things you are doing. I realise that the talk page is very long but in there you will find agreement to extend and then split the article, and to formulate a lead section after the body has been sorted out. Even non-contributors to the page have recognised that there are considerable improvements.

I am not the only person who is aware that it is a bit "choppy" at the moment but your changes are (mostly) not improving anything. All they are doing is making it harder to hit a target. The plan is for this to become a Good Article, which is something I have experience of achieving. Have you? - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. This article is now elaborately describes many things that are not related to Nairs. Eg: Origin of Caste system, supernatural beliefs, Serpant groves, kuttichathan theyyam, etc etc... If this is what you call achieving, then you can go on with your idea and later rename the article to something relevant like "Hinduism in Kerala" or "Communal history of Kerala" or so. --KondottySultan (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

... continued here

One of the reasons why so much is explained here is because the other articles on the various subjects are so poor that it really isn't worth linking to them. Information added here is already being transposed to other places, eg: Ezhava, and my suspicion is that this will continue. It is extremely rare, in my experience, for there to be a decent article on these subjects in Wikipedia. So let's create one.

I do not disagree with you that the lead needs a rewrite but it also has to refer to the significant points raised in the article. It is much easier to do this after the article body is sorted and, indeed, all the reviewers whom I have come across at WP:GAN actually review the lead after reviewing the rest of the article, which kind of proves the point. - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Need to be rewritten entirely

Presently, the Nair article has no logical sequence. It seems like a collection of scattered information. Many of the matters mentioned there are irrelevant to the article and can be removed to make the article a more specific one. For example, This article is now elaborately describes many things that are not related to Nairs. Eg: Origin of Caste system, supernatural beliefs, Serpant groves, kuttichathan theyyam, etc etc. I think this article needs to be rewritten completely. --KondottySultan (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the rewrite tag that you added. It is inappropriate and I think that you know it, especially since that tag refers mainly to WP:MOS issues and the article is actually very compliant in that regard. Not perfect yet, but far more compliant than most articles which do not have the tag in place.

I have added the (correct) tag for an article that is undergoing major work. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I can see you could have found yourself bit embarrassed after seeing the tag, as you believe yourself to be 'improving' the article for last few weeks. But I hope you are aware that state of other articles is not a good excuse for something. (Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). Anyway, as you have added this tag, I have no plan to re-add the previous one, as my aim solely lies in my wish to see a better article rather than any winning over other wikipedians. Thanks. --KondottySultan (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not embarrassed about anything. I am trying to work collaboratively. You have a concern, mainly because you appear to have missed some stuff on this talk page, and I figure that if you have missed the stuff then other people might also. Hence the tag. No big deal, provided it is the appropriate tag (which it was not). - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that going into the origins of the caste system, except as it specifically relates to Nairs. the section could be shortened up greatly with a link to the article on the subject. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The origins of the caste system are directly relevant to the frequent, longstanding (but misguided) claims that Nairs were kshatriya, which has been the ongoing cause of friction in this article. Claims that have been made - and denied by the governing body, the academics etc - for over a century.

The first paragraph mentions them in the quote; the second paragraph explains the alternate theory (this could be cut back). Thereafter it is all about the Nairs in the context of a caste system that differed massively from that found elsewhere in India. This the the crux of the problem: various people, usually members of the Nair caste, state that the Nairs were kshatriya because elsewhere in India they would have been classified as such. My suspicion is that, yes, elsewhere indeed they would ... but Kerala is not elsewhere.

Similarly the section on traditional customs etc can only deal with this community because their situation was different to that found elsewhere. This is precisely why they have attracted so much interest from anthropologists etc. They really were an "odd bunch" (meant in the nicest possible way). Yes, these things make for a long article and, yes, the odd sentence could be removed as redundant/repetitious etc, but the vast majority would have to remain.

As I see it, we keep adding content until things become stable in that regard. Then we copyedit, including pruning back and perhaps even forking. There are some forks already knocking around but their quality generally varies between poor and atrocious. It is for this reason that it seems to make sense to get one article "right" and then if necessary, deploy the relevant bits of it in other articles. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Kindly consider these images

They might be ok for use somewhere, perhaps in some historical context, but please do not unilaterally remove existing images and replace them - it is pretty much the norm for articles on ethnic or national groups to have a photo of prominent members as its infobox picture -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the criteria for selecting 'prominent members' ? Out of hundreds of well-known Nairs, how did you select these people? --KondottySultan (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat arbitrarily, same as we do for similar lead images. Usually editors try to select individuals from various areas (politics, sports, entertainment, academia); it will also depend on what photos are available, and their quality. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And if anyone wants to add, change, or remove any, we do it the way we do everything round here - by discussion and consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Selecting photos arbitrarily will help only to give undue weight to some. If you check the current list, you can see most of the images belong to good-looking film stars. Even Narayana Paniker, the general secretary of NSS is not a prominent Nair, according to your standards!!! Article Paliyan is a good example for how an ethnic article should look like.--KondottySultan (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The other solution, suggested by me above and also on the infobox template discussion by someone else, is simply not to have a lead image. In this particular article, the infobox is next to worthless anyway. For example, it is impossible to include meaningful population statistics or meaningful related groups: the first are too old and were known to be unreliable; the second, according to the infobox page, is intended for linguistically related groups - this would mean including every caste that spoke the same language as the Nairs, which would be a lot.

I may be wrong, but I do not think that it is obligatory to have a photo in an infobox, nor is it obligatory to have an infobox in the first instance. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Nair communiy contains many subgroups and most of them had a high status in the society. The images showed here does not reflect the same. There were Kings and Local Rulers. These are images of a common man probably in 1000 of years back. Please remove it.

And most of the current revision are not proper. Please remove it. The older one (one month back) was proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viswan7575 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you read this whole rest of this page, which explains in detail the inaccuracies of the old article, and how much better the current is? Just popping in to say "change it back" is not productive. So far as pictures: the vast, vast majority of individual Nairs were not kings. The "common man" of the Nair is exactly what is of interest; individual historical figures can of course have their own biographies, but it would be quite impractical to focus on the small percentage of ruling Nair and ignore the vast body of Nair holding lower positions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Western/Christian POV

The following was inserted into the article by User:Govindsharma at this diff:

I see the article has changed a lot from its version existed some months back, and I am afraid this change caused more bad than good. Current version of article is pushing a "Westerner/Christian" POV. For example, the article accuses only Brahmins for caste system even though the Christians were equally liable for it. Another example is the stress given to serpent groves over other groves such as Siva grove, Gandharva grove, etc. The attempt made here was to cherry pick those traditions of rural Hinduism which may seem strange in western/Christian perspective. Even the historical division as "Portuguese era", "British era" shows this colonial (sorry for using this term) attitude. Throughout the article, emphasise given to "what EUROPEANS thought about it" or "how THEY perceived it". The article whitewashes the Syrian Christians by diminishing the untouchability they practised on Nairs and lower castes. Yet to read the article fully. Will post more comments once I finish reading. --Govindsharma (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I cut it from there to post here. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearcut example of meat puppetry from a Syrian Christian (most probably Kondotty), who was upset that his edits showing Syrian "superiority" were removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.65.6 (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So you people say that these accusations are meant to show the supremacy of Brahmins and to flatter us? If that was the case I would be the first one thank you for giving such a consideration for Brahmin caste in an article on a non-Brahmin caste. But, I don't think so. I believe it is the other way round. Nambudiris and other Brahmins are narrated in this article in the same way European colonialists mentioned in Indian history books. Brahmins are depicted as somebody who came from outside until which everything was hunky dory and caused all the problems. If you believe this would demonstrate their superior status, then I must say all the history books in India were written, not to blame the Europeans, but to praise them.--Govindsharma (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think that the Brahmins are getting a bad press here. This is a factual article, as all articles on Wikipedia are intended to be. However, if you think that it needs improvement then please could you provide some constructive suggestions, with supporting sources (not your opinion, but rather evidence from sources that comply with Wikipedia policies etc). - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC

You ranked Nair as Sudra based on the simply reason that Kerala Brahmins (a very little minority) considered them as Shudras... Your argument for this is: They (brahmins) defined the caste system.... This is typically a Western/Christian POV based on the POV of the Colonial era: at this time, the British favoured the Brahmins for some dubious political reasons and supported some of their POV and especially this one: nowadays there are only 2 castes, Brahmins & Shudras. Based on that, British ranked most of the ancient ruling castes as Shudras just because Brahmins considered them as such and it was in their interest to support this Brahmin POV. Some scholars talked about Nairs as Shudras not because of their profession but because the local Brahmins considered them as Shudra. This is typically a western/christian POV which do not (or don't want to) understand the complexity of the Indian society.Rajkris (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It is simply not true that the Nambudiri Brahmins considered Nairs as Sudra. If fact, the Nambudiris considered Nairs as "Sudra Rajas" (i.e., Kings of Sudras) If you look at ancient works such as "Kerala Mahatmyam" or "Keralolpathi" composed by Nambudiris, you won't see the word 'Sudra' as denoting Nairs but only 'Sudra Raja' or 'Nayaka' (leader). This was either mistaken or deliberately misinterpreted by the Westerners and they wrote in their books that Nairs are Sudras. On Indian side, as observed by Sri Chattambi Swamikal in the book 'Pracheena Malayalam' , this Sudra notation, is seen only in some recent official records of Travancore kingdom (which was apparently under the influence of European powers and their missionary interests). Here the Europeans applied their tactics of 'Divide and Rule'. Nairs and Brahmins were two most powerful and influencial groups among the Hindu castes here, so they did everything to create and develop enemity among these groups. --Govindsharma (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is in total mess and is nothing but a collection of POV. The editorship has moved from 'glorifiers' to 'hate mongers' now. Whatever is given in the article is totally unreliable, distorted and malignant information to tarnish a community. Some serious investigation is to be made to get the exact intention of these editors. Most of the citations given in this article are from writers (mostly westerners) who had written many things out of context or to augment vested interest or were completely ignorant about the social realities of Kerala. Again, certain Indian writers who were (in)famous for their biased approach are also quoted here. Tomorrow, I can also write a book on something and add a citation from this page. Hence, there should be some norm and reason for referring/citing a particular situation. Otherwise it just amounts to a distorted POV of the individual editors. I have read more than a dozen books on Kerala history and nairs and nothing conveys me the information given in this page. Reliable sources are not at all referred here. For e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica, Malabar manual, etc are not at all referred instead Gough, sadasivan, pullapally are quoted. Even the historic researchers like Zacharia thundiyil, Sreedhara Menon and Kunjan pillais finding are ignored here. This is totally one sided with vicious intent. Similarly the polyandry is projected and highlighted beyond anyone has ever heard of before. Why is it highlighted only in this page. The article is trying to draw a similarity between Nairs and Ezhavas which is totally rubbish. The ezhavas originated from Srilanka while the Nairs were native Naga rulers/warriors (not dravidian or aryan). The similarity in their rituals is only because the Ezhavas started emulating the Nairs and both were out of the Vedic Hindu fold. There is absolutely no citation for this in anywhere other than this page. There are many 'not so heard' incidents like Nairs being fighting for the Portuguese being highlighted while the battle of colachel where the first time an European power was defeated by a native army is very purposefully ignored. The Nairs who were in the forefront of freedom struggle, temple entry, social justice are very tactfully ignored. Even the information on related ethnic groups like Bunts which is important is removed. Mamankam, kalari payattu, role of Nair leaders in freedom struggle, political and social nurturing of kerala are all very conveniently ignored. This article needs a complete revamp and till then the article should be rated as C or even below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.16.20 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To all three of you above (the IP. Govindsharma and Raj?kris), find the sources please. And, no, Logan does not cut the mustard as a source, nor do ancient texts. If what is stated is not true then all you need to do is find modern reliable sources that say so. By the sounds of what you say, it should not be that difficult. However, please note that there have been over 100 supposed sources provided that the Nairs were kshatriya and all of those examined proved either not to be reliable or not to say what the proposer thought that they said. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is a WP:tertiary source, so its inclusion is not preferable. If there are items you feel need to be included (note the 1741 Battle of Colchal against the Dutch is already mentioned, by men, but could use more detail), then step up and add them along with reliable footnotes. No editor is superhuman, so we can only find and add so much, so it is incumbent upon those who feel the article is lacking to contribute to address those lackings. Further, folks complain generally about sourcing, but nobody is actually pulling up specific names (and articles noting their being discredited), specific passages which conflict with more reliable sources, etc. Note that Sitush often addresses contested refs line by line before removing them, yet an entire body of other editors cannot produce any similar critique. If three of you have the same complaint, producing a few footnotes, or analysing a problematic paragraphy, does not seem an undue labour. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you should have some patience. Almost all the caste-related articles swing between pro-Glorifying and pro-Hate mongering sections from time to time. For almost a year, the pro-Glorifying CABAL led by Suresh Varma, supported by his servants Raghavan Nambiar, Anand Nair, Shannon and Chandrakantha Mannadiar had total control over this page. It is only natural that the pro-tarnishing CABAL of Cartick, Sitush and MattewVanitas replace them, once the leader and his top lieutenant (Varma and Nambiar) was removed from the picture. I think the natural justice will be, since the Varma & Co. controlled the page for one year, let Sitush & Co. control it for another year. Then we can get some neutral editors to modify the article. I agree with your current rating of the article. I'd give it a D grading, while giving a C+ to the earlier version. 202.83.178.126 (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

dear IP, why dont you do all of us a favor and reveal who you are in this list. I have to say — the IP being from AUS — i have a hunch! --CarTick (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you, AUS IP. This article has become a haven of hate mongers who tries to defame the Nair community. They are warned to remember what happened to an Ezhava blogger who posted slanderous content on Nair community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.137.179.172 (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's really unfair to compare me and others to the host of pro-Nair POV editors, and particularly to call us a "cabal"; I never met Sitush until this page. Further, it's inaccurate to just say "well, A and B sides are both terrible", when the pro-Nair side pushed a very extreme POV, had very poor (or no) footnoting, insulted other editors, attacked points under WP:I don't like it regardless of verifiability, etc. Though Sitush, Cartick, myself, and others may not be perfect, we are endeavoring to use Reliable Sources, clearly footnote, and are adding both "negative" and "positive" material, as well as being very willing to accept any properly cited material other editors bring forward. The pro-Nair folks fought tooth-and-nail against anything "negative", even dismissing the issue of Nair polyandry which has been an object of research for a large number of reputable academics. You are not going to easily find editors more "neutral" than we. If you feel yourself to be more neutral, why not help build the page? This page has a tragic history of high "noise to signal" ratio, in terms of dozens of "contributors" who agonise over the talk page, and never bring a single footnote, suggested addition, etc. And the few that have brought citations (as noted above) brought citations that blatantly did not say what the contributor wanted them to say (and even admitted such in their very own summary of the cite). Note the "hundred" Nair=Kshatriya cites above which say no such thing, but instead indicate that Nair fulfilled a Kshatria-like role as a military element at times, though clearly not classical Kshatriya in the Brahminical system.

This section has raised some very fair points about Western bias, which is difficult to avoid as most Reliable Sources lean heavily on the Western tradition and Western sources. However, the correct manner to address Western bias is not to endlessly kvetch, remove academically-verifiable material, and insert in "this is the real story" footnoted to some GeoCities personal website. The reasonable response would be to find works by reputable academics which offer a fresh perspective based on legitimate research of Indian sources and a critical look at Western claims. This article is considerably better than it once was (and, by the way, there is no "D" rating, you're confusing Wikipedia page classifications with school grades), with much better footnoting, and the way to make it better is to contribute to it, not complain. By all means, find some good academic citations which inform the controversy; I for one would be thrilled to see some of the academic debate summarised in the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to be funny? Who was pushing extreme POV? Although I think Suresh Varma was glorifying his caste (according to Sitush he is not a Nair!! ROFLMAO), I think he never offended anyone or went beyond a certain limit. But you guys have really disgraced the entire Wikipedia with your edits here. I don't know what is the importance of "Nair" polyandry. As I know, 90% of the people in Kerala practiced polyandry, either fraternal or non-fraternal. Nairs were never more than 15% of the population, and how does this "Nair" polyandry comes in to the equation, especially since it was practiced by the Nairs from a small area only. And your claim on reliable sources is really laughable. I have looked at the 100+ refs referred by you. Many of them equivocally states that Nairs belong to Kshatriya "varna". I haven't made a single edit to the Nair article (other than the talk page) and intend to remain so, especially after seeing the blocking of almost all of the editors who opposed your POV. Sometimes having an admin on your side is all you need to win a war here. The use of third rate language by you and your friends such as "Nairs and dogs don't know who their father is" and vulgar references to even the underwear used by the women, rather shows your moral bankruptcy. If you are so confident about your edits, then may I ask you why no one (other than your trio) yet came out to support you guys? For you, each and everyone who says something against your edit is a Nair. You have even branded the two Tamils (RajKris and ManoRathan) as being Nair. And I'm sure this will happen to me also, even though I am not even a Hindu. Get well soon mister. 202.83.178.126 (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I came to this article quite coincidentally and I was quite surprised to find it altered to such a mess. If that particular admin you are referring to is biased, then please complain to someone else. Right now this article is a POS. Sujith.Kumaar (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think "this article is a POS", then please feel free to do something constructive about it - discuss what, specifically, is wrong with it on the Talk page, and provide some sources to back up what you believe it should say -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)15:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well, judging by the comments here, it's quite clear who 202.83.178.126 is, and they are evading a block by editing logged out - so I've blocked the IP for block evasion. As has been explained many times, nobody has called anyone "dogs don't know who their father is", and there was absolutely nothing vulgar said about underwear - if you think the very mention of underwear is itself vulgar, then you are way wide of the open and uncensored philosophy of Wikipedia, which does not censor sourced information to cater for individual sensitivities. Now, as for the historical facts about Nair people, if you dispute the sourced content of the article, all you have to do is present better sources that verify an alternative view - you must not approach it by calling those you disagree with "hatemongers", or "sons of whores", or any of the other choice phrases some of you have come up with. All that will achieve is to get you blocked. And if anyone thinks my admin actions in respect of this dispute are incorrect, then you are welcome to seek alternative opinions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is exactly what they were talking about. If you are going to block everyone who speaks against you, then get ready to block 2-3 users everyday. That is because not a single Indian will find this article anything more than a tool to defame a particular cast. Sujith.Kumaar (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with blocking people who disagree, it's about blocking people who repeatedly refuse to follow Wikipedia policies. One of the cornerstones of the project is No Personal Attacks, which means that calling others "sons of whores" or similar things is simply not acceptable, and will get you blocked if you do it. Also, repeatedly removing sourced content without discussion, or repeatedly adding unsourced content without discussion, counts as edit warring, and is again not acceptable.

It really is simple - if you believe some sourced content is wrong, explain why and provide sources which refute it. And if you want to add new material, find sources to support it. What is so hard to understand about that? Let me make a suggestion - choose one specific thing in the article that you believe is being used as a "tool to defame a particular caste", and explain why, and we can discuss it - that has to be better than this current battlefield approach, hasn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Why you are attacking me? I just wrote my opinion in this subject. There is no need to attack everyone who comes here. A question, which is repeated many times here: You guys are calling Nairs "dogs" and all such things (No matter in whatever ways you might want to interpret it, I am quite fluent in English, and this is what I understand from your edits), and if anyone says anything against you in a similar language, then you immediately ban him. And adding "sourced" info. The sources provided by that single guy was much better than all the sources provided by your people. I don't know anything about Sadasivan, I haven't even heard about him. But after reading a few pages from his book through Google books, I am 100% sure that his works are not worthy to mention in any wikipedia article. All I could find from the pages which I read was a deep cast hatred against Nairs, Brahmins.etc and a sharp sense of inferiority complex. Not a single bit of accurate information I found there. And it seems that his "story" is the basis for your version of Nair article. Shame shame..... There is a saying that if you lie 100 times, then it becomes truth. Similarly if you lie that their sources are not accurate and your sources were accurate... then may be... after sometime.... Sujith.Kumaar (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As with any community, Wikipedia has policies, guidelines and - for want of a better term - rules of conduct. If you do not like them then you are free to seek your information elsewhere or even to seek a change in those policies etc. There are processes available by which change can be sought, both at the highest community level and here at article level.

This talk page is one such forum to seek consensus regarding how the article is presented. However, personal abuse, unsubstantiated accusations, threats, a failure to read what is written and a failure to provide any evidential support for proposed changes is always going to hit problems. If anyone wants to pursue those methods of conduct then they will first have to get the wider Wikipedia community to agree to a change in their policies. Good luck with that. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If you sincerely believe that "not a single Indian" would support this version, or even that the balance of educated, neutral Indians would not support, might I suggest you express your concerns at WP:WikiProject India? There are a large number of Indian editors there with extensive Wikipedia and research experience. Similarly, if you would like more neutral people (though again, Sitush and myself are not in the slightest Indian and have no involvement with any caste disputes), you could always bring your concerns to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where completely uninvolved editors specialising in addressing bias may be found. However, I am quite confident that uninvolved editors arriving at this page would agree that the current version is substantially better than the earlier version, is comprehensively and painstakingly footnoted, and that the vast majority of opposition to the current version is unable to bring any actual evidence to bear to raise any serious doubts about this version. The very fact that none of the complainants has yet to find any support outside of the complainant community is rather telling. If the ratio of complainants to pro-current-version editors is high, it is likely because few neutral editors are interested in this topic, so for years this article has been at the mercy of people with an emotional involvement in the subject. Now that several uninvolved editors have come to undertake an extensive cleanup, it has upset those who cannot emotionally detach from the content and apply standard Wikipedia policies of NPOV, sourcing, etc. By all means, seek redress if you feel this page is being edited unfairly, but do not be surprised if outside parties looking in generally support the developing version. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

David Eggenberger source

I am struggling with what is currently cite #89, from David Eggenberger in connection with the Third Anglo-Mysorean War. Perhaps I am being stupid, but I cannot find a mention of this war on the cited page. Can anyone confirm, please? - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am being stupid. I've just noticed that the GBooks link takes me to p. 39, not p. 392. I can't even see p. 392 here. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Anti-nair Propaganda

This is clearly a biased article to Defame nair community. 1 . No point other than dis-hornering the community by putting a so called dog-ayyapa legend that no malayalee has ever heard about.& practically calls nairs 'nai'. 2. polyandry is a much debated topic , some have hypothesised it , it has no solid proof so not a theory & not to be included in wiki [ especially in 1st paragraph] 3 . Nairs & ezhava have same ancestors!! ?? 4. chakala, velakitra etc are nairs who are gives obc status!!???? article has clubbed non nairs with nairs, nairs were warriors who had a sword always with him. not some one who cleans dresses of nair houses. If I examine there are only flaws in this article. 2 months before here there was a better article some one has rewritten it completely . I personally believe this article is made by persons belonging to communities like ezhava & some sects of christians who have historical grudge against the nair community.I suggest some one from neutral grounds should handle this article or if possible restore the old article[2 months old] with more order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.175.239 (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please to to the main Nair page and hit the "History" tab. Note that justification has been given for all material that was removed, generally because it could either not be cited to a reliable source, was cited to an unreliable or discredited source, or conflicted with more reliable data and could not be defended with equivalent reliable sources. I suggest you skim through the History tab of the main article, and also check out the archives of the past couple months of this Talk page, where you can see that these matters have been discussed in minute detail. If you have WP:Reliable sources calling into question the assertions in the article, by all means produce them here. The polyandry issue may be contested, but there is plentiful anthropological work documenting its history, so you'd need to provide some very clear academic sources calling into question these portrayals of polyandry, and even then the material would likely not be removed, but the debate itself noted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The debate is already noted in Nair#Polyandry. Although one bit of it is likely to disappear before long unless someone can sort out my query below. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the archives these people are talking. All I can find is fighting between the pro-Nair and anti-Nair groups without any conclusion. In the end the anti-Nair group got the pro-Nair group banned from Wiki. Then the anti-Nair group concludes that they have got the "consenses" and they are going to edit whatever they want. Not only the four points which you had written, there are so many other flaws. In short, there is anything accurate in this article. Being a non-Malayali I find this article heavily inaccurate. Then I can imagine what will happen if any Mallus go through it. Anyway I don't think this article will last much longer in this format. If any neutral admin happens to go through this, then I expect all of these antis to get banned within minutes. Also, I counted around 25 people (including IPs) opposing the current version and 4 supporting it. So I think most of the 25 got banned? Sujith.Kumaar (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of the "25" (which likely includes multiples) have been unable to produce actual evidence in line with Wikipedia policy. People have not been banned for being pro-Nair, they have been banned for obscene language, unexplained deletions, replacing cited text with uncited or improperly-cited text, etc. As posted above, there is an entire Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard where you can raise issues of POV and get some completely fresh and uninvolved eyes on this topic. However, I do not in the slightest expect that neutral editors will oppose the current version, much less revert to an earlier version, nor block constructive editors who have undertaken massive cleanup and footnoting, and responded politely to ongoing abusive language. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok, I will address your original points:

• Dog-Ayyappa legend: it is cited to a source that has all the appearances of being reliable and, although modern, is 10 or so years old. If the statement is so untrue then I would have expected a rebuttal in another source during the intervening decade. I should point out that a similar statement appears in a source from around 20 years ago & is noted somewhere on this talk page. Furthermore, the legend is discounted by the very source that is used.
• Polyandry: yes, there is a debate. The debate is discussed in the article.
• Ezhava: the article makes clear that this is one person's opinion. The person appears to be reliable & the source has been used on many other articles about India, often provided by Indian editors themselves. We are talking of a very ancient connection here, not 200 years ago or something like that.
• OBCs: this is the government classification system. If you do not like it then blame the government.

Hope this helps. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sujith.Kumaar, all you have to do if you believe the article to be "heavily inaccurate" is to discuss each specific inaccuracy, suggest a more accurate version, and provide a reliable source to support it. But so far, I've seen none of the complainants doing that - all we get is accusations of "anti Nair hatemongers" thrown about, and no constructive efforts at all to improve things. So come on, let's see something constructive - identify one inaccuracy and provide a correction backed by a reliable source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and just a technical point - nobody has been banned, just blocked, and only for short periods so far -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I just pointed out that this article is no better than propaganda from fringe evangelical missions. And I am not interested in editing this article. I am not a Nair and I don't belong to any of their "enemy" castes. So I think if Nairs want to save the article, then they themselves should spend some time and get it done. I was just searching the surname of one of my colleagues and got entrapped in this gigantic mess. I don't have time to waste by fighting meaninglessly here, although I think the Nairs were at the receiving end of some extreme bias here. And.. just want to say one more thing. Sitush is really behaving shamelessly. To support his claim that the word Nair is derived from dog, he is now saying that there is some saying that "Nairs and dogs don't know who their father is". I don't understand how these two are related. And he is saying that there is no rebuttal of Sadasivan's work. How can there be any rebuttal of a work which didn't sold more than 10 copies in all its editions combined? Not even 0.0001% of the critics have heard about him or his book. I couldn't find a single review of his book from the net. Sadasivan's works might be the bible for Sitush, but it is nothing more than toilet paper for the average Indian. Sujith.Kumaar (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the good old fashioned "I'm very upset but too busy to do anything" defense. You have posted several lengthy complaints, with time that could have been used to find alternate sources and bring suggested modifications. And while you were expressing unclear concerns, I managed to add another two paragraphs with multiple references to the "Attire" section. I would suggest that you either take constructive action, whether providing alternate references and suggested changes, or filing a specific and clear complaint at the POV Noticeboard, or else refrain from commenting on issues that you have explicitly stated you have no intent to fix. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

FOR THE LAST TIME ... I do not claim that Nairs are dogs, or whatever variation you want to put on that. Nor does Sadasivan, nor does anyone else who has contributed to the article. Furthermore, I did not introduce that source to the article. Get your facts right, please. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

@Matthew - Don't threaten me. Agreed that you are having an admin in your side. But that doesn't mean you will enjoy some sort of "immunity" for your entire lifetime. Stop this bullying or you will find yourself in a very bad position later. I am not adding any alternate source, as from the archives I have found out that whatever source you people don't like, you term it as "unreliable". So I have no intention of wasting my time, atleast until a neutral admin or observer arrives here. @Sitush - Are you questioning my English language abilities? If Sadasivan meant something else, then why putting the sentence there? Even a child can see through your real intentions. Sujith.Kumaar (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you want to put it like that then, yes, I am questioning your ability to understand what is written. Honestly, the article does not say what you seem to think it does. As for your comment to MatthewVanitas, that may well earn you a warning or even a block for being a threatening comment. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tell me where in the following Sadasivan says Nairs are dogs (or similar). And where I say it. "Legendarily, as narrated in the Brahmin work Kerala-jatyachara-nirnayam, the term was said to have been bestowed upon three Naga girls by a Brahmin after an image of a dog ('nai') they created was brought to life and became the escort of Ayyappa.[9] It should be noted that comparisons with and relationships to dogs were not derogatory references at the time when theses ancient texts were written,[11] and that Sadasivan comments, "However credible its objective may be, the story is as incredible as any other Brahmanic myths."" - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want a "neutral admin", again suggest you toddle on over to the POV Noticeboard and solicit one. You have added far more text to this page than would be needed to file a formal POV request there. Nobody is "bullying" you, I am simply stating the clear fact that you are providing no argument, and my opinion that you are unlikely to gain any support from a "neutral" admin, which I think rather unfarily labels Boing as "non-neutral" in a rather impolite way. Also, please see my brief research into Sadasivan's credibility, posted at the bottom of this page. This may help you to appreciate why we consider him a reliable source. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

NB: Boing is not the only admin who has regretfully had to block contributors to this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

1st of all sorry for not logging in, am not an active wikipedia [editor]member , but only responds when things are pretty bad! Its true that am not able to contribute much, but i think its my responsibility to point out everything here is wrong at the least[because its terribly biased zebedee sir]. Besides as sujith kumar said the entire core of this article has to be rewritten , we need a pro for that ! .

Then another thing is that its true kerala did not have a chathurvarna as mentioned in current article, there were only dwi-varna - avarna & savarna .nairs & nambuthiris were savarna, while -thea,cheruma,paraya,ezhava,pulaya etc- were the avarna or out casts. Servants of nambuthiri brahmins where called sudra irrespective of there cast, so if some nairs served them they will be sudra , or even if other brahmins like iyers were the servants they are called sudra. Rarely only an encounter with vishya happens in kerala , in that case nairs are considered above vishya . & since according to namboothiris , parashurama wiped out all kshatria , some nairs who were serving as kings got the samantha kshtria title & are considered above a ordinary nair. so nairs can be considered something out of chathurvarna . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.175.239 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, then, provide some sources to back up what you say! We can't just take personal assertions that such-and-such is true and such-and-such is not true. Please just think about it for a moment - how can we possibly accept what you say without some sources? If we accept what you say without sources, then we'd also have to accept other people saying the opposite, wouldn't we? Simple question - are you really expecting us to just believe you, and just disbelieve the people you disagree with? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No offence intended to the above IP but as a general comment I think that I am going to simply ignore all statements of this type from now on. Provide some evidence that meets Wikipedia's criteria and you (or anyone else) will get a reply from me. Provide no evidence; just go off on a rant; call people names; fail to read the article correctly etc and, well, forget it. I have far better things to do with my time here helping out people who either want decent information or want help in presenting decent information. Getting into arguments with people who simply do not understand how this place works and seem often not to want to understand is just giving me a headache. If you don't like it and cannot provide evidence then just go some place else. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think in wiki, there is a separate criteria for you. Axxn (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sujith.Kumaar is blocked for 24 hours for making an apparent threat and for repeatedly making unfounded personal accusations. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. 143.205.176.60 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mr Sitush Dont be irresponsible, if you are an editor you have the duty to explain yourself, otherwise its fascism . & then Zebedee sir with full respect 'Sitush-zebedee[mod]-MatthewVanitas Axis' Cannot be regarded as 'neutral' as for now cause, 1 . If you just scroll upwards there are lots of referenced articles that have been out right thrown in to waste bin Simply cause - who knows why!? [I know what i said cannot be put on wiki & i didint intent you to Do that right away also! I was just suggesting a topic that we can all research up on or Discus in a more civil manner , seems above said axis have some point of views that they are not ready to throw way] 2 . See the Ezhava article your Axis has made them the descendants of chera & true rulers of kerala , who every malayalee knows were nothing but a coconut climbing race. & you have put the real nobles of kerala in dog houses! 3. That 'Nai' legend is not relevant in academic point of view & can be deleted as it is clearly hurting the Nair sentiments.

So unfortunately as the moderator is not on neutral grounds its pointless to contribute in this article as for now . Personally time is precious for me right now , I will Lay all my reference in july as I hope zebeedy sir will calmed down & will Be more open minded by that time.[& I will be free also] It will be really bad for me if I spent time -now- on this article & submit my findings to be out right thrown in to bin as the above references!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.175.239 (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is an ongoing thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Some_help_over_Nair discussing the Nair issue. If you genuniely believe an admin is acting in a non-neutral way, and that the principles of Wikipedia are being disregarded here, you are completely free to express your concerns there. It is not constructive to drag up concerns, particularly serious allegations about the misuse of WP, and to insist that all sorts of other "neutral" people would consider your side to be obviously right, and then make no motion to actually contact neutral people specifically involved in arbitration. You may be "busy", but the time you and others have taken to post here could have been used to go to the current ANI thread and lay out your concerns in a clear manner which would communicate your concerns to uninvolved editors.

The list of "100" earlier suggested footnotes have not been "thrown into the wastebin", they have not been used either because they explicitly say that the Nair are not literal Kshatriya (a point often noted even in the summaries of the editors who dug them up to support the Kshatriya case in the first place), or are non-substantive offhand comments, or observations by non-experts who may have noted the claims but did not analyse or investigate them. Sitush took the trouble to look into a good number of them, and added (you may note) to that thread specific comments as to what was and was not applicable, to which there was little to no rebuttal.

If you have concerns, please take them to the current ANI thread, as you have not brought up any new concerns which have not already been addressed extensively. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: "in july as I hope zebeedy sir will calmed down" - I can assure you I am calm. In fact, if I was any calmer, I'd be the Sea of Tranquility. It doesn't matter when you plan on contributing here, be it this month, July, or wherever, it won't change the way you are expected to go about it. You must discuss the changes you want on the Talk page, provide reliable sources that support your claims, and get a consensus - and that's nothing to do with me, it's just the rules -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, you've also been given the link to the ANI report I started, asking for people to review my actions (and I provided you with a link myself yesterday, at your Talk page). If you care to take a look, you'll see that my actions are actually being supported - but if you think I have acted incorrectly or unfairly, you are welcome to say so there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Chandu Menon

Can anyone find a citation support, "Other Nair writers such as Chandu Menon also argue that polyandry never existed among Nairs and consider it a gross insult."

The WP article on Menon is totally unreferenced and has been for a long time. Unless some sort of referencing starts to appear there then I will be tempted to PROD it, which would be a shame as I suspect that he is quite notable both as an author & as a social reformer. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Punnapra-Vayalar: The uprising of Ezhavas!!!

I was literally ROTFL after seeing how Punnapra-Vayalar uprising mentioned in this article. This article gives an impression that it was a struggle between Ezhavas and Nairs!! And discovered this 'heavy' truth from the same old guy, the notorious SadaSivan!! This doesn't show the ignorance of the editors, but their bias. I am being forced to suspect these usernames actually belongs to some Ezhavas who wish not only to defame another caste, but also to glorify their own. -- G O V I N D S H A R M A 02:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

At present half the article is directly copy-pasted from Sadasivan's little known book. Are you going to add ROTFL to all the other sections? 122.177.143.217 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm hearing busy little fingers typing comments, and not seeing any of them doing a single productive thing to improve the article. So the "ROTFL" probably goes out for all of you who aren't having a single whit of influence on an article seen by 15,000 readers a month. Congrats. Further, at present 7 of 105 footnotes are to Sadasivan, which is substantially under "half". Further still, the article does not in the slightest imply that the P-V uprising was Ezhava vs. Nair, it states that one of the significant historical acts of the Nair-based military unit was the suppression of the P-V uprising. And again, we have discredited editors hiding behind IPs rather than logging in so that their general lack of constructive input may be more clear. At this point I just have to take comfort in the fact that the hard work being put in by neutral editors is making a difference in the article, and that the array of hecklers has thus far been incapable of bringing any legitimate complaints, or finding citations that don't say the literal opposite of what they're complaining about. Ah, such is the fate of a neutral editors in the wild world of caste-cruft... MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Fawcett's Nâyars of Malabar (1901) as a source

I found a source we had not yet used, dating to 1901 (original publication): F. Fawcett (1 February 2004). Nâyars of Malabar. Asian Educational Services. pp. 198–. ISBN 9788120601710. Retrieved 16 June 2011.. I primarily used this source for the attire section, which should be relatively controversial barring any upsettness about the historical Nair custom of not wearing upper-body clothing. Just wanted to see if this source might be producvtive for other sections. Though of the British mentality, it does seem to be pretty serious reasearch presented in a rather academic manner, so a lot less of the colonial-adventurer wild tales and hearsay, and more personal observation and analysis. For your consideration. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am the most ignorant person around when it comes to attire. Should you have the misfortune ever to meet me, that would be immediately obvious ... across a very crowded room, in semi-darkness.

That caveat out of the way, as a general rule I am reluctant to use old sources unless there is no modern alternative. There is one exception in this article: Panikkar, writing in 1918. Panikkar seems to be useful for two reasons:

1. he touches on some things which are not dealt with by any more modern source that I, at least, have been able to find
2. he was himself a Nair, and a scholar also. This provides some balance in various controversial areas.

The likes of Logan, Thurston etc were definitely writing from a British Raj POV and were basically reciting, without much thought or sometimes even attribution, early writers. Fawcett, OTOH, does not seem too bad on a first, rather cursory 40 minute glance. Certainly for something such as dress, I can see no great issue unless someone knows of a better, modern source? I am currently looking into the entire upper cloth controversy situation but making slow progress. There may be content deriving from that which might trump Fawcett but certainly for now it seems perfectly reasonable to use him as a source.

Whether he can be used more generally could be a sticking point. I think that it may depend a lot on the devil in the detail. As a support for an existing, cited statement then there is no great issue. As a support to an uncited statement, well, a little care may be required.

My suggestion would be to "go for it" for now. This article attracts quite a lot of traffic and this talk page shows a lot of, erm, interest in what is said in the article. If anything should appear that is way off beam then, perhaps, on this occasion someone will pop up with a more appropriate source which we can cite. I live in hope. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

My current intent for Fawcett is not to use him for issues he does not know directly, or does not clearly source to a specific earlier reference. However, Fawcett has a substantial amount of material that appears based on relatively sound research, in terms of surveying populations, taking measurements, cataloging local customs, etc. Again, it does have somewhat of a retro component in that it's early anthropology, but since the man was literally whipping out a tape measure and recording the average measurements of limbs and craniums of various groups, there appears to be some genuine research going on. I will of course proceed with caution, but when there are cases where Fawcett has clearly noted "I was in X town in 1898, and most Nair men wore a long cloth wrapped around the loins and hanging near to the ground", that seems a pretty solid point of evidence. Will read further, and I think I can get enough detail to fork from this article and add some real serious input to Nair attire. He has a lot of very granular info on bathing/grooming customs that might vaguely fit into "attire"; it's far too specific for the main Nair article, but fascinatingly detailed recording of small aspects of Nair life, which can certainly go in a sub-article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

S. N. Sadasivan as a source

In response to some rather emotional statements above that S. N. Sadasivan is not a WP:Reliable source, firstly we note that nobody has yet brought forth any critical commentary discrediting his works. Secondly, there have been allegations that "nobody has ever heard of him", "he only sold 10 copies of his book", etc. However, a very brief perusal of GoogleBooks indicates that he has written several entire books, and apparently of a very dry and technical nature without the usual red-flags of POV authorship ("the glorious history of...", etc).

Further, I submit that one measure of an academics credibility is how widely they are cited. If you search "S. N. Sadavisan" (which I recommend some editors do) on GoogleBooks, you can note that aside from his own works, he is extensively cited in numerous other academic works. Again, many of these are of a very academic nature, particularly involving Indian district administration. These books which cite Sadasivan come from a variety of publishers, including Mittal, Concept, Gyan (who is, granted, hit or miss and publisher of the terrible Martial Races of Undivided India), but also some even less-assailable publishers such as the Indian Institute of Public Administration, the International Symposium of Asian Studies, the Indian Journal of Politics, the Encyclopedia Indica, University of London Centre of South Asian Studies, etc. . He is also listed in the International Bibliography of Social Sciences of the British Library. I'm seeing 92 results just for his name (it displays as over two thousand on the initial search, but going through them it's 92), and even disregarding hits for his own books and for "Books LLC" WP mirrors, that's still a considerable amount. I don't doubt he's even further cited in other works that just don't happen to be on gBooks yet.

In summary, arguments such as "nobody has ever heard of him" or "he's a discredited hack" don't appear to hold up under even five minutes of research. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is Exactly why no pros are taking wikipedia seriously! No indian knows this guy in reality, but seems to have some internet presence & some one is now saying he is a big short historian????!! & zeebede[mod] seems to be non indian & is being 'misguided' in a grant way . What happening here is almost like asking a pakistani general to write indian war history, out come is very predictable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.175.239 (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Odd, that. There are some "pros" who actually edit Wikipedia. This includes at least one admin who is a tenured professor in the US. Pros would be less likely to accept articles based on hearsay, misread sources etc, which is what the majority of contributors to this talk page are providing. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

So... the Indian Institute of Public Administration has "no indian"s in it? The dozens and dozens of PhD Indian academics who cite Sadasivan's work don't count as "Indians"? Having acutal published paper books from major publishers, and being cited in other formal published products of universities and academic publishers worldwide counts as "having an internet presence" as though he were a blogger or YouTube sensation? It's becoming abundantly clear that you and others have no actual real argument against Sadavasian other than "make the mean man stop saying things I don't like". This is called WP:I don't like it, so a good guideline to read. Like Sitush, the amusement factor of arguing with rants has lost its fun for the day, so like him I will no longer respond to any editor comments which do not follow WP procedure, such as personal attacks, unsourced statements, etc. I will be happy to converse with anyone who brings legitimate sources, has suggested input, specifically stated concerns backed up by reliable sources, etc., but we're getting nowhere by trying to maintain a civil conversation with people who apparently don't like Nair history as recorded by dozens of academics, and instead would like the article to be based on personal opinion. If your personal opinion conflicts with dozens of academics, both Indian and foreign, with reputable university educations, perhaps you need to reexamine the veracity of your personal opinions? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Prominent Nairs

Why are there 30 people in this template? Isn't that a bit excessive?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Issues regarding this template have been touched on already twice recently in this talk page, at Talk:Nair#Kindly consider these images and Talk:Nair#images. The discussion petered out on both occasions but you will find my general opinion in those sections. I have no idea where the line should be drawn regarding the number of people featured nor, to be honest, am I unduly concerned because I simply do not think the thing should be there in the first instance. Mine is a view lacking consensus, obviously, but if you are proposing to trim it then you'll need to come up with some sort of rationale. This may be difficult as I suspect that the existing content has no particular rationale in the first place. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not "Vashi", it is "Vaazhi"

Many times in this article the word "Vashi" is used which is in fact "Vaazhi" such as "Nadu Vaazhi" or "Desa Vaazhi". Kindly correct these. "Vaazhi" means "Ruler" in Malayalam. --The Tiger's Tail Caught By The Dog (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That is my doing, sorry. I have used the spelling that Panikkar (a Nair) uses in his book. As with many native terms, they do seem sometimes to have numerous transliterated spellings. "Sudra"/"Shudra", "Nair"/"Nayar", "Taravad"/"Tharavad", and so on. In these situations, the principle is that the article remains consistent in which ever spelling is adopted. I believe that it is consistent, so all is well.

The only exception to the rule about consistency is if a term appears in a quotation. In that situation, we use the spelling that the person quoted used. Hope this helps. - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You are so right, Tiger's tail, it is "Vazhi", not "Vashi". This is a perfect example for how a Wikipedia article can be filled with nonsenses by spoon-fed Non-Indian editors who doesn't have even slightest understanding about what they key in.

@Sitush: please see the Wikipedia article Naduvazhi. -- G O V I N D S H A R M A 05:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Now this just proves my point. Tigers Tail says that it is "Vaazhi" and Govind Sharma says that it is "Vazhi". Despite those two proferring different versions, Govind Sharma manages to claim that they are in agreement, which is odd. One letter "A" or two? "Z" or "S", etc.

I'm quite happy to change the spelling if it is wrong, but not when it is clear that there probably are, as I said in the first instance, numerous variants due to transliteration issues. If someone can make a convincing case then I am all ears (well eyes, but you know what I mean). A "convincing case" does not mean another Wikipedia article. As we know from the history of this one, they may not be reliable or even, dammit, correct. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks. Checking the Manual of Style, we see...

• "For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete. If a foreign term does not appear in the article's references, adopt the spelling most commonly used in other verifiable reliable sources (for example other English-language dictionaries and encyclopedias)"

So I think what we need here is to have a look over the sources used in these articles and see if there's any predominantly-used spelling. Other than that, if there's no academically accepted formal transliteration system, there is unlikely to be any one "correct" transliteration -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've already done that for existing article sources. It was a somewhat tedious job despite the fact that I have in fact pretty much read every source listed in the article anyway (where I have access to them). IIRC, I checked for "vashi", "vazhi" and both of those with "desa" and "nad" prepended to them. I didn't check for "vaazhi" or "vaashi", nor for "naad" (which I have just noticed appears in the article GovindSharma refers to). I was not aware of those spellings previously and so possibly they do not appear in the sources used at all. The permutations of this are clearly endless, so I just kept using the one which I had begun with, from the source which was being cited for the relevant statements. It seemed like a common sense solution to me. I vaguely recollect that Britannica offers something different but, hey, that is no more reliable than anything else used here.

If someone wants to go through to determine the preponderance of "vaashi"/"vaazhi" appearances in the sources then that is fine by me. I really do think that this is less a issue of concerns about spelling and more one of trying to find things wrong with the article. Certainly in the case of the latter contributor. It just does not seem to be constructive to me, given what I had already done, but YMMV. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's essentially what I was suggesting - we have a consistent spelling in the article for a term that appears to have multiple possible transliterations, so if someone wants to change that they would really need to determine which is the most common spelling used in the cited sources -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Both "Vazhi" and "Vaazhi" are correct. Malayalam has both short and long vowels and they are considered distinct. In English, the same letter is used for long and short vowels, and are pronounced based on context. (E.g.: Apple, Absurd) So, in Malayalam transliteration also, this habit is sometimes seen. For example, take the word "Malayalam". Here first, second and fourth "a" is short while the third "a" is pronounced long. Therefore, if someone writes "Malayaalam", it is not wrong. (It is more correct, in fact.) So, in short, "Vazhi" is correct, "Vaazhi" is more correct. Even alternative spellings "Vaazhy", "Wazhy", etc may be considered OK while "Vashi" is totally unacceptable. It symbolizes a totally different sound. The letter we are talking about is "ഴ". This sound exists only in southern Dravidian languages. Anyway, we have reliable sources for Malayalam transliteration.

First one is Google Script Converter. Anybody may copy + paste this word there: നാടുവാഴി (Naduvazhi). You will get this result.

If you can't read Malayalam, do this. Type "1. Naduvazhi 2. Naduvaazhi 3. Naduvashi" into the converter and select to Convert from English to Malayalam. You will get this result "1. നാടുവാഴി 2. നാടുവാഴി 3. നടുവാശി" You can see first and second spellings yielded same result "നാടുവാഴി" (this means both spellings are correct), while the third one transliterated as "നടുവാശി" which gives zero result if searched in Google (that means there is no such word) while the former gives around 1,680 search results.

In google, if an alternative spelling is more common, Google asks, Did you mean: xxxxxx . So see this link to determine which spelling is more common.

Another useful link is the definition of this word in Online Malayalam English Dictionary. Search for both "Naduvazhi" and "Naduvashi" there and see what happens.

Again, if you can read Malayalam, go here. Type "zha" and "sha" there and see what results you are getting. Only "zha" yields our letter "ഴ" while "sha" gives a totally different letter "ഷ".

If you need more proof, check how words containing "ഴ" is transliterated popularly.

• Popular Malayalam movie "Naaduvazhikal (1989)" on The Internet Movie Database].

• ആലപ്പുഴ (Alappuzha), a district in Kerala.

I know many here are after Google Books. So two more links.

• Naduvashi - Google Books Search

• Naduvazhi - Google Books Search

Your response please. --The Tiger's Tail Caught By The Dog (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not reading all of that. I certainly do not care what the hopelessly unreliable GTranslate says, and have next to no interest in linguistics. I really couldn't care less how it is spelled and I have said this before. All I did was explain why I had used the spelling which I had used. Spell it however you want, as far as I am concerned, but be consistent. And do not change it using search-and-replace because that may affect some quotes. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have done it for you. I see that you are fairly new here (unless you have previously used an IP), so it is probably quicker for me to do it. Everybody happy now? - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 Thanks for the consideration. I can't edit this page as it is protected. It will be great if the first occurrence of "Nadu Vazhi" links to the article with same name. --The Tiger's Tail Caught By The Dog (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I intended to do that. Also for desavazhi if there is a separate article. Having said which, Naduvazhi is a mess. Another one to add to my list ... - Sitush (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Form subcats of Category:Nair

The cat "Nair" is getting a bit crowded. Are there some ways we could organise some of the content into subcats, like "Nair sub-castes", "Nair titles", "Nair people" (individuals), etc? I've put a couple of articles into Category:History of the Nair, but wanted to tread carefully in trying to better-subcategories the other articles. Thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm clueless about cats. Hopefully someone else is clueful! - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Religion

I have nearly finished wading through Panikkar and am concerned about another source currently used for the first paragraph of Nair#Religion. The source is said to be Roy (Ral Bahadur), Sarat Chandra (1945). Man in India. A.K. Bose. p. 56. http://books.google.com/books?id=568ZAAAAMAAJ. Retrieved 2011-06-03.

I can see this only in snippet view and have no idea which volume of the journal is being referred to (there appear to be three bound together at GBooks, and far too many hits for "naga" and similar terms). My primary concern is the tense used in the paragraph. As I understand things, tharavads are pretty much not inhabited as Nair communal buildings nowadays, which suggests that we should probably be using the past tense or some form of neutral wording.

The cited article is from 1945, which to the best of my knowledge was right at the end of the tharavad institution in much (if not all) of the region. Can anyone pin down a copy of the source? I could go to WP:RX but it is a bit of a wild goose chase if I cannot name the volume or issue number. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Some outstanding queries re: sources

I have trawled through the talk page for unresolved sourcing queries. I've probably missed some, but can anyone assist with the following, please:

• Nair Brigare/Regiment
• Kalari/Kaniyar
• State Gazetteer #1
• State Gazetteer #2

There are also one or two queries from the last few days.

I enjoyed this. Happy days! - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Desa Vazhis were feudal lords and Kalari Panikkars were trainers in Kalari. Desa Vazhi was called by others as "Thambran" (Lord) while Kalari Panikkars were called as "Gurukkal" (Teacher). You can compare former to a Managing Director and latter to a Professor. -- Che^KON 11:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Full version of the "dog" legend

"Legendarily, as narrated in the Brahmin work Kerala-jatyachara-nirnayam, the term was said to have been bestowed upon three Naga girls by a Brahmin after an image of a dog ('nai') they created was brought to life and became the escort of Ayyappa."

This sentence in the section Etymology has generated a lot of confusion and dispute, being a partial reproduction of original legend. The legend DOES NOT compare Nairs with dog, but says they gave refuge to a holy dog. I think it is better to give a full picture by directly quoting the entire legend. So, I have changed the sentence into this:

"Legendarily, as narrated in the Brahmin work Kerala-jatyachara-nirnayam, "some Naga girls had taken three images of dog from the mount Meru to the heaven where to animate them they collected ambrosia in a silver platter and keeping the icons inside, covered it with a platter of gold. One of the figures then jumped into the water and second into the jungle. The remaining third was offered to Vishnu who in turn had given it to Ayyappa. The dog thence forward became the escort of Ayyappa but it was given refuge only by the Sudras who with the help of it hunted wild animals to provide more facilities to the Brahmin in his forest retreat. Pleased at the action of the Sudras, the Brahmin conferred on them the title Nayar."

Hope this will put an end to the edit-wars and chaos in this article. --Che^KON 11:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No. It is way too long. There was no problem with the earlier version. I am reverting. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have also removed your recently added image. Despite your edit summary, there was no consensus at all for this picture, which is incredibly poor quality & distorted. - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is so, I would like to know why this image of Ettuveetil Pillamar is not removed from the article despite its bad quality? In which way this image is better than the image you just removed?

File:Ettuveedan.jpg

Your problem, as I told already, is that you want to remain the sole contributor. I am putting another image which is comparatively of good quality. I am very much interested to see whether you are going to come up with any silly arguments to remove this as well. Also, if you do not have any explanation for keeping the above image of Ettuveetil, I can see it being removed as well. Nowhere in this article, Ettuveetil Pillamar are mentioned. --Che^KON 13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Much better, thanks. As for Ettuveedan, I know nothing about that other than it has been in and out of this article umpteen times. The same applies to the other image which you have just removed. I have no views on them. My problem with your previous image was that it was massively distorted & better images must surely be available (as you have now proven). My other problem was that in your edit summary you claimed a consensus that simply did not exist.

I have not added any images to this article; I have not contributed to sections such as Attire, Religion and Cuisine; much of the content in Sambandam and Tharavad etc is not mine; the Etymology section has merely been tweaked by me; the Military section has little input from me. I could go on. How the hell am I owning this article?

A sentence that contradicts its citation

"..the term was said to have been bestowed upon three Naga girls by a Brahmin after an image of a dog ('nai') they created was brought to life.."

This sentence contradicts its citation. The citation says:

Some Naga girls had taken three images of dog from the mount Meru to the heaven where to animate them they collected ambrosia in a silver platter and keeping the icons inside, covered it with a platter of gold. One of the figures then jumped into the water and second into the jungle. The remaining third was offered to Vishnu who in turn had given it to Ayyappa. The dog thence forward became the escort of Ayyappa but it was given refuge only by the Sudras who with the help of it hunted wild animals to provide more facilities to the Brahmin in his forest retreat. Pleased at the action of the Sudras, the Brahmin conferred on them the title Nayar.

• Here, as per the reference, the title was given not to Naga girls, but to Sudras, for their help in jungle.

• The reference does not say the the image was "created" by Naga girls. It just says they took the images from mount Meru to the heaven. --Che^KON 13:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering why sitush, Matthew, Raj, etc. have nothing to say about this. I am planning to replace the above statement in etymology with this:

"..the title was bestowed upon Sudra hunters by a Brahmin whom they provided facilities in Jungle with the help of a dog which was, according to the legend, the escort of Ayyappa"

Naga girls and "image brought to life" incident are irrelevant and can be omitted. Looking forward for comments. Silence will be counted as consent for the change. --Che^KON 00:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I am still trying to work it out. There is no rush. - Sitush (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, this particular detail was the subject of a recent discussion at WP:ANI, so a fair few people cast their eyes over it. That was why it was amended from what it originally said. Changing it would be going quite a way beyond the opinions of those of us who participate regularly on this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to a review of the citation so as to get some consensus on explicitly what it says, but let's not go rushing with any "no answer in five minutes means consent." The tweaking of the phrasing got pretty lost in the whole kerfuffle about how "offensive" it was (and I do note that the sentence is no less "offensive" in the re-reading, so it's not like folks were ticked off my a mis-reading, just by the sentence, period). It was phrased differently earlier, so I'm open to critique that the details are mis-ordered. But let's get a couple folks on it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Matthew, there is no question of "offensive" or "equally offensive". It is a matter of how far we are sincere to our source. As far as Wikipedia is not censored, we can use a sentence here even if it is termed "offensive" by some. The only criteria is that it should go with the reference, not against it. I did not ask anybody to answer within 5 minutes. This thread remained unanswered since Sunday and I can see you people are commenting in other threads. This is enough to suspect one that you are trying to ignore it deliberately, as you have nothing to say for supporting your stand. @Sitush, as far as I can see, even though it was placed on WP:ANI noticeboard, the discussion concluded that it is just a content dispute and no ANI required. Even such an ANI notification was the result of your misleading interpretation of Sadasivan's words. I myself tried to replace it with a direct quote from Sadasivan's book, but you immediately reverted it saying it is too long and you said there is no problem with your sentence. So I was forced to indicate that there IS problem in that sentence. Kindly note that nobody, even a group of administrators have the right to protect a sentence which apparently contradicts its source. Nobody asked you to add this misinterpreted version of etymology. You added it on your own discretion and when questioned you say: "I'm working on it". The problem here is, you are not ready to improve the sentence yourself nor you won't allow others to do so. This is what called Owning. --Che^KON 06:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

1. I didn't add it. 2. It is now very clear that you are socking. 3. My reasons for removing the full quote was undue weight - an already contentious statement was expanded to the point where it would overwhelm what is a short section. 4. You were not forced to do anything. What you do here is of your own volition and you have to take responsibility for your own actions.

I am thinking about it. I have been thinking about it on and off for a few days. Some things take time. Expanding the section on Religion is also taking time. Rajkris has spent weeks thinking about something on another topic. I have not hurried Rajkris and I would appreciate this not being hurried either. Getting my head round what Sadasivan is saying is, frankly, hard work. Maybe it is easy for people who (perhaps) have been brought up with these complex myths but I struggle to get my head round the imagery just as much as I struggled with Milton's imagery at school. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Who is the Brahmin referred to in the quote? Ayyappa or Vishnu or some other being? - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I am still bewildered regarding how to phrase this but, yes, I think Chekon is correct that the info has become mangled. Somehow we need to get a sentence or two (max.) that explains Naga girls, animation of image of dog, escort and Sudras. And the word "nai", of course. I am sure that it can be done :) - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Chekon vs Rajkris - images

I have just seen this revert. It relates to an image and, as I have said here several times, images are not really my thing. If the image is reasonable in quality etc then the background to it is, well, not something that I can usually be bothered checking. I just WP:AGF.

Chekon replaced the Ettuveedan image (which I think has been removed/restored on several occasions in the past) using a rationale they had previously expressed here. Rajkris has reverted that. Bearing in mind that I really do not care that much (sorry), I am in a quandary here. Using AGF, it would seem that Chekon's image was a valid one. Rajkris described it as "pov pushing" in his revert. Now, I have a declared doubt regarding Chekon, expressed on their talk page, and I am aware that others have doubts, including someone who has emailed me off-wiki. However, I cannot for the life of me understand why this is POV pushing. Can someone explain, please.

I accept that there was no consensus, which was in Rajkris's rationale. Not being that interested in images, I am unsure regarding how much it matters, except in so far as this particular image has come and gone several times, which is odd.

I agree with Chekon that the person in the image he removed is not noted in the article, but that is not quite the same as saying that the image is invalid. I have no idea who the person was but would hope that someone can now elaborate on that & maybe enable the subject to be included either in this article or as a link to another. As far as the replacement goes, well, my only concern is whether or not it meets WP image guidelines, specifically regarding copyright and licensing. Indian copyright laws and, more particularly, the way that people from that country misunderstand them is the stuff of legend here on en-Wiki. The situation is far more complex than many of those who contribute the images believe it to be. I usually refer things to Moonriddengirl when in doubt but she has even less time than usual since she recently took up a 6 month work contract with WMF.

Just returning back to the point I made regarding Chekon. This is an advance notification that I have compiled a list of the various contributors to this talk page, including IPs. There have been several suggestions that there could be numerous sockpuppets involved in this palaver. I do not think that there is much doubt at all that there have been some meatpuppets. I am quite prepared to throw the lot at a formal investigation if I feel (or several others feel) that this is persisting. And, for the record, although Rajkris and I have had our disagreements here and elsewhere, I do not think that user is one of them, I have only instigated a few SPIs in my time because I like to be sure in my own mind. All those which I have instigated in the past have been proven and, believe me, I am very tempted to trust my instincts/research etc again. So, I suggest that if there are any socks about then they stick to just the one account from now on. - Sitush (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I will tell you my reason tomorrow morning. Good night.Rajkris (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No probs. I have just realised that the POV part probably relates to the Panikkar quote that I introduced. I am intending to expand on it but things are going a little haywire here. However, even as it stands it is a valid quote and not out of place. The real problem is the uncited stuff that already exists in the section on Religion of which it forms a part. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to readd the images removed by Shekon. He has removed some good images and added degrading ones. I did not want to remove Panikar quotes.Rajkris (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How come a wall-painting in a palace in Kerala and a real photo from a history book degrading? This is not a question of good images. What we need is relevant images. I cannot understand how two images can be POV pushing. The images I removed are done so for the following reasons.

The first image of Ettuveedan is removed for two reasons. One is Ettuveedans are not mentioned anywhere in the article. Second is, the image is of really poor quality. I have already discussed these issues in this talk page before removing the image. I don't know much about the quality criteria of images here. But one image I previously added was removed by sitush because of its poor quality. As he is more experienced than me in Wikipedia, I guess there exist some quality concern for images used here. Personally, I also feel that adding good and relevant images will increase the overall quality of the article. If someone can add a paragraph about Ettuveedans, then I have no objection in using this image there. (If the quality criteria allows). Anyway this image has zero significance in section "European Period" as Ettuveedans are in no way related with the Europeans. So, I replaced it with a relevant one. The image I added is a wall-painting in Kayamkulam palace. Both Nair soldiers and European army are depicted in it. The image is of good quality and quite relevant in this section. If the quality standards will yield a little, there is another painting, that can be added to this article. It depicts Nair army and was drawn by some Europeans.

The second image I replaced was a painting of a Thamburatty who was the daughter of a Varma king. Again this is done for two reasons, one is there is a debate on whether Varmas are Nairs. Many people have an opinion that Varmas are not Nairs, but are Kshatriyas. Even if they are Nairs, I think this painting does not show the attire of a typical Nair common woman, as it shows a Thamburatty, (i.e, a Queen). This image was replaced by a photo (B&W, yet good quality) taken from an authentic history book written by a Western author. It was clearly captioned "Nayar females" and give a realistic picture of the usual attire of typical Nair women of that age. BTW, I am still waiting for comments from everybody on the thread above. --Che^KON 08:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ettuveedans are Nairs. Varma are upper castes Nairs. Concerning Nair women image there is no consensus.Rajkris (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am confused now, since neither of those groups are mentioned in the article. Where do they fit in? I presume that they are within one of the subgroups. We'll need some sort of cite for it, especially since Chekon says that there is a debate about it. FWIW, the B&W photo seemed perfectly ok to me. Assuming that we can clear up the Ettuveedan/Varma issue, is there not room for both sets of images? Just looking for a compromise here. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair caste is comparable to Rajput caste in north. Historically only the royal, ruling lineage among them were considered as Kshatriyas by the local Brahmins. The others as members of the ruling caste and as lords, military officers and warriors only claimed the rank of Kshatriyas.I will discuss about this in detail later in Kshatriya wiki page. We have provided refs concerning the Nair origin of Kerala ruling lineage.Rajkris (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

here are some refs: [1] "The royal matrilineage of Calicut, (...) and Cochin, for instance, although of Nayar origin,... " page 38Rajkris (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

[2] "... and only the ruling lineages among them (Nayar) were known by the term Kshatriya" page 455 Rajkris (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring for now the ongoing Kshatriya issue, neither of those sources mention Varma or Ettuveedan. I am not sure that they advance things much at all with regard to the worthiness of the images. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ettuveedan are nairs; Varma is a name used by Hindu Kings, especially Kerala rulers who have Nair origins, links.Rajkris (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily setting aside the larger issues; I'm not seeing how a painted portrait of one noblewoman is superior to a clear b&w photo of Nair women of the same era as the writer. Rajkris, do you have a particular concern about the "two Nair women" image, or is it more that you really like having the noblewoman portrait in the page in general, but would be okay with it being used to illustrate a different section? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sitush is also not in favour of adding the Nair women image...Rajkris (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not? News to me, sorry. "FWIW, the B&W photo seemed perfectly ok to me." is what I said on 21 June @ 20:28. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For NOPV, I don't mind adding the Nair women image.Rajkris (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Mahaprabha Thampuratti of Mavelikkara, daughter of Raja Ravi Varma

Cool, I'll go change that then. I'm adding the aristocrat pic to this page for reference so that we can easily find its image title if we decide there's an appopriate place to put it. It's a cool pic, it just appears we're still having some discussion as to which families fall under which subsets, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No need to remove the Nair aristocrat pic... Concerning the Nair origins of Kerala Royal houses, I have provided refs. Those who assert that Kerala rulers are not Nair, please provide refs.Rajkris (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Image in or out aside, your references do not work. I explained this and then you replied with a circular reference + a statement without support. I think that this may be why MV said above "we're still having some discussion as to which families fall under which subsets etc". - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

you mean that this ref is wrong or not enough ?:[3] "The royal matrilineage of Calicut, (...) and Cochin, for instance, although of Nayar origin,... " page 38Rajkris (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I explained why; you came up with the circular reference. Am I missing something here? - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I really don't understand what do you mean by circular reference... This ref tells that Kerala royal lineages have Nair origin, can you please tell me clearly what is wrong here ? Rajkris (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am misreading things, it says that some royal families had Nair origin. And I cannot make the connection between the families mentioned and the ones depicted in the pictures. The "circular reference" is where you link to another Wikipedia article (or a mirror of Wikipedia etc) to "prove" a point: you cannot do this because, as you are well aware, a lot of WP articles are not particularly reliable! WP:CIRCULAR explains. Like I say, I could be misreading something here - it has been a long day. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, clear, thanks for your explanations. I will give you my reply tonight or tomorrow.Rajkris (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Marriage vs sex

KondottySultan has twice recently added a bunch of material from old sources, including what seem to be pretty long quotes, on the basis that (per his last edit summary) "There exist different opinions on whether sambandham was a legitimate marriage or just a sexual relationship. Present passage does not acknowledge this fact. Trying to attest the issue."

I have twice reverted this. It is my opinion that the article already covers the point, examples being:

• There is much debate about whether the traditional Nair rituals fitted the traditional definition of marriage and which of thalikettu kalyanam or sambandham could lay claim to it. Thomas Nossiter has commented that the system "was so loosely arranged as to raise doubts as to whether 'marriage' existed at all.

• Sexual morality was lax, especially outside the higher ranks, and both relationship break-ups and realignments were common; the thali kalyanam legitimised the marital status of the woman in the eyes of her faith prior to her becoming involved in the amoral activities that were common practice

• Fuller argues that there is overwhelming evidence that Nair women had more than one sambandham partner at the same time, that "Both men and women could have several partners at once, and either party was free to break the relationship, for any reason or for none, whenever they wished.

• Nancy Levine and Walter Sangree write that while Nair women were maritally involved with a number of men, the men were also married to more than one woman. The women and their husbands did not live together and their relationship had no meaning other than sexual liaison and providing legitimacy to the children.

We do not need to ram this down anyone's throat. Views, please. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

nair is not nagar

it is difficult to believe that the word nayar have originated from nagar.because nagar is neither a Aryan community nor a Dravidian community.its a community in nagaland and they have nor any similarities in culture or physical appearance to nairs in kerala.as told in the article 'kavu' is not known as 'sarpa kavu'.most of the are maid with the intention of environmental purposes.as shown in a picture in this article there were not sculptures of snakes in every 'kavu' .most of them were with out it.naturuly snakes made these 'kavu's a compact shelter. so in the course of time people who made these 'kavu' came to worship snakes.like the sea became the goddess of people who lives by sea and hill became the god of the people who lives in hills.and can not be traced back to a 1000 or 800 years.swathy,swetha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swathy,swetha (talk • contribs) 03:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Swathy and Swetha, the Nair article has been changed by a group of editors with dubious intent from last month onwards, so in my opinion, the current version is not even 10% accurate. Please see the original version of the article (decide yourself which version is more accurate), or go through the Nair article in Metapedia. Thanks. Shannon1488 (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

NAIR THE REAL KSHATHRIAS

we are two students seriously learning on this subject.these informations are really surprising.most of the informations included in this article are able to mislead the readers.all these people who wrote above had not conducted a good study.please consider these informations too. sure,a few people have recruited to nair community from cammalas(carpenters and smiths) in the medieval period.all the rest are belonging to pure kshatria communities.there more aggressive character and their superiority in art of ware fare indicates there relation to Aryans.it is difficult to believe that the images included in this article are of pure nairs.kalari payat is realy a nair originated art especially souther kalari.later ezhavas also adopted it before 3 or 4 centuries. swathy,swetha

Greetings, you have provided no citations to academic works to back up your assertions. The current statements in the article are almost entirely footnoted to professional academic works, so if you have a differing concept that you want to see expressed, first and foremost you have to bring forward some citations that back up your statements. Do please also note that a large number of Indian castes claim Kshatriya status despite being labeled as Shudra in academic works, so it is not at all unexpected that you raise this concern. But if you are "seriously learning" this subject, you should be well-aware of how common, and generally unsubstantiated, claims to Kshatriya status tend to be. If you have academic works attesting to this "pure Kshatriya" status, or any of your other assertions, please share them here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)