Talk:Nair

Clensing the article

I've been through this article and it is very cluttered.

To begin with the lead talks about the 'snakes' in Nair compund ?

The main point to be noted is that Nairs were not a race that got extinct. THey still live and hence the article hould be about nairs in general. What I have seen is this article describes how nayars lived at one point of time. Comeon guys. It's a human caste/race/title and not dinosaurs.

I suggest please remove all unwanted points and add up only the important points.

--QueSeraCera (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The snake thing is an interesting point. The sources are from 1968 and something much older and yet the tense is present, so perhaps some rephrasing is necessary. However, the actual issue of whether worship goes on has never been raised in the numerous discussions here regarding that paragraph: the issue has always been with regard to whether or not it is/was a Dravidian custom. Those discussions involved many people from the Nair community, so I can only assume that the general point of worship is valid even if perhaps the wording needs some modification. Please do not forget that we are an encyclopedia, not a current affairs website: we are trying to capture the whole gamut of the Nair subject.

I have no idea what points you consider to be "unwanted", although I could probably hazard a guess based on the numerous past discussions here. It would be worth your while trying to have a read through the archives for this talk page before letting us know what you consider to be "unwanted" - you may find that it has been dealt with in the recent past. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree this is an encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean that Nairs should be treated as Australopithecus. I am a Nair and After reading this article I feel like converting into some other religion. I don't know who has edited this.Non sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.127.140 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what this page says, Nairs are basically warriors..This page is POV against Nairs.Just ignore for time being.Some people arebasically trying to potray Nairs as bunch of crooks.

There are many books which narrate the courage and valor of Nairs.But this page toatally deviates from addressing what the primary function of Nairs was..and addresses some of the social aspects which was common in the past but seen as "bad" in the present day.

People like Sitush get a peacefull sleep by doing things like this..and they do this simply beacuse they can..there is basically nobody(no panel) to judge them. These people want to potray Nairs as Shudras..but we know its like saying Lion is a cat..But unfortunately they are trying to put both of them together in a single cage..the cage of Indian Caste system.And people who know the entire piccture understand how silly this is.

Nairs belong to Kerala..everybody there knows what they are..i think even you know that..that's why like all of us you also got offended by this page..But i would suggest that you understand that we fought, gave life, took lives to protect our country.. Out of 100 famous personalities from kerala 90 would be nairs..if you doubt it check it.. I have even seen a funny reply where these people say that Mohanlal is not a Nair..This page has many bull craps like these..ignore those. ...Remember that you have a warrior blood..just be sure that you honor it all the time. Why our history is being controlled by few admins here? Please restore the wiki to its original state soonKvn nair (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any changes, please make specific suggestions here and back them up with evidence from reliable sources. And do not make personal attacks on other editors, as that is likely to lead to sanctions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Dont give us this crap of "Sanctions threat".If you go through the Archives from 2004, you will find only oppositions to whatever "pile of waste" you guys have posted here. If you had commonsence you would have understood long back that the article which you have segregated here doesnot matchup with reality.the shear volume of oppositions from the community (from 2004) is a testimonial to this,. And is there any other "Caste group" which is controlled like this.The so called "fact" have been taken from sources from the colonial period where the authers have taken some bad behavior within a minortiy group and the you guys took bits and peices and projected it as a mojority group Behaviou. And the saddest part in all this is there is no well qualified historian from Kerala in this commity who has audited this.And for your information the colonial writers were never here to "Praise about INDIA" their main objective was to show Indians as some lunatics or savages,and hence justify their encroachment and plunder to the masses of England.

The whole article amounts to defamation. I can understand telling the truth to caste myths. But this whole entry reads like an exercise in verbal diarrhea filled with things that have nothing to do with reality. This has clearly been written by people who have no real idea about what they are writing about except for what they have read in some books, which invariably have to be written by White people for authenticity in their eyes. They refuse Nair sources claiming that they are biased. It is like refusing Jewish sources for anything related to Jews. It makes no sense but the few people who control this page keep on doing it. Whether well-meaning or not, this entry depicts a Eurocentric point of view.

This page has to be brought to the attention of the NSS. This joke has go on for far too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.232.169.156 (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're providing criticism with no suggestions for improvement. Do you have other sources you'd recommend editors read to come to a more balanced picture of Nair society? And no, "come to Kerala" is not a valid answer, Wikipedia does not conduct WP:original research.

Further, a history of people complaining about the article "since 2004" is by no means a valid objection. Could it not be the case that these objection are caused by neutral editors providing factual information which happens to contradict caste myth, such as we see happening that same at Rajput, Kunbi, etc? Just because an article upsets people is no indication it is incorrect. From what I have seen in the past few years, a large portion of the people complaining explicitly state their membership in the Nair community, and (as in posts above) mostly show a preference for adding material lauding Nairs, and removing material that "denigrates" Nairs. If the article were simply "inaccurate", then neutral observers would remove "positive" misinformation and add "negative" correct information as well. I find it telling that you suggest the Nair Service Society be brought into this. Why should the NSS be viewed as a neutral party? Why not instead suggest bringing in commentors from, say, the Social Sciences faculty of reputable Indian universities if the goal is indeed to bring in objective fact and not partisan propaganda?

Thirdly, while there is indeed (as we all often attest) concern about an over-use of Western sources on Wikipedia, and in academia in general, you level this accusation without at all taking into account the number of South Asian academics cited in this article. If you have objections to these particular academics, please state so, but please don't carry on acting as though every authority cited was some British colonel in a powdered wig. Aside from a number of South Asian academics, the article also cites non-British academics with no personal favoritism for English colonialism, academics from a leftist-progressive anti-colonial background, etc. Perhaps the "defamation" here is also your broad brush accusing anyone who disagrees with Nair caste puffery as being racist?

If you have recommended changes, please bring them up. If you have specific concerns of given passages or authors, please list them specifically. But if all you're going to do is rant about unfairness, then you are adding nothing but disruption to the discussion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Admins removing content from talk page which question them !

Wikipedia is not a battleground to fight whatever cultural war you're trying to pursue. If you have reliably sourced information that you want to add, please start a new section and then provide it and your source, and it will be evaluated according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you don't like those policies, you can either try get them changed, or you can edit another website. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have recently seen one post by someone at the end of this page. But admins are removing this. A history explain a destructive nature by the admins. I just created an account seeing this. We need to restore our page to give clarity to the users. See the history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nair&action=history And here is the original content deleted by the admins!!! <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvn nair (talk • contribs) The comment violates WP:BATTLEGROUND and specifically WP:CANVAS. Wikipedia is not a place to rally the troops to fight for your rights or your identity. Our purpose here is to create a neutral encyclopedia. If that's what you want to do, welcome. If you want to help perpetuate a fight, then please leave. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC) But this clearly is not our history. We have a proud history for years. But only things highlighted here are the negative side. And those are really rarely seen. Take the achievers in Kerala. Atleast in south Kerala, I can say that out of 100 achievers, 90 are from our community.Kvn nair (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC) This page is for discussing the article Nair - for example, suggesting specific changes to it, backed by reliable sources. If you want to make any additions to the page, tell us what you want to add and show us the references that support it. Any other use of the page (for example, for trying to foment unrest at other pages, or making personal attacks, etc) is likely to be considered disruption and can lead to sanctions - I shall shortly leave you a notice of the discretionary sanctions currently in force on caste-related articles. If you have any complaints about admin behaviour, please feel free to raise them at WP:ANI - but be prepared to back up any accusations with actual evidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Problem here is almost everything written here doesn't reflect our history. These are written biased just to tarnish our image. And I can see that few of the admins(Atleast Sitush) is not accepting the sources referred by many of our editors.Kvn nair (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC) You are now on a final warning for that further personal attack - please pay careful heed to my messages on your talk page if you wish to remain a part of this project. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC) This is simply the imperialistic arrogance of pawns of European historians , they never wanna hear what local historians have to say , or they simply always want to control the flow of information . as long as Boing! said Zebedee and Qwyrxian are here its always a british pov push . they have to go! for us local contributors to do anything about this articles . Its a shame wikipedia history section is still under british imperial agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.79.76 (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Updates to article lead.

Nayars are not a caste, but a race with its numerous sub-castes and surnames. Nayars can be found in all walks of life. They are aware of their cultural traditions and history and form an integral and active part of Kerala society. Nayars are the Savarna Hindus who constituted the warriors, landed gentry and yeoman of Kerala.

Uh....no. First of all, the book you're referring to is painfully old. In the present day, scientists don't even believe there is such a thing as "race", other than a social construction, subject to constant change, with no genetic or other biological underpinning. We would never label a group like this as a "race". Qwyrxian (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian you dont have the right to classify a book as old and reference as irrelevant because you are not a historian.Please try to stay within your bounds. and if your real motivation was "Scientific" tell me what biological distinction creates a "Caste System"

I have the Robin Jeffrey book here &, yes, it is recognised as one of the modern classics of the subject. It is quite understandable that Qwyrxian has misjudged it because the cite given says it was published in 1908 when in fact that should read 1975. Worse, Jeffrey doesn't say that "Nayars are not a caste, but a race with its numerous sub-castes and surnames". In fact, the words "caste, "savarna", "traditions", "history", !warriors", "yeomen" and synonyms thereof appear nowhere on page 28. Nor would I expect them to because there is a logical contradiction in the statement given, ie: if they are a race rather than a caste, how can they have "sub-castes"? - Sitush (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You might have all the books at your desk but try getting out sometime and even visiting Kerala. You have been obsessed with this page for years. Thanks for pointing out to us how sources of information are controlled by Europeans with their refusal to accept any local historic account. This garbage page will one day create a huge controversy in India. Congratulations because then you would have finally arrived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.232.169.156 (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The article on the whole seems negative

The article on the whole has a negative conotation. In the diet section it says ' In the modern day, alcohol is a component of Nair-dominated festivals in Kerala;. Which are the nair dominated festivals of kerala? Veluthedathu, Vilakkithala nairs are people who did the laundry and hair cutting for nairs and does not come under the nair caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.63.162.99 (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The source for the alcohol statement is definitely reliable, as is that for the laundry/barber stuff. However, page 32 of the "alcohol" source does not mention what we say. Almost certainly, this was added by MatthewVanitas using the citation tool that they favour - in my opinion, it produces a poor "page" parameter but since I can see neither the page that precedes #32 nor the one that follows it, I cannot verify the claim. I'll ping MV later to see if they can clarify. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, the page# is actually pg69: Since alcohol plays a part in both celebration and in masculine sociality, Nayar-dominated festivals and Christian weddings and baptisms all have a similar boozy atmosphere.... I have corrected the footnote. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

---

1."Today, the government of India does not treat the Nair community as a single entity "-- Is there any reference for this statement? can it please be mentioned in the article?

2.The write up --Christophe Jaffrelot believes that the NSS stands in contrast to the All-India Yadav Mahasabha (AIYM), another caste association, since the NSS desired "emancipation" and saw sanskritisation as "a means of reconciling low ritual status with growing socio-economic assertiveness and of taking the first steps towards an alternative, Dravidian identity", whereas the AIYM sought to subvert from within the existing case system.[47]

In this reference 47 ( India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes) there is no mention about NSS.There does not seem to be a AIYM either.Does All India Yadav mahasabha exist? Any details of AIYM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.166.85 (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

(1) is perhaps more problematic than it appeared when the citation was given. The source is the OBC list that appears to show these groups under different headings. However, it has since become apparent that these primary source OBC lists can be ambiguous in terms of what groups are listed under each schedule number. Since the statement aligns with the (cited) opinion of Gough that is given in the lead, I am inclined to think that our presentation is correct. Do you have any sources that say something to the contrary?

(2) the Jaffrelot thing is wrong and I am not sure why, except there seems to be some confusion between Nayar and Nadar. I suspect that the wrong source is being cited. I am going to remove it pending a look at Jaffrelot's (many) other works, and I am going to re-check the Fuller source that is mentioned in the same paragraph. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The Fuller bit - As late as 1975, the NSS still had most of its support in the Central Travancore region - is checked & ok. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So many people find this whole entry complete garbage. NSS has most of its support in Central Travancore in 1975? It's 2013 now. Any idea how it is going now? Or are you waiting for another book from a European author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.232.169.156 (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC) And btw alcohol consumption is rampant in Kerala in every community. That doesn't mean that they are officially part of any "Nair-dominated festival" (whatever that means because there aren't any such ones where people of all Hindu castes don't participate). But reality doesn't matter in wikipedia when it comes to the lives of dark-skinned natives. Only citations matter. This is clearly an attack on the community and will be seen in serious light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.232.169.156 (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, given that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and thus does not conduct original research, our options for this article are 1) cite content from reputable published works, or 2) take the word of anonymous people on the internet. As you can imagine, we have to stick with 1). So far as the East-West issues, yes, it would be a very good thing to have more non-Western academics represented on Wikipedia in general in order to get a broad array of backgrounds. That said, if you peruse the footnotes of the article, you'll note that a good portion (perhaps a third?) of the citations are to works by South Asian academics with advanced degrees published by reputable academic publishers. If you have newer and/or more accurate data from South Asian academics, by all means provide it here, but we can't go adding or removing text based on some anonymous person's allegations of bias, with no documented verification whatsoever. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

why no information taken from keralopathi

respected sir i do not know why wikipedia such a reputed encyclopedia have semi protected this article it itself prove that the facts in this article is false.I have facts to prove it from keralolpathi a book about kerala and i will prove it sir wait — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.250.116 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

respected sir i do not know why wikipedia such a reputed encyclopedia have semi protected this article it itself prove that the facts in this article is false.I have facts to prove it from keralolpathi a book about kerala and i will prove it sir by sumesh kaimal and thank you very much for your response — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumesh kaimal (talk • contribs) 12:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The article will not be unprotected. Instead, please provide more information about this book: who wrote it, who published it, when it was written, and, specifically what does it say that you think should be added? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I would not set your heart on the Keralolpathi; like many such books it is a collection of legends which are certainly culturally rich, but by no means historically precise. There may be things worth mentioning about the book's version of history, but by no means are we going to be able to cite the book as an authority on history. Please take a look at the article on the book and note the criticisms by modern historians (both Indian and non-Indian). MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The articles of Kathleen Gough and fuller are also legends and stories not truth.wikipedia showing double standards

Mr Matthew are you telling to me to believe what ever written by Kathleen Gough or by fuller is true then i beg to differ they may also have written the books or articles from legends said by other people so like me so many other people also do not believe in their books or articles so will wikipedia delete their articles.Why wikipedia is showing double standards.I respected wikipedia but now i am sorry to say i have lost it toady like millions of other people your article have insulted our nair race .Now how i can believe the other articles of wikipedia which may also be false like this.My humble request to wikipedia is please go after truth do not go after legends or stories of Kathleen Gough or fuller.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumesh kaimal (talk • contribs) 22:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gough and Fuller are academics, with respected reputations. More importantly, their works were reviewed by their peers, through the academic review process. I'm sorry that you don't like Wikipedia's rules, but this is how Western academic writing works: information produced by scholars, reviewed by other scholars, is held in higher value than information produced hundreds or thousands of years ago by religious/mystical leaders without any review process. I'm not saying that those religious texts are wrong--I myself happen to believe in the "truthfulness" of a number of ancient mythological texts...but I also know that they aren't reliable sources in the way that either Wikipedia or an academic would accept. Just because you're using the word "myth" to describe Gough and Fuller doesn't mean that they fall under that definition. Since it looks like you won't find what you're looking for on Wikipedia, I wish you success in searching for it elsewhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Nairs are kshatriya proof found it is only a begining more proofs will follow

Mr matthew in the book "Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Volume 5" on page number 40 it has been clearly stated that nairs are kshatriya means warriors class why you did not mention it here.So here is my first proof.Respected sir please wait for other proofs. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumesh kaimal (talk • contribs) 22:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are several Brtish Raj sources that state the Nairs to be kshatriya. They were written by people who are now generally considered to be uninformed amateurs who at best recorded what they were told by members of the communities that they were studying. All this has been dealt with on numerous past occasions on this talk page. I recommend a read of our article concerning sanskritisation and also a closer read of what this article actually says - it does mention the kshatriya opinion and it does explain that such a group did not really exist in southern India, where the four-fold varna system did not really exist. Indeed, it is probably because it did not exist that Kerala became a "lunatic asylum" of castes (Vivekananda used that phrase). - Sitush (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Never wanted to disrespect wikipedia editors.Only i want is the truth to come out.thank you

Respected sir i never wanted to disrespect any of your editors i am sorry if you felt like that i too respect your authors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumesh kaimal (talk • contribs) 22:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to apologise. I don't think anyone is offended. It's just that Wikipedia has a certain way of operating and it is not necessarily a way that some people like. It is a big world out there and it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time. I'm sure that experienced contributors can guide you with regard to how this place works but to achieve what I think it is you want to achieve, well, you'll need to change some of the very fundamentals of how things happen here. I doubt very much that is possible for a wide variety of reasons. - Sitush (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A request to wikipedia

Respected sir please tell me what wrong i did it was he who used that words asylum about my sate.Sir please tell is it right to use those words in wikipedia platform.Sir why you are warning me i pointed out the mistakes. ok what can i do it is your wikipedia. Sir do not try to make me feel afraid by using words like "last warning" i am a person who will not fall for that.You are not accepting the mistake so what can i do poor people of kerala. With regards,thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumesh kaimal (talk • contribs) 01:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you wikipedia

At least sitush said that some british raj sources said that nairs were warrior class,thank you for that