Talk:Nair

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)

ATTENTION PLEASE Many sections of the article are surprisingly wrong. Ofcourse there are few backward sections in Nair community (for example veluthedathu nair). But they never use the surname Nair. Their main duty was hair cutting (only for nairs). They marry within their community only.

Pork is not at all a common food in Kerala (It is not available). I saw one mention with a reference from Japan university. I am PhD holder. All the reported information may not be true. You are requested to remove it.

They are many famous warriors from the community such as Velu Thampi Dalawa, Paliathu Achan Menon, Ettuveettil Pillai etc and many in the list. Historically, Nairs were considred next to Brahmins. Of course Brahmins were keen in making there own stories.

Only Nairs and Brahmins were allowed to enter temples, even just before the independence. For example ezhavas were not allowded to enter the temples. This itself shows the actual social status of the community.

Also, it is mentioned that only pillai, kurup and menon come under nairs. Please note that many other surbnames such as unnithan, valiyathan, thampi, nambiar, kaimal, panicker etc are also nairs.

Those sections in between Nairs and Brahmins such as ambalavasi are originally derived from either of these two.

Nairs are proud and kind people. The moderator is requested to remove all the statement that directly or indirectly hurt the feelings of the community. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viswan7575 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply

• Backward sections in Nair community never use the surname Nair.

You are wrong. See this:

"None of the lowest untouchable communities eats from the Veluthedan (washerman of the Sudras) and Vilakkithala (barber of the Sudras) although they both may add the suffix Nayar to their names."[[1]]

• Pork is not available in Kerala.

Who told you? See this:

"Pork and beef are sold and eaten in Goa and Kerala, supported by a high level of religious tolerance."[[2]]

• They are many famous warriors from the community such as Velu Thampi Dalawa, Paliathu Achan Menon, Ettuveettil Pillai, etc.

Dalawas were prime ministers of Travancore and Paliyath Achans were prime ministers of Cochin. Neither Velu Thampi Dalawa nor Paliathu Achan Govindan Menon were warriors. Both were prime ministers who rebelled against British. Ettuveettil Pillais were feudal lords who rebelled against the Travancore Kshatriya kings. They were the "terrorists" of that time.

• Nairs were considred next to Brahmins.

No, It was Kshatriyas (Varma, Rajah, Thirumulpad) who were considered so.

• Nairs and Brahmins were allowed to enter temples.

Nairs, even today, are not allowed to enter the most sacred areas in a Temple, for example, they are not allowed to enter "Thidappally". Also, in temples owned by Goud Saraswat Brahmins, Nairs are not allowed to enter beyond courtyard.

• Nairs are proud and kind people.

They were of course proud people, but not kind.

"A Nair was expected instantly to cut down a Tiar (cultivator), or Mucua (fisherman), who presumed to defile him by touching his person ; and a similar fate awaited a Foliar, or Pariar, who did not turn out of his road as a Nair passed."[[3]]

"Nayars retaliated by beating the disrespectful Iravas and sometimes stripping their women to the waist."[[4]]

"In the 1820s there was an increasing number of incidents in markets and other public places, when Nadar women wearing the Nair breast cloth were attacked, stripped, and beaten; chapels and schools were also burned."[[5]]

Selective citation = misinformation

The article is getting murkier day by day. Why the 3 editors are hell bent on certain authors and completely ignoring the findings of neutral researchers and academicians..why only gough and sadasivan while some of the most reliable sources are ignored.

>> Why the etymology section is added with the cooked up story which the author (Sadasivan) himself says as absurd. This is leading to confusion and manipulation of original citation.

>> Not even a single citation for the long second paragraph which elaborates on the family structure and polyandry. Where did you get this info from..did your neighbor tell you..

>> Where is the citation for Nair-Ezhava common origin rather than just saying pullapilly (?). Remember, quoting any dick and harry doesn’t make the page authentic.

>> The article looks very inadequate with lack of proper sections on origin of the caste and their ethnicity. Certainly it is of importance and interest as most of the non-keralites are eager to know why Nairs are ethnically different from other folks of this area.

>> The article is very generic and lacks focus, it is more like a social history of Kerala, deviating from the core subject. The page is too long and boring to read.

>> Many things specified here are common to the entire populace of Kerala like super natural belief etc. which doesn’t make any sense of being added here.

It is surprising that while the editors are interested in Sadasivan (the ultimate bigot ever) and some missionaries of medieval age, they completely ignore the findings of modern authors who spent years researching on this subject like Robin Jeffrey. The article needs a complete revamp by neutral editors. Otherwise this would go to dustbin as a slanderous article, posing a huge threat to the authenticity of wiki articles.

To respond to your points in the order you made them:

• it is cited. I agree with you that Sadasivan says it is absurd. I struggle to understand how you can approve of Sadasivan's opinion here and yet later call him "the ultimate bigot ever". Sounds like someone who is picking and choosing their sources to me.
• as a general rule leads for articles do not have citations. They are summaries of the article content and the cites can be found in the body.
• there is a cite for the Pullapilly point. As of right now it is #32.
• got any info on the ethnicity? Reliably sourced info, that is.
• if you read this talk page then you would understand that the article will probably be split when things have settled down a little.
• we are not dealing with the entire populace of Kerala but with Nair. If the rest of Kerala did the same then fair enough, but it is still relevant to an article on the Nair caste.
• I have a Jeffrey work waiting to be used here. It is about the upper cloth controversy. Want me to enter that info? - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment Why the etymology section is added with the cooked up story which the author (Sadasivan) himself says as absurd. - Part of that is that every etymology theory for the Nair is "cooked up". We have three theories in that section, several of which are consiered dubious by one or more historians. Given that they're all dubious, having a variety of legendary etymologies seems the most enlightening way to do it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have the answer to your arguments here..but no point in putting forward since your intentions are very clear. But understand that by vandalizing an article, nothing is that you are going to gain..nor nothing is going to change..the real victim is wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.67.201 (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 116.68.83.73, 30 June 2011

Kris gopalakrishnan belongs to tamil bhramin family.

116.68.83.73 (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

kris gopalakrishnan belongs to ezhava chera kings dynasty from srilanka.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.39.107 (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC) No. Kris Gopalakrishnan belongs to Nair-Rajput Kshatriya dynasty of Nagavanshi origin and is the president of NSS Karayogam in USA. - KoyilandySultan (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Does any of the above have any relevance to the article? If not then can we please let it drop. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A question of style: Nair or Nairs

I have no particular opinion regarding this but I have noticed others using different methods. So, should the plural of Nair be Nairs or Nair? Example: should it be:

• the Nair historically lived in the area now known as Kerala; or
• the Nairs historically lived in the area now known as Kerala; or

I am aware that this could often be avoided by saying, for example, "the Nair community historically lived in the area now known as Kerala", but that starts to get a little long-winded. We do need to standardise, not just here but on practically all caste articles, but I am unsure which way to jump. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Nair" is singular &"Nairs" is plural. Also it is better to rename the article to "Nairs" like the article "Normans". - KoyilandySultan (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the phrase "the Nair", and I believe that's use decently commonly in academic literature. My general (vague) impression is that for community-terms which work equally well in English with/without an "s", the sans "s" is preferable. Yes, we have "Celts" and "Normans", partially because those are older words where the "s" is fixed to the group name in modern English, but note that a lot of Indian castes work fine describing the group without the "s": Yadav, Rajput, Reddy, etc. I've seen similar issues for Pasthun tribes, which are uniformly singular: Achakzai, Tahir Khel. Given that the shortest/simplest correct name is best, I say stick with "Nair". MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nairs are known for What..?!!

>>Nairs are known for their large family units called tharavads and historical practice of an unusual marriage system<< This sentence insults Nairs. Nairs are not known FOR that. Historically Nairs were known for their brevity they shown in military services. In modern era, Nairs are known for their excellence in many fields such as art, literature, politics, academics, science, media, etc. Yet this article starts by saying "Nairs are known for their large families and unusual marriages". This is of course a derogatory notation. KoyilandySultan (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I presume that by "brevity" you meant "bravery"? To clarify the overall position, the article does not suggest that the community was known only for the tharavads and marriage arrangements. It does go on to explain a lot more and that those two issues are for which anthropologists in particular know them. I should warn you now that I am already considering a sockpuppet investigation & I am unlikely to be the only person to have spotted a potential breach of WP:SOCK. Be careful. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor English ability, but it doesn't prevent me from indicating injustice shown towards a particular caste. Do you have any reason to keep this sentence in the beginning of this article? The world contains many people other than some western anthropologists. Then how can you say the Nairs are "known" for this only? Btw, I don't understand your warning. Can you tell me what is a socket puppet investigation? I think you are trying to threaten those people questioning you by exploiting their unfamiliarity with wikipedia. -KoyilandySultan (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a reason: the lead is a summary of the article. And the sections on marriage etc are a major part of the article, so need to be in the lead. It does not say that they are only known for these things. Check the bluelinked bits for an explanation of socks etc. We have had people here before who have pretended not to understand but were in fact regular users masquerading under another name. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ezhava Nair Common Origin

This article puts forward a common origin theory for Ezhavas and Nairs. This is highly slanderous. Nairs do not have any connection to Ezhavas. There is no any references to support this statement. The citation given does not say anything about this, so it is a fake reference. Therefore such a defamatory notation should be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.137.233.94 (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It is in the cite. You must have misread it. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, can you quote it? --The Tiger's Tail Caught By The Dog (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why I bother replying to a blocked user but, for clarity: "There are innumerable similarities between the religious and communal customs of these communities which indicate a common heritage. The similarities between the two most numerous of these communities, the Izhavas and the Nairs, are particularly pertinent here ... cannot be explained by anything other than common parentage." Pp. 26-27, although you really should read the entire section for context. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

the whole nair artcile vandalised!

the whole page has been laid to waste!!!!!..... quoting the bigoted sadasivan , terming nairs as dogs!.....referring to nairs as ' descended from hill tribes"( then how come these 'hill tribe descendants" share haplotypes with western european populations?...plus deleting the nair connection with bunts.... it has been well documented by stuart in manual of madras presidency, gururaja bhatt- in his book on south canara,saletore- in history of tuluva.....i accept that mention about polyandry and sambandham has to be made, but it seems to predominate the main page!.....at this rate no one is going to beleive wikipedia material ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivwiki (talk • contribs) 17:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am astonished. You have never yet, in all your time here as a registered user, actually contributed to an article but have instead confined yourself to criticism. Why not try to be constructive for a change? - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

i dont know who you are sitush... nor do i care!.... is seems none of the earlier users on this talk page have had the courage to take you on!!....i am a nair and proud of my community. your slanderous one sided comments have left a lot be desired.....why did you 1) delete the relationship with the bunts?... there is a creditable reference for it. as i have mentioned earlier. 2) the scythian origin of the nairs has been deleted ...it is as creditable as sadasivans theories on our origin.there are references for that too in " the malabar quarterly review. 1902 and padmanabha menon;s magnum opus- history of kerala, the gentleman's magazine of the 19th century. 3) the tissue antigen's journal 2006 which talks about the western european haplotypes is a very creditable reference! i never had the time for editing this article partly due to my profession as a cardiologist, which leaves me confined to using the talk page to air my views....perhaps i will have to find the time... perhaps i may not as you have blocked all your opponents and wish to have full control over the nair main page without respecting anyone else's views!Vivwiki (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you provide full citations and page numbers then I'll do the rest, assuming that the sources you provide are reliable. So, now you can be constructive. Vague cites such as you have provided will not do; it would be like saying "someone says the human body includes an organ called the heart, but I am not sure who said it or where the organ is".

BTW, I have blockled nobody. And, please, do not get on your high horse about your occupation: how do you know, for example, that I am not myself FRCS? - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

looks i have i got you by the short and curly!!!!!!... if you are indeed FRCS. then you are probably out of work ....sorry mate, if i hurt your sensibilities.....i will provide the page numbers for menon's history of kerala , and the tissue antigens journal ( the tissue antigens reference will have to wait, coz the journal copy i possess IS in my home in another town, but rest assured i will provide it to you!....dont block me in the meantime !.... g' nite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivwiki (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Some one has already spilled the beans on what happened here. See <link removed> Cinnamon123 (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That's hilarious! I need to save it for my souvenir collection! Does it not strike you as odd that every single outside admin who's been asked to look at this page, from the ANI and POV noticeboards (as well as WikiProject India) on several occasions, has wholeheartedly supported the work that Sitush has done (which I and others have assisted with)? You would think that if Sitush were doing anything untoward, there would be at least one admin or serious editor who would say "wait, this article seems to be biased and inaccurate!" Even clearer, Sitush and I have repeatedly encouraged complainants to avail themselves of Wikipedia adjudication, which the vast majority of them ignored, preferring instead to continue whining here. I believe this is because even the complainants realise that what we are applying is neutral content based on reliable sources, and simply unassailable from a Wikipedia policy standpoint.

It appears one of these complainants, again unable to convince a single uninvolved Wikipedian that the current version of the article is worse than it was before, has concocted a ridiculous story and put it up on some "say anything" blog. So in summary, the comprehensive footnoting we have applied from a vast array of academic sources is "lies and slander" in your eyes, and fanciful accusations of Wikipedia hired-guns manipulating the system is "spilling the beans". By all means, I urge you, like all the rest, to take your concerns to WP:ANI or similar adjudication systems which deal with conflicts like this every day, and I can guarantee you none of them will find your accusations even remotely credible. My pattern of editing over three years now pretty clearly indicates I'm a devoted hobby researcher, and have been applying rigourous standards of sourcing, quality control, and neutrality. Thanks for the laugh though! MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have mentioned it at ANI, just in case. What is the weather like in Liverpool today? - Sitush (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Cinnamon123 & Sujith.Kumaar now indef blocked. First as a sock of Shannon1488 (also now indef blocked) and latter for disruption. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Kerala Studies

Can anyone see all of the relevant article in this? It is currently cited at note 106 but I would like to read it, if possible. I'm not too happy about using snippet view, which is all I can get here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: unconstructive contribution removed. Editors who misuse this talkpage for soapboxing, attacks or ad personam arguments will be blocked without further warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The dog issue, again

The recent necessity to aggressively archive has had an unfortunate consequence. Although socking, Chekon did raise a valid point at what is now Talk:Nair/Archive 17#Full version of the .22dog.22 legend. I have looked over the source time and again but I find myself still unable to get my head round what is being said. Nonetheless, I do think that Chekon was fundamentally correct in pointing out that it does not say what the article presently shows. Any thoughts on this? Better still. any suggestions regarding a rewording?

The above is written with one proviso: the story stays in the article, because previous discussions have shown that Sadasivan was not the only WP:RS person to have referred to it. The issue here relates to what the story actually is, given that I am pretty sure it is not what the article currently suggests. I may be wrong about that, too! - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am still trying to work it out. There is no rush. -KondottySultan (talk) 19:33, 16 July 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. -KondottySultan (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You are teaching someone to suck eggs here. I am the person who amended it and was one of those who saw it through ANI. It is still almost certainly incorrect, even though I did not realise this at the time. And if I did not realise it, bearing in mind that I have a certain familiarity with the "oddities" (sorry) of Indian-English, then those who commented but were not involved in the subject matter would probably have even less chance. It needs rephrasing. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The above comments I posted in this thread are your responses when this issue was raised once. Now what? Just go ahead, shut up their mouth who raise issues, intimidate them enumerating WP:Policies, block them, drive them off and when the issue is forgotten come up with it as YOUR serious concern. This is the best way to show yourself to be worthy, if you find no other. - KondottySultan (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Chekon spotted something but it was not part of the original discussion. No-one involved in the original discussion spotted what Chekon did, not myself, MV, anyone at ANI or all those (plus their socks) who were screaming about being called sons of dogs, or whatever it was. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Then why do you raise the issue NOW? Just drop it. - KondottySultan (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, we find a likely mis-phrasing, and we should "drop it" because we didn't fix it earlier? The page has calmed down, we're not under constant attack, this is a good time to do some basic cleaning and checking. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

KondottySultan, the reason it has been raised NOW is that it has been spotted NOW. If someone spots an error NOW, when would you suggest they should raise it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a try, if no one minds. This is my first time to look at the Sadasivan; I was aware of the dust-up before, but, as far as I recall, never commented on it. I think that, first of all, whatever we make of the account on page 328-9 (the story Chekon quotes in the archive linked above), I think we also need to take into account the story told on page 150-151; if anyone can't read that in their google books version, let me know and I'll retype the whole thing; a quick summary of my interpretation is that it was a positive term, likening the people to dogs based on the quality of loyalty. This is similar to the Kerala-jatyachara-nirnayam, in the same way that likening someone to a lion is a way of emphasizing their strength or leadership.

Okay, back to the 328-329 story. Here's my interpreted summary: "Some Naga girls made 3 images of a dog, and brought them to life through magical means. 2 of the dogs ran away. One stayed; that one the girls offered to Vishnu. Vishnu gave that dog to Ayyappa. That dog stayed with Ayyappa. The only people who gave the dog assistance were some Shudra (they used to go hunting with it, to aid Ayyappa). Because Ayappa was pleased with their assistance and good treatment of the dog, he named those Shudra Nayar." Before I even think about transforming that into Wiki-prose (and shortening it in the process), does anyone think I've got the summary wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Chekon is a sockpuppet of KondottySultan, so they shouldn't be discussed as two editors as they are the same person. —SpacemanSpiff 17:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Qwyrxian, that seems to be the gist of it, I think. The pp. 150151 bit you point to is the reason why the article says that the comparison was not considered derogatory, btw.

Yes, Spacemanspiff, that is why I do not understand what Kondotty is playing at. I seem to be meeting a few people who seem to be just looking for a fight, by any means, at the moment. Even if it means contradicting their alter ego. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Why you people are repeating the same mistake. Read it again. The images of dog was not made by the Naga girls. They just took it from somewhere to heaven. So this phrasing also is not correct. A better wording was already suggested in the other thread. (Or is there any WP:Policy that insist "Everything should come from West" ?)

"..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.

But to be frank, after reading a little, I came to a conclusion that this theory is less reliable than 'Nayaka' theory. So I suggest removing the entire story altogether. -KondottySultan (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that it doesn't say that they made the dog images, so that should be changed. As for your last point, as I believe you've been told numerous times, your opinion on what is a reliable theory is meaningless and irrelevant, just like my opinion about which theory is right is irrelevant. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should that dog paragraph not be removed?? sadhashivan himself dont believe it & so many from nair community revolted! so i take it is offensive to them. Then why keeping a false belief there, I dont get the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.216.204 (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Religion and Supernatural beliefs

1) What is the difference between religion and supernatural beliefs? Almost all the religions have supernatural elements in them and "pretam", "bhootam", "pisachu", etc are proper Malayalam words for spirit, ghost and demon. These words are used in all religions including Christianity and Islam. For example, Kerala Christians call Satan as "Pisachu" and Kerala Muslims call a Jinn as "Bhootam". Then how can these concepts belong to any particular religion and worse, to a particular caste. Again what is the relevance of two separate sections, one as "Religion" and another one as "Supernatural beliefs", since the former can contain both?

2) The paragraph starting with "The adherence to.." and everything following in the section "Religion" should be moved to History section. This section should be used solely to describe the characteristics of religion, not the wars caused by it. Wars and empires are always under the scope of History. One more thing, it was not a Hindu-Muslim war. (Dont try to divide and rule.) It was just the fights between two (or more) local empires each one aspires to expand by conquering others.

NB: I don't expect a response better than "There is no problem, everything is OK, just get lost." -KondottySultan (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The source, who was a Nair, defined the difference. His rationale appears to be a reasonable one: there is "organised religion", with texts, priests etc, and there are other traditional practices that are not so organised. I do appreciate that it may appear to be a fine line but you have asked these questions before. Asking over and over in order to get things done your way probably will not achieve much.

I haven't looked at the war issue from the perspective you refer to, nor did I add the information there. However, I have no particular opinion offhand regarding whether it should be merged with the Military section: it is a "swings and roundabouts" situation, by the looks of it.

As far as your comment goes regarding "divide and rule", I am unsure whom you think is doing this, and why they might be doing it. The intertwining of religion and wars is a notorious situation that persists to this day, sometimes it has a true dogmatic basis and sometimes it is a pretext or even a subtext for other issues. Who knows in this instance? Under the two-nations theory I guess religion would be the predominant factor in this instance but I would have to do some reading around as this has not been an area in which I have had much involvement. - Sitush (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi KondottySultan, I've removed a duplicated copy of your comment, from the above section - I hope you don't mind -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede section

Hi,

Why is the following present in Nair section lede?

"Nairs live in large family units called tharavads and practiced an unusual marriage system. Tharavads were large family units where descendents of one common ancestress lived, often consisting of as many as 80 members. Nair marriage was divided into two separate rituals, the pre-puberty thalikettu kalyanam and the later sambandham. This practice led to some women (predominantly from central Kerala) bearing legitimate children with several husbands, and in some areas it lasted until the 1960s. Some Nair women from higher subdivisions also practiced hypergamy with Nambudiri Brahmins from the Malabar area."

..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas added that, I think. If not then it was CarTick. In any event, what do you object to? The lede is a summary of the article and this paragraph (which an IP or logged-out user recently queried with cite requests) is a valid summary. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Was not myself that added it, I just didn't feel familiar enough with that aspect, so I mostly did military history, diet, attire. That said, the Nair's marriage system was indeed quite unusual, and widely commented on by academics. Not just Indiologists, but when sociologists in general explore the extremes of marriage systems, the Nair are one of the first groups mentioned for having a very distinct system. I could see discussing the best way to phrase it concisely, but I don't see any NPOV way that we could not have a mention of Nair marriage systems in the lede. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The article itself says that these are controversial, and later that the practice declined 1900 onwards. Am I reading this incorrectly or is this an attempt to give some kind of POV, considering that the article is much more than the marriage practice? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a few problems with the lede on polyandry. (1) Only a small minority of Nairs in Central Kerala practiced this. The vast majority of those in the South and North didn't practiced it. Central Nairs are mostly Charna Nairs, who rank lower than Kiryathils of the North and Illath of South. (2) Polyandry was widely practiced in Kerala, and the main practitioners of it were not Nairs, but lower ranking Savarna castes such as Kammalans. (3) Sources about polyandry are written by a few European researchers, who don't have first hand experience about this, and many of them haven't even visited Kerala. The last recorded instance of polyandry among Nairs date back to mid-19th century (Not 1900). (4) There are travelogues written by many European explorers like Duarte Barbosa, and none of them mentions polyandry. But every single one of them mentions about the martial traditions of Nairs. I find it quite ironic that the martial history is completely ignored and POV prone issues like polyandry are given undue weight (however a few Evangelical Christian editors who are super-active here for the past 2-3 months will disagree with this statement). 160.80.2.8 (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Barbosa did mention the unusual marriage arrangements. The article does discuss the geographic differences regarding these practices. The article does mention the military history (there is a whole section on it!). And so on. I am wondering whether you have actually read the article or been asked to throw a comment in here, because you are fundamentally wrong regarding the content. Sorry, but perhaps you need to read it again? - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bayley, Gooch, Jeffrey & Chris what-his-name all visited and lived in the region. So, too, did Panikkar. A point is made that Panikkar's experience differed from another commentator probably because of the differences around the region. In other words, we have covered every angle, in depth. It may be true that other commentators have not lived in the region but it is not true of the ones used here. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And, by the way, I for one am not even Christian, let alone an evangelical one. I am on record about this - perhaps do your research first? - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The lede looks like, in absence of current practice, a whole paragraph of misinformation as if it is an ongoing practice. IP, Do you have any reliable sources for martial history? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of one word, the tense of which has got lost in a recent bad edit, everything in the lead is correctly "tensed". The present tense is used when appropriate, the past when appropriate and there are also words such as "Historically, ..." Are we reading the same article here or are you just being a bit silly? - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally the Nayar practiced Kalarippayat, especially those styles of Kalarippayat indicated by the northern tradition. They were one of the castes that had the right to bear arms, a right withheld from most other castes. The Nairs were Kerala's ruling and warrior caste.

From here

In this land of Malabar, there is another caste of people called Nayres, and among them are noblemen who have no other duty other than to serve in the war.

From here 160.80.2.8 (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you have been editing for a while. Your first source seems to be useless as it appears to be self-published using Lulu. Your second adds nothing to what is already said and, as a rule, we prefer not to use 300-400 year old sources when more modern ones are available. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I was having a conversation with Thisthat. I don't care about pay-for-edit users like you. Stay out of this conversation. 160.80.2.8 (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

The lede section contains unnecessary mention of old practices which themselves are disputed and not in practice since last 60+ years.

I had reverted the paragraph, though it is put again by this edit.

Let me know why the lede needs such a mention in the first place. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The lede needs to be left as such, as the Evangelical Christian Church feels that more Hindus will convert to Christianity if they are ashamed of their history. 160.80.2.8 (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

TT, did you just ignore the entire discussion an hour ago, and start a new section as though it never happened? Sitush just explicitly explained to you why he thinks this is pertinent, and rather than discuss it you start a new section? This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and just another example of why you've been called "tendentious". MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome MW. I was wondering where were you. The initial discussion was about why the section was in lede, when the practice, however referenced is not current.

Then Sitush changed 'tense'. But that does not explain why it should be in lede.

I was wondering how the present tense in the lede was missed for all clarity expected from neutral editors. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I wondered whether it was MangoWong editing while logged out. Another block on the way, then. As for the typo, that is a direct consequence of (presumably Indian) editors fiddling with the thing in order to sanitise it. I've fixed it, no big deal. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How does the lines like "This practice led to some women (predominantly from central Kerala) bearing legitimate children with several husbands, and in some areas it lasted until the 1960s. Some Nair women from higher subdivisions also practiced hypergamy with Nambudiri Brahmins from the Malabar area." make it to the lede? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One way in which the article needs improving is in fact to cover more of the modern day community. I for one have asked for help with this in the past but the only response was the usual sanitisation effort, nothing positive at all. Obviously, if there was more regarding the present day situation then the lede would have to reflect that. The ball is in your court. It would be nice to see something positive happen where you are involved, TT. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with it? You keep asking questions but not giving reasons for your objections. Pointless: we cannot your mind. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The point I mentioned above, is why is the practice ..leading to 'some'.. as pointed makes it to the lede? It is WP:UNDUE. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In what way is it undue weight? I am open-minded about this because I have had nothing to do with the content of the lede other than basic fixes such as the one you saw me do a few minutes ago. Bear in mind that even if the part you refer to is taken out of the lead, it stays in the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is mentioning 60% of negative aspect of nair community & 40% some facts .If there were some positive aspects like exclusive right to carry swords or some workers have compared nairs to samurais of japan relating to honor codes [bushido] , honor killing [seppuku] etc . then according to genetic data it is safe to say about the scythian origin of nairs than the misleading dog origins. sitush & mouth of sitush[mv] is simply asking for rebellion . 122.172.216.204 (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you put out the positive & negative aspects of Nair community on this page please? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no need of arguing here. We have seen one of the admins acting with extreme bias and banning of more than 50 users in this article alone. Unless that admin is kept out, there is no use of any discussion in this talk page. Axxn (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If admins have blocked users on such grounds, I think it is time to revisit the standards, but that is what I think. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: "We have seen one of the admins acting with extreme bias and banning of more than 50 users in this article alone" - Oh come on, we've told you guys ten million times not to exaggerate! If you have any complaints about the behaviour of any admins, take it to WP:ANI - this page is for discussing article content -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Look whos this the champ! exterminator! of rouge ips himself!! Well you had the support of all that administrators thats why you were elected as one to begin with . I never seen an administrator fired other than cause hes visibly insane .WP:ANI is a sad joke in wp . you ban all ips & say that you will post there complaints about you on the WP:ANI? laughable!! any with least pride wont follow you instruction.122.172.216.204 (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding to the last msg from IP22:

• they had a right to carry swords, which was then taken off them due to their failings. This is mentioned in the article but could be looked into a little deeper. Any "exclusive right" would only have applied in a limited area, of course, and we would have to delve more deeply into why they were disarmed. It was for this reason (trying not to cause more offence) that it was not emphasised in the recent past

Rebellion against british aint an offense if that what you mean. Other than that I like to know what hidden offensive reason you are talking about. 122.172.216.204 (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• the samurai thing was, to the best of my knowledge, one person and it was derided by the academic community. But it is some time since I read that bit. I have the feeling that this was in the article at some point and removed as being uncited (there are still uncited bits from before my first edit here, but they will not be there for much longer because everyone has had a chance to sort them out by now)

I will check it out then.122.172.216.204 (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• genetic data is unreliable, period. There are as many studies querying the results as there are studies showing the results. The big problems include that they rely on self-identification and the sample sizes have not been large enough to produce a statistically significant result (chi-square etc tests for significance have been woefully absent). Furthermore, a lot of those studies are of the "not really for publication" variety: they have disclaimers on them to the effect that the data is indeed interesting but not academically rigorous enough to make a firm statement about, well, pretty much anything. Now, if you can find some to the contrary then that would be great but we really do not want to be fazing the lay reader with details of hapiotypes etc, so we really want a layman's summary. And it would need to be checked by a scientific whizz (perhaps someone from the medicine project).

I think its simply more reliable than dog legend . 122.172.216.204 (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• No-one is commenting on the present-day situation which I raised: that is the way to fix the lede, but for some reason having said "it focuses on past issues", you are all raising other historic points. That is hypocritical, sort of. - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Another thing you could have done to make this article look more npov & to stop the opposition is to put that rajkiris nair woman image rather than what is right now. This two woman looks like kurichya adivasi from wayanad district. actually those tribals used to mimic nairs at dress code. 122.172.216.204 (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Rebellion against any governing power is, technically, an offence. But if the rebels succeed then obviously they will not punish themselves :)
• Samurai - feel free. I will do also when I have some time
• The dog legend will not go just because genetic data comes in. So if that is your purpose just let me know now and save me some effort, please.
• I have no idea if the women portrayed are Nair or not. I would have to see the original source for the picture. However, the picture relates to dress and if the group you mention mimicked Nair dress then what is the problem, really? The correct dress is being shown. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, the laws have improved long since colonial situation. Before independence, Bhagat Singh was hanged because he offended the Queen, such was the uncivilized state of affairs. After Independence of India, laws have changed and it is clear that any act against the country/people is an offense, and Bhagat Singh would not be hanged as such. By your logic the entire independence movement was illegitimate because it went against the Queen. More on it here.

Do you see what the IP is saying, that the article looks more against the Nairs than for?

If correct dress is shown, I am sure you should be fine with what the chap is saying. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not give a fig what the laws say now. The law then, and still now in every civilised country, is that rebellion is an offence. Please do not bring up your broken record of post-colonial bleurgh. It doesn't matter. You are entitled to the opinion but it makes no difference to the article.

If you think that the article is "more against the Nairs than for" then you have two options. Firstly, you could assist in improving it by (for example) coming up with some info that has been requested - check back in the archives, not just the visible bit of this page. Secondly, take it to WP:NPOVN, where I will gladly see you fail yet again. Aside from minor points that pre-date my involvement & that of CarTick, everything is cited to reliable sources. I have already said that the outstanding statements with cite requests need to go. They have only stayed so long as a courtesy to those who had previously created a highly POV article, in order to give them a chance to come up with some verification. I do not understand your last point but, in any event, the picture has been discussed to death recently and it is not going to change just because you have decided to follow me to this article. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You are passing off colonial era as civilized by equating it with civilized Governments of this time, thereby meaning that laws during those uncivilized times were as civilized as now. Whether you give a fig's leaf or not does not matter. I am sure even in USA laws have changed. This is common sense, and even if all editors with happy colonial memories yell all over it, it is not going to change.

"take it to WP:NPOVN, where I will gladly see you fail yet again." - this is a direct assumption of future, trying to prove a point by pointing at standards but ignoring the issue of how pages on Wikipedia are to make some Hindu Jatis look terrible. Frankly, I will not go around making and religions' any denominations' pages look so, and I am sure it won;t give me any twisted pleasure of any kind.

"it is not going to change just because you have decided to follow me to this article." - You are assuming too much here to begin with. You are assuming that the picture won't change. Then you are connecting it with another assumption that editors have 'followed you' on various pages in a rather self-Congregational boast, but I will agree it if it can make you happy. At least that won't be self-declared pomp. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, something above just made me laugh. Earlier there were bizarre claims of "Evangelical Christians" having written this article. It seems that TT has narrowed it down a bit & I am now an evangelical Congregationalist. Again, sorry: I do realise that it is a unintended slip, Freudian or otherwise. Funny, though. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Again some weird assumptions. Guess this is your weird assumptions day. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I submit you (and many, many others) are confusing "making someone look terrible" with "making the article more than self-glorification". If you think there's a concerted attempt to make jatis look bad, take it to the WP:DR of your choice, but I assure you that we're attempting to balance articles. If you think there's too much negative info, as we've said a zillion times add more info of the sort you'd like to see. Note this does not mean "they are the greatest warriors of all time and conquered everything" nor "they are a royal race descended from the heavens", but actual factual, documented depictions of the achievments of Nair society. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. Perhaps narrowing some stuff may be good enough. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure what you mean by "perhaps narrowing some stuff may be good enough". If you mean that cutting out some of the present content might appease you & yours then the blunt answer is that it is not going to happen, except for those items where a request for a citation has been in place for a couple of months or longer. Usually I would want to see much more than a couple of months but given the traffic to this article and the number of people commenting on this talk page, 2 or 3 months seems enough: a lot of eyes have seen those requests. For all cited items, there is no need to remove. What may be needed is additional content. - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Nair_Women.jpg

From the above thread, I see some editors have expressed their doubt whether File:Nair_Women.jpg actually belongs to Nair. I suggest them to go to this link which is the source of this image. The caption of the image clearly says "NAYAR FEMALES". If you doubt the credibility of the author, well, that is a different issue. -- ॥..शूद्रमक्षरसंयुक्तं दूरतः परिवर्जयेत्..॥ ^kon [Dotty] 19:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)