Talk:Breast tax/Archive 1

Archive 1

Athomas88's edits

@Athomas88: I'm temporarily undoing your edits, because they are written in a somewhat non-neutral tone (e.g. "inhumane"), and features contradictory statements (e.g. the lead says that the women were expected to pay a tax for simply having breasts, while the second para states that they were expected to pay a tax only if they covered their breasts. I will go through the sources, and see what is actually supported. Also, the article has WP:CITATIONOVERKILL problem. utcursch | talk 15:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Restored after cleanup: Removed incomplete citations; outdated / unreliable sources, removed synthesis / unsourced, added quotes, etc. utcursch | talk 16:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Notes on copy-paste

An encyclopedia ought to depend on works by professional historians rather than newspapers to cover historical topics.

Samagra is published by Centre for Research in Indigenous Knowledge Science and Culture which has no repute in itself and the journal is not indexed in any major database either. Ditto for Our Heritage (which covers every issue under the Sun!) and IJHS. Avoid trivia-pieces like this. Are you sure that you are critically interrogating Kattakal's comparison? STSTWorld has no editorial policy. Hachette is not a scholarly publisher and Archana is not a historian, either. Cohn, Ross, Kertzer and Hardgrave does not mention anything about the tax.

Both R N Yesudas and Manu S Pillai (two historians) reject any linkage of breast-tax with breast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMemoryYourHistory (talk • contribs) 15:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

redwarn

What is <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ed6767/redwarn>. WHy my edits are not staying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMemoryYourHistory (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a tool to make reverting unhelpful edits easier. Typically it's used for vandalism but here I used it also to report the page at RFPP given the content dispute. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's examine the sources

I think that's about enough edit-warring. The breast tax itself is quite obviously historical. Many of the sources used here are obviously inappropriate. Let's figure out what those are, rather than going for an all-or-nothing approach. To begin with, I'm concerned by; Samagra; ststworld; Our Heritage Journal; and the International Journal of Home Science. Does anyone here think these are usable sources? @Pharoah of the Wizards: thoughts? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Our Heritage claims to be in UGC Care (last ditch at respectability) but was discontinued from Feb 2020. I can mention the reasons behind the purge but it will be speculation absent official corroboration. Ditto for IJHS which was discontinued about a year earlier (and so no mention in the list, at all). MyMemoryYourHistory (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Our Heritage Journal with ISSN 0474-9030 is a multidisciplinary UGC Care listed journal for research Publication and this its Editorial team is International and the author is Keerthana Santhosh an Assistant Professor and research scholar in the Department of History.She has written on Dress as a tool of Empowerment:The Channar Revolt.Feel it is okay.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Journals written by academics are normally okay unless one is a predatory open access journals and are pay-to-publish open access journals that do no peer reviews or fact checking.If there is a issue it can taken to WP:RSN noticeboard. International Journal of Home Science is indexed here article written by Renjini P is a PHD Research Scholar in History and Dr. C Natarajan is a Assistant Professor in History article Rani Gowry Lakshmi Bai: Abolition of slavery in Travancore.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There's some evidence that the International Journal of Home Science is predatory, in that it appears on multiple lists of supposedly predatory journals. Of course, some of these lists are questionable in and of themselves, but I think the safe thing to do to dump it for now. I'm willing to accept Our Heritage for the moment, but only until we come across any claims that are contradicted by other sources; then we may have to take another look at it. Pharaoh of the Wizards I take it you have no objections to removing the other sources I list above? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Vanamonde it is okay with me if others agree .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Dubious journals

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: Thank you for looking to cite reliable scholarly sources for this article. Unfortunately, while the two sources are certainly journals, they are not reliable ones. They are pay-to-publish open access journals that do no peer reviews or fact checking and in this case, calling them predatory open access journals is doing them a favour. The first journal you've cited, "International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies" states on their website, The journal aims to cover the latest outstanding development. We welcome all the intricate individuals for the development. Join us to ride beyond stars. From the sidebar, The prime purpose of us is to say hello and provide assistance to aspirants viz. research scholars,professors, big achievers to metamorphose their revived inventive works into forms like case studies, meta-analysis, empirical studies and theoretical articles and light up the potential pages accompanying their unique ideas and renewed proportions to figure the journal equivalent to the sheer research arenas. This is not the kind of gibberish you would see on the website of a reliable journal. The second cited source, "INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL RESEARCH CULTURE SOCIETY" appears to be far worse. Both of them feature in this fork of the Beall list of predatory journals.

If you are interested in expanding this article, please consider looking up A. Jan Qaisar, "The Breast Cloth Controversy", The Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol V, No 2 June 1968, pp 174-180. which, based on its title, appears to directly cover the topic. It has been cited in this paper (which itself doesn't offer much of value).—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: What is so interesting about taking unwarranted content forking as gospel? The POVFORKING of other subjects to this article was done very very recently contrary to discussions on this talk page. This page should be better merged to Channar revolt. See this version from July 2019 before this article became a POVFORK in November 2019. Are you seriously acting this ignorant? Wareon (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're trying to provoke a reaction by calling me names, you're not going to get anywhere, but I'd advise you to read WP:NPA. The fact is that the AfD you initiated for this article was closed "keep", and you now seem to be attempting an end-run around that result by just removing the content you don't like. Consensus is very explicitly against you here. If you're actually interested in improving the content, let's discuss how to improve the sourcing, and how to trim this so this page acts as an overview to the linked articles. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I still don't see the reason that why you are still taking unwarranted content forking as gospel?. The article must rely only on WP:HISTRS not the news sources for starters. But that alone will lead to stubification of the article. Wareon (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No one is deleting the article. Only removing the misleading content forking which is repetitive and makes the subject look bigger than what it is. Can you find any consensus for the forking? Azuredivay (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I've explained to you once already today, HISTRS is an essay. Scholarly sources are preferable when the cover the same content, but they don't always do so. (Post-EC) Azuredivay, that's a meaningless question. Consensus was reached at AfD to keep this page, and the argument that it was a content fork was explicitly rejected. Using the same argument to remove most of the page is thoroughly inappropriate. I'm not going to edit-war over it, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

AfD cannot be considered as evidence for keeping the content in dispute. Since the subject is closely related to Channar revolt, why it should not be covered there instead? Azuredivay (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have just reverted drive-by restoration of POV content against the years old discussion on this talk page by Drat8sub. Wareon (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me, where is the "years old discussion" establishing consensus against that content? Vanamonde (Talk) 02:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wareon You are talking about POV, let me tell you something what POV is, adding misleading edit summary while restoring edits which was previously being reverted. That is what called a POV. I don't see a concensus of what you are saying, but a pure concensus of keeping the materials can be seen here. Drat8sub (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see if are understanding what this discussion is all about so you need to refrain from reverting and listen instead. Where is the consensus for content forking from other articles to here? I don't see any discussion for content forking from other articles but demands to use only those reliable sources that particularly deals with history. We dont have to make this article look big by depending on content forking especially when the subject has remained a stub for years. There is still more cleanup needed but your restoration without understanding this discussion would only make it hard. Also ping Utcursch who did a clean-up back in 2018. Azuredivay (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Having edited the article earlier, I was myself surprised to see the new additions to the article. Thanks for cleaning it up, and I do agree that more cleanup is required. It still largely depends on blogs and news than academic RS. Dhawangupta (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn’t cite the actual law ..only articles that have written about events that has supposedly occurred. This could be totally fictional. The article needs to taken down. Vikram.bhaskaran (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Deleting article

These resources doesn't look reliable. should the article be marked for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:242:4002:6a5d:a0b0:befd:b566:b8d3 (talk • contribs) Agreed. It's gibberish - https://rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10152112262136675.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D08A:7EC6:F414:C38F:FD74:220D (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It is still very poor, seemingly driven by a media frenzy about a dubious village legend. We have a couple of lengthy sections - Channar revolt & Nangeli - that actually say almost nothing about it & instead concern events that may or may not be related to it. - Sitush (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.. Citations are poor and unreliable.. this article needs to be removed Vikram.bhaskaran (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should be speedily deleted because... (The mysteriously new Nangeli story was recently popularized by a Malayali painter named T Murali who refers to himself as Chitrakaran. Story of Nangeli and her self-mutilation as protest, there are no historical records of any authenticity of such an event taking place. ) --2409:4063:2303:9DF0:FCCA:B998:7B3F:ABCC (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should be speedily deleted because... (As to the specific story of Nangeli and her self-mutilation as protest, there are no historical records of any authenticity of such an event taking place. A careful look at the references and sources of the Wikipedia article on Nangeli reveal that all of them are from the last decade and mostly from the last couple of years. None of them cites any historical records on Nangeli.) --47.8.34.149 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)TC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

2409:4063:2303:9DF0:FCCA:B998:7B3F:ABCC (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

2409:4063:2303:9DF0:FCCA:B998:7B3F:ABCC (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. HoneycrispApples (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2021

2409:4063:4D86:5CA7:D4A9:4053:B30B:2B85 (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Please verify the sources,as it is aboslutely misleading

Most of the sources mentioned here are related to religious conversions and some biased articles. It is pointing to different communities unecesarily , I dont know that intention behind it .These whole article need to verified and misinformation need to be corrected. Theobserver8991 (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you point to a specific article and what exact change you’d make? Your current behaviour is very WP:OWN and combative at the moment. Shushugah (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

::Sorry , because i feel that most of the the sentences are factually incorrect . As i jniw the issue since i am a native . Redbutterfly0987 (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Struck through two edits by socks - note that with the second edit the person socking seems to have forgotten which sock they were using. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 October 2021

Per discussion above, I am asking the following edits to be reinstated:

• Remove the 2nd or the last paragraph from lead as unsourced WP:OR. It was already done once.

• Remove the section on Breast tax#Channar Revolt, as already done once. It has nothing to do with this subject. Also see Talk:Channar_revolt#Scholarly_sources_for_tax?

• Remove the section on Breast tax#Legend of Nangeli as already done once.

• Re-insert {{Hoax|October 2021}} on the top since this entire talk page is full of this concern with small dissent trying to prove authenticity but failing every time.

All these edits existed in the earlier version, until it was all reverted with a nonsensical edit summary followed by a nonsensical explanation on the section above.

These edits are also in line with the concern raised by Sitush earlier in above sections.[1]

Ping El C who imposed the current protection. Azuredivay (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. This isn't what full protection edit requests are for. Calling something nonsensical does not make it so. Asking me to read mountains of text is not feasible and is not evidence. Suggest you form a consensus through discussion, or if at an impasse, use a WP:DRR like an WP:RFC to codify the consensus (or lack thereof). El_C 12:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: At least {{Hoax|October 2021}} should be absolutely added on the top of the article because this entire talk page is full of this concern. This subject is undoubtedly a WP:HOAX as consensus above shows. As for the rest of the edits I haven't seen any reasonable opposition to them per WP:CONSENSUS. Azuredivay (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'm still not seeing what you're seeing, at least at a glance. El_C 14:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Let me make it more simple then. I asked you to at least reinsert {{Hoax|October 2021}} since there is no evidence of a "breast tax" and the sources (mainly emerging after a 2016 BBC article) are just treating the local folk legend Nangeli as historical. We should not be treating this subject as authentic and rid of controversy when the reality is just opposite. You can see a number of discussion held about it such as Talk:Breast_tax#Redirect, Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax? where these sources were already analyzed to reach to this conclusion. Per these discussions, I count a total of 8 editors agreeing that the subject lacks authenticity while only 2 editors disagreeing with that. The reinstatement of the tag is important. Azuredivay (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That BBC piece isn't saying the Breast tax was a hoax overall, it just refers to one specific incident involving one, single individual. El_C 15:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Where did I say that BBC piece say its a hoax? I only said that this subject was invented from that local folk legend which came into prominence only after the BBC article. "The breast tax (mulakkaram or mula-karam in Malayalam) was a tax imposed until 1924" is simply a hoax and a maintenance tag needs to be added to alert the viewers about it. Azuredivay (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that editing the fully-protected page to that effect is warranted at this time. Please try to gain consensus for your changes (or present such consensus intelligibly if it already exists) rather than trying to have me decide in your favour by fiat. I'm not inclined to do so with the explanations you've provided and this is starting to feel circular. El_C 15:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think he has already proved that the consensus exists that the subject is a hoax by saying "You can see a number of discussion held about it such as Talk:Breast_tax#Redirect, Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax? where these sources were already analyzed to reach to this conclusion. Per these discussions, I count a total of 8 editors agreeing that the subject lacks authenticity while only 2 editors disagreeing with that." Dhawangupta (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, you can think what you will, but that's not enough for me, so I'm not gonna do it. El_C 15:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Redirect

Arbitrary header #1

I redirected this article to Nangeli because my reasoning is simple.

There have been several conclusive discussions such as Talk:Breast_Tax#Dubious_journals, Talk:Channar_revolt#Partisan_sources, Talk:Channar_revolt#Scholarly_sources_for_tax?, and others to conclude that "breast tax" has no validity and the "discussion about the tax only belonged at Nangeli".

These facts remained undisputed.

Enough time had been given, to rebut those discussions and so far only more irrelevant info to the article has been inserted,[2] to somehow legitimize a false concept.

If others want to dispute the redirect, they are welcome to continue the discussion at any of the discussions I named above but I don't think it is worth the effort. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong because no conclusions achieved.2402:3A80:51A:67DD:0:25:65CA:6901 (talk)

This has gone an an AFD and the result of that discussion was keep. There is no community consensus to redirect.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you telling me that the cited discussions were useless that include comments by numerous experienced editors including Sitush, Winged Blades of Godric and others proving this subject to be non-existing? It was decided on WP:DRV that this subject will need to be merged or redirected and now here we are. The content forking and WP:SYNTH which you have done with this article has indeed failed to provide any authenticity to this dubious subject that lacks historicity. Wareon (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Wareon the community decided that this article should be kept if you renominate the article for deletion you are free to do so. But you cannot without consensus redirect it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

That is what I was expecting from you. You have no argument against any of the points made in the cited discussions. Unless you are willing to debunk the fact that this subject is wholly confined to the story of Nangeli and lacks historicity, my point stands. It is fine to keep this as a redirect so that we can watch out for any future recreation. Wareon (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Reply Talk:Breast_Tax#Dubious_journals those journals are not being used in the article which were objected too.

Reply Talk:Channar_revolt#Partisan_sources a editor tagged for what was in his opinion partisan sources in the Channar_revolt page

Talk:Channar_revolt#Scholarly_sources_for_tax? they wanted more sources for tax in the Channar_revolt page

Now there 39 references which includes Books , academic journals amongst others. What is the problem with the current sources ?Channar_revolt through related is a different article.If anyone has an issue particular source please tag it.Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and the current consensus is to keep the article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

39 sources... all of them either not mentioning this subject or talking about Nangeli. Overall, not a single source that would show documentation of such a "tax". You need to read do not create hoaxes. 27.57.177.155 (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Breast Tax#Dubious journals: Discussed your use of dubious sources and POVforking and ultimately questioning the authenticity of the subject.

Talk:Channar revolt#Partisan sources: Discussed the use of partisan sources to push the subject's authenticity which is entirely missing.

Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?: Started after the above discussions to talk about existence of a "tax" and involving these three subjects as a whole.

These discussions got participation after I had posted an inquiry on the most relevant noticeboard (Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 70#Content forking related to Travancore subjects). You can say this was a part of the community discussion.

The problem with the "current sources" is that they are too new, discussing Nangeli and rest of the sources talk about Channar revolt, thanks to POVforking done by LordWiki without providing attribution. But ultimately, none of the sources works enough to prove authenticity of the subject. "Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED" but that does not mean we can't give less weight to subjects that lack authenticity. You have got Nangeli but even that article requires some degree of cleanup. Wareon (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The sources are right from Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr 1968 reference till date includes Academic journals and books ,I do not agree with you that all of them are "current sources". I strongly disagree with your comments and the same comments were made by you in the AFD discussion it was a keep the same arguments made here were made there. If an article has to be removed particularly when it has been kept in AFD and other editors are contesting it it has to be done only through deletion discussion not otherwise.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hardgrave talks about Channar revolt, not this subject. Do you have a link available to verify your information with quotes/snippets from the publication? If that isn't possible then you should really avoid using sources that you can't access. The above discussions took place after AfD. Azuredivay (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Glad that Pharaoh of the Wizards mentioned it because the existing consensus at this Articles for deletion discussion agreed that the article must be kept. @Sanjoydey33: If you would like the article deleted, start another deletion discussion instead. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@JalenFolf: You need to check the WP:DRV discussion more carefully, where enough participants agreed that "merging" or "redirecting" would be more viable than any AfD. Here are relevant dialogues:

• "but anyone having a good faith reason for doing so should raise via WP:MERGEPROP creating a discussion first and expect contention; pragmatically better done that way than in a AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)"[3]
• "If this article gets deleted/merged/redirected in the process after an RfC, this AfD result shouldn't preclude that. In the absence of discussion, we should not be overturning it. SportingFlyer T·C 06:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)"[4]
• "The information may need to be split and merged to different articles. I think the current title is pretty poor. Verifiable historical culture/mythology topics like this are poorly solved by AfD. The AfD may not have found a consensus for what to do about this page with roundly recognized problems, but I endorse the closer's reading that consensus is that deletion is not the answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)"[5]
• "However, between Breast Tax, Nangeli, and Channar revolt, there's enormous overlap. I suspect all three could be condensed down into a single article. How to cover a topic between multiple articles is an editorial decision into which DRV shouldn't wade. Take thee to the talk pages and sort that out with your fellow editors. But, looking at the three, I see large amounts of unattributed copy-paste between them, and that's a problem. I don't know if it's a problem DRV should address, but it needs to get fixed one way or another. I also see some lesser levels of copy-paste from this article in thenewsminute.com. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)"[6]
• " In any case, there is no way such an article should be deleted--at most it's a redirect. I'd probably have closed it as NC, and I think that's a better reading of the discussion. But I think this is within discretion--I do think the keep arguments were stronger. It's a notable topic, and while a fork, I just can't see it as a POV fork. If the article needs improvement, go for it. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)"[7]

There is no room for doubt that DRV guided participants to avoid WP:AFD and instead look for merging or redirect via discussion. It is well known that there is an option for "merge" and "redirect" as alternative for deletion. Only this is when the above discussions were initiated and it was indeed concluded that this subject does not deserve a standalone article. Azuredivay (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Well, the article was created in 2018, while Nangeli was created in 2017. This is clearly in line with the fact that these subjects were not known before 2016 before BBC published article about Nangeli folk legend in 2016.[8] The source notes "Historian Dr M R Raghava Warrier opines that the "mulakkaran"; which literally translates to breast tax was not really what it sounds like but was more of a slave price attached to women who were transacted for labor. Similar costs were levied on men too called Thalaikkaram." Having this article is certainly amounting to WP:RGW. Azuredivay (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Pharaoh of the Wizards is now using a PDF for source which mirrors Wikipedia articles on this edit. For example, the text "chapter that included the channar revolt be omitted from the curriculum with effect from 2017" is copied from Channar revolt. 27.57.177.155 (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

That was from the Contemporary Social Sciences journal should have double checked it if it mirrors it remove it.Thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Good. Now if we started doing that with every single source then nothing would be left in the article because: 1) it is either focusing on Nangeli, 2) it is about Channar revolt, 3) it is unrelated (such as " Kingdom of Travancore was known for its rigid and oppressive caste system and hence Swami Vivekananda") and 4) it ultimately emerged after 2016 BBC article as mentioned above. Wareon (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I have done the much needed cleanup of the article which was affected with POV forking from Channar revolt and Nangeli and removed unsourced/unrelated texts. I will be assessing the remaining text soon here. Wareon (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The version that I made here after removing POV forking from Channar revolt and Nangeli has been reverted by Shankar2001 who has done nothing but falsely claims that some "admin" enforced the POV forking.[9]

Here is my analysis of the sources found on this version:

• Source No.1. "The CBSE Just Removed an Entire History of Women's Caste Struggle". The Wire. Retrieved 13 November 2019.

From December 2016, heavily focused on Nangeli.

• Source No.2. "The woman who cut off her breasts to protest a tax". BBC News. 28 July 2016. Retrieved 13 November 2019.

From 2016, about Nangeli and the actual origin of the coverage of this subject as proven above. Also see Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?

• Source No.3. "Nine weird taxes from around the world – Really absurd". The Economic Times. Retrieved 13 November 2019.

From 2017, about Nangeli. See WP:TOI for the reliability of this source.

• Source No.4. K.S. Manilal (15 November 2012). "Sikhism in Kerala: Forgotten Chapter in the Social History of the State". Samagra. 8: 3–4. ISSN 0973-3906.

Talks about "An example is the story of one Karthyayani" which is totally unheard of. Author could be talking about Nangeli, but overall, this is not a reliable source.

• Source No.5. R. N. Yesudas (1980). The History of the London Missionary Society in Travancore, 1806–1908. Kerala Historical Society. p. 19.

Already discussed on Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?. This source also talks about "An Ezhava lady of Cherthalai, who was unable to bear the humiliation", which is Nangeli.

• Source No.6. Jacob Kattackal (1990). Comparative Religion. Oriental Institute of Religious Studies. p. 144.

Written by a religious activist who talks about Nangeli as "an F.zhava woman in Southern Kerala in protest of the breast tax cut".

• Source No.7. Breast Tax and the Revolt of Lower Cast Women in 19th Century Travancore". 17 May 2019.

Fails WP:RS and mirrors versions of Wikipedia. It is from 2019 too.

• Source No.8. Pathak-Shelat, Manisha; Bhatia, Kiran (2021). Raising a Humanist: Conscious Parenting in an Increasingly Fragmented World.

From 2021 that bases its claim on the story of Nangeli.

• Source No.9. Allen, Charles (2017). Coromandel : A personal history of South India. London: Little, Brown. p. 285.

From 2017 and it is talking about "The story of Nangeli".

• Source No.10. Archana Garodia Gupta (20 April 2019). The Women Who Ruled India: Leaders. Warriors. Icons. Hachette India. pp. 155–

From 2019 and provides no details.

• Source No.11. Keerthana Santhosh (2020). "Dress as a tool of Empowerment: The Channar Revolt" (PDF). Our Heritage Journal. 22: 533. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 July 2020. Retrieved 15 May 2020.

From 2020, it is about Channar revolt.

• Source No.12. "Rani Gowry Lakshmi Bai: Abolition of slavery in Travancore" (PDF). International Journal of Home Science: 337.

The poorly written article from 2017 depends on sources like "Evangellical Magazine and Missionary Chronicle, 1845", but mentions no sources for the passing mention.

• Source No.13.

Empty, no reference.

• Source No.14. "Nangeli and the first documented 'Pati Sahagamanam'". Souhardya De. Sunday Guardian. 31 October 2020. Retrieved 27 July 2021.

From 2020, talks largely about Nangeli and only as a folk tale.

• Source No.15. Keerthana Santhosh. "CONDITION OF WOMEN IN PRE-MODERN TRAVANCORE" (PDF).

From 2017, cites "Anayatha Deepangal" as source which only talks about Nangeli.

• Source No.16. Judge, Paramjit; Bal, Gurpreet (1996). Strategies of Social Change in India. MD Publications. p. 167.

Already debunked at Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax? by Sitush. It is also talking about Nangeli.

• Source No.17. Robert L. Hardgrave (1969). The Nadars of Tamilnad. University of California Press. pp. 59–62. OCLC 12064.

Already discussed at Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?, the source make no mention of a 'tax'.

• Source No.18. Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr. (1968). "The Breast-Cloth Controversy: Caste Consciousness and Social Change in Southern Travancore". The Indian Economic & Social History Review. 5 (2): 171–187. doi:10.1177/001946466800500205. S2CID 143287605.

Same as explanation for #17.

• Source No.19. "Women at the Intersection of Caste and Sex: History of Breast Tax". in.makers.yahoo.com. Retrieved 10 July 2021.

From 2020. It seems that the live link is no longer working and the author of this article have apparently erased their traces from the internet.[10][11]

• Source No.20. Cohn 1996, p. 140.

Makes no mention of a "breast tax".[12]

• Source No.21. Hardgrave, Robert L. (1969). The Nadars of Tamilnad. University of California Press. pp. 55-70.

See explanation for Source No.17.

So far, there are no sources that would prove the existence of a "breast tax". Not one of these sources meet WP:HISTRS. The four points I mentioned above still stand and none of these sources that have been mainly cherrypicked for creating this article are enough for proving the existence of the subject. At best, most of them are just conflating Nangeli a village folk with history. Wareon (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't evaluated the sources again, but the only result of the DRV was that the AfD probably needed to be closed as "no consensus", defaulting to keep in the absence of further consensus. The DRV does not support a merger or a redirect, and it is difficult to treat in good faith an argument that it does. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody appears to have said that DRV resulted in merge or a redirect. Others have only said that the DRV encouraged discussion for merge/redirect. I saw that the discussion has been already made several times thus redirection was long overdue. Mind that the article was first redirected in 2019 and remained a redirect for months before it was reverted with improper reason. The above discussion in this section simply strengthens the requirement of a redirect. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Wareon, I haven’t claimed anything falsely that some "admin" enforced the POV forking, but highlighted the closing remarks at the Afd of Breast Tax by bibliomaniac15.Shankar2001 (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The AfD link was a red-herring with that edit. It really seems as if you believe that the AfD link would preclude redirecting of the article (it should be a redirect), or even constructive cleanup of the article. Dhawangupta (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: What exactly is going on here? I'm seeing profiles that have been in exile for months magically appear and squabble to redirect the page, similar to what happened in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breast Tax. What I see is a slew of profiles springing up out of nowhere with one single aim: to WP:CENSOR this topic. This is strange. If the information lacks HISTRS, it does not imply that the whole breast tax is a hoax and therefore should be removed. I'm not convinced about why the content about Nangeli and Channar revolt is a " POV " fork. The topic is well-known outside the wiki, and I can find tens of thousands of sources on it. It is wise to leave the article alone.--103.13.229.228 (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Fully Agree with the IP 103.13.229.228 .Nangeli and Channar revolt is a not " POV " fork to be removed entirely. Further this topic is well known a lot has been written about as rightly pointed out by the IP.Agree fully that Wikipedia is not WP:NOTCENSORED .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• What do you exactly agree with? The IP is just arguing against the policies and you are just repeating yourself. I had also raised concern about the poor sourcing of the article that all the sources are too new and not fulfilling the requirement for establishing the historicity of the subject. Remember that I am in support of a redirect as well because I don't think that anybody who wants preserve this subject with highly dubious historicity have any policy basis. Armader (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this how you argue with policy --> [13] 103.13.229.228 (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• If more sources are need they can provided here are 2 below

With more than 23 books to his name, Charles is today an acknowledged authority on British Indian and South Asian history, and in 2004 was awarded the Sir Percy Sykes Gold Medal by the Royal Society for Asian Affairs for his contribution to Asian studies. He is an active Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and the Royal Asiatic Society, a Council Member of the Kipling Society and a Member of the Royal Society for Asian Affairs and the Frontline Club.

as per this He states

References

This was written in 1986

References

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

See WP:OVERCITE. You need to avoid this especially you are going to keep flooding the page with dodgy sources that ultimately fail to prove authenticity of the event in question.

First one comes from 2018, and is "a lecture read at the Royal Society for Asian Affairs on 25 April 2018". Lectures are not WP:RS and it was probably inspired by this wikipedia article. How come you haven't looked at the qualification of the second source but looked for the first one? The second one was discussed at Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax? and the source has no actual mention of a "breast tax", let alone description. A state editor does not meet WP:RS anyway.

Mistranslation is the case here. See the source I already provided which notes "Historian Dr M R Raghava Warrier opines that the "mulakkaran"; which literally translates to breast tax was not really what it sounds like but was more of a slave price attached to women who were transacted for labor. Similar costs were levied on men too called Thalaikkaram."

It is not even first time that you made a come back by bringing problematic sources. You don't stand a chance as long as you can't find actual evidence or a proper history source. By repeating same kind of dodgy sources you are just wasting time. Azuredivay (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Even if it's just a lecture, the Royal Society for Asian Affairs appears to be highly trustworthy, and it demonstrates the tax is real. There is no consensus in that discussion about the second source's reliability, and it plainly mentions the word 'Mulakaram.' What does a state editor have to do with WP:RS?

Raghava Warrier's point of view is irrelevant. I'm seeing this tax mentioned in tens of thousands of places.

Comment on the content rather than the editor. Nobody is wasting time here. Consensus might take weeks, and you don't have it right now.103.13.229.228 (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Lectures are unreliable and the standard cannot be changed especially for this subject that lacks authenticity. In which world an unreliable source coming after years of the BBC report of Nangeli can prove the tax to be "real"? 2nd source was mentioned as "Mittal" publication and already was discussed. A state editor determine what shall or shall not be published at state government's expense thus fails WP:RS. Raghava Warrier provides the correct meaning of the word "Mulakkaran" which is being misrepresented. Of course, time is being wasted when poor sources are being provided, thinking as if it will come as a surprise to onlookers and add credibility to this unauthentic subject. You don't have to mention the word 'consensus' especially when all you have is these unreliable and problematic sources. Azuredivay (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• This subject should be treated as nothing more than a WP:HOAX. It is not independent of Nangeli folk story. Those who are attempting to show it as historical fact are clearly engaging in WP:DE. Dhawangupta (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Can be read by those who have jstor.org accessibility.

Book Chapter DEMOCRACY (pp. 81-119)

References

Book Chapter Some Are More Equal Than Others (pp. 131-148)

References

103.13.229.228 (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

So you admit you came up with unreliable sources and now you have came up with post-BBC sources again. I think you need to drop the WP:STICK now. Azuredivay (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Lolwhat? Are we playing games here 103.13.229.228 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Please stop, your making things worse. MoonlightVector^{Talk page} 15:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

No games, but you are really supposed to provide proper WP:HISTRS instead of citing post-BBC article sources that were influenced by that article or this Wikipedia article. Azuredivay (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The sources cited above are clearly high quality reliable sources, i.e they are scholarly publications which meet WP:HISTRS as well. Both of them are published by well regarded academic presses, Jain 2021 is authored by a historian while Keen & Slemrod 2021 is authored by economists, who are discussing a historical tax which qualifies as HISTRS as well. Its almost like media exposure can prompt academics to pay attention to otherwise neglected topics, rather than your plainly unreasonable claim that it's a hoax generated by BBC and then reproduced in academic sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Even if your claim was correct then yes a number of high quality scholarly sources also claim that Evolution theory is a lie, but we are supposed to analyze them by using the broader picture. These sources are not experts in Indian history thus they fail WP:HISTRS. First source mixes up Nangeli village story and the second source at P.131, similar to the first source, depends on Nangeli story. This is precisely the problem with all sources that are mixing up with the Nangeli village story and treating it as historical. That said, you are largely unfamiliar with the topic. Now read Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax? carefully for a name. Now after reading that discussion you need to answer how come there is a gap of 100s of years that does not discuss existence of a Breast tax and now we are having a number of sources influence by BBC article on Nangeli and this wikipedia page. The subject is obviously a WP:HOAX since the actual WP:HISTRS maintain that a "breast tax" did not exist.[14][15][16] Do you have the sources that prove it to be real and answer these historians? Azuredivay (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

So you are claiming that two newspaper editorials and a twitter link are "actual WP:HISTRS" and peer reviewed academic publications are not? The three links don't even support your it being a hoax claim, the two editorials are written by non experts who are trying to make the case that the name "breast tax" was a misnomer with quotations, not that it didn't exist. The twitter link is from Pillai who is not yet qualified as a historian and seems to be making the same arguement that it's a misnomer (see follow-up comment) through comments on a social media platform. None of this qualifies as a reliable source let alone be considered HQRS/HISTRS.

The rest is plainly irrelevant, evolution not being a lie can be supported by innumerable scholarly sources, you have yet to produce any which supports your claim that "breast tax is a lie." Wikipedia articles are also based on what published third-party reliable sources have to say on a subject, and not on the opinions of contributors discussing tangentially related material on a talk page for another article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Many sources currently mention the tax's existence. If the sources also mention Nangeli along with the tax, that does not ultimately make breast tax a hoax. I don't believe editors can conduct an analysis and declare the entire tax to be bogus. If Manu S Pillai feels it did not exist, his point of view should be expressed in an impartial manner alongside that of other historians. If it's a hoax, then academic sources have to declare so. Editors arguing here to portray the entire tax as a hoax despite the fact that multiple sources are available makes me suspicious.103.13.229.228 (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a misnomer and my point stands that nothing called "Breast tax.... if they wanted to cover their breasts in public" existed which the article falsely claims to have existed.

The two publications lack expertise in Indian history and they are fraught with the same issues that we have already discussed in multiple discussions. Not even both of them are in agreement with each other, with one dating "Nangeli" to 1822, and the other one dating to 1840. The fact that you have been shown multiple reliable sources concluded that breast tax was just a misnomer is enough telling. If something does not exist then you should not be proving it to have existed by depending on these problematic sources. Azuredivay (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Attempts to present Nangeli story as history are not going to fly. You both need to familiarize yourself with WP:EMPTYASSERTION. It simply does not become true even if "multiple sources are available" to claim that Earth is square. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Ping

@Kautilya3, Ms Sarah Welch, and Joshua Jonathan: Can you guys take a look into this as well? To provide you a quick summary of this dispute: It has been agreed by most of the editors including Sitush, Azuredivay, Winged Blades of Godric and some others that there was no tax for covering breast.[17] Yes, some new sources that are either way unreliable for Indian history, are ignorant of Nangeli being an unverifiable folk story but Wikipedia shouldn't be ignorant. Ultimately, even those shoddy sources are not treating this subject to be independent of Nangeli folk story which was popularized in 2016. "Breast tax" is just a spectrum of the folk story.

While there is evidence of taxes in Vedic period, during 300 BCE Maurya Empire, Jizya from 12th century-18th century in South Asia, etc. there is no evidence of a breast tax for covering breast. This is another good reason to agree that this subject is a hoax. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by JJ:

• There was a discussion to delete the article; the conclusion was to keep it. If you want to change that, you'll have to start a new, formal procedure.
• The breast tax is mentioned in multiple sources; in line with WP:VERIFIABILITY, this makes the term reliable surced. Yet, there is a point in arguing that, if it existed, there should be more on it than just mentioning it. I found two sources from before 1980 which mention it, and two from between 1980 and 1990; that's not much, is it? Ramachandran Nair, Slavery in Kerala (also mentioned above, see "8 pies") seems to refer to a tax on slaves; the tax was called mulakkaram, "breast money," in the case of females (slaves).

Yet, the opposie also applies: if it is a 'hoax', yet often-mentioned, some source would argue so, right? But maybe it's too recent for such a publication.

Ergo: the subject is not that straightforward... Maybe worth to raise the attention of some real historians? As for the article: I think it's good to figure out what exactly mulakkaram was, in connection to slavery, and how the term "breats tax" developed. And that makes it still worth of a stand-alone article.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Kindly read this comment of mine where I laid the summary of the DRV that DRV guided participants to avoid WP:AFD and instead look for merging or redirect via discussion. It is well known that there is an option for "merge" and "redirect" as alternative for deletion. This is why the authenticity of the subject has been discussed several times a few times, such as above and also at Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax? where it became clear that Channar has nothing to do with tax, thus more than half of the sources are misrepresenting history.

Yes, the 1980 and 1990 sources are insufficient. 1980 source has been analyzed above as "Already discussed on Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?. This source also talks about "An Ezhava lady of Cherthalai, who was unable to bear the humiliation", which is Nangeli." While the 1990 source has been analyzed above as "Written by a religious activist who talks about Nangeli as "an F.zhava woman in Southern Kerala in protest of the breast tax cut"." Ramachandran Nair only say "Breast money" which just like "Breast tax" appears to be a case of mistranslation as pointed by historian M R Raghava.[18] Another source [Telegraph India] notes Breast tax was a misnomer. Also, as the issue raised above, that no actual historians who have expertise in Indian history ever gave attention to this subject. This is why a redirect to Nangeli seems the right option because even if we create article limited to argue about the meaning of the terms then we would be providing undue weight to those who have no expertise in Indian history. Azuredivay (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Azuredivay: thanks for the Telegraph-link; exactly what was needed. Regarding Raghava Warrier link, "a slave price attached to women who were transacted for labor," that's in line with Ramachandran Nair. I'll have to let your arguments sink in (tired from work), but merging to the Nangeli sounds like a reasonable option. Give me a day (or two?) to think it over, will you?; it's an interesting topic, this misunderstanding. And I'm really curious when this misunderstanding came about. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that Nair 1986 and the modern publication, i.e DUP published Jain 2021, don't really contradict each other, both of which have their expertise in the field of Indian history in specific by the way, if that is the degree of expertise one is seeking, which for the record is even more stringent than what the essay WP:HISTRS recommends, it states "[h]istorians often have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography, but may have an advanced degree in a related social science field or a domain specific field". I suppose the stringency can be warranted in contentious topics so I'll let that be, but that comes with the expectation that the same standard would be applied to the "breast tax is a misnomer" claims (which hasn't been), well at least it's better than the previous "breast tax didn't exist" claims which has no sourcing whatsoever.

Back to the actual point, Nair 1986 lists a number of slave transactions during the late 18th and early 19th century and mentions the mulakaram in it for Travancore State where feudal services were required alongside the money itself (among other things), while Jain 2021 mentions the "breast tax" in the context of "the codification of castes through dress and comportment ..." with a note attached which states that in the early 19th century, Travancore State "fined Nadar (formerly Shanar) men and women who covered their upper bodies like the "higher" castes. Shoes, gold ornaments, and umbrellas were also proscribed for Dalits ..." They are approaching it from different directions as the topic at hand for them are different, one doesn't elaborates on what consisted of the fine-money-tax and the other doesn't elaborate on what it was for. If Nadars and slaves look like a contradiction, it is not.

This brings me to the Mathrubhumi "offbeat" section editorial (the source for Warrier's quote). Is there a publication from Warrier in a journal or in the form of book which discusses or mentions breast tax? If something like that is not available, we can't verify what exactly is the context of the quote. Consider for instance that one could have inadvertently quoted a historian to come to a conclusion that the historian themselves might not agree with or that a stray comment from a historian is far less reliable than a published piece of literature especially one that has gone through the rigors of peer review.

All this is already established in policy anyways, i.e using the newspaper editorials which don't have adequate editorial oversight and are written by people with no expertise in history (even if they quote historians), over peer reviewed publications is not policy based. Since it directly contradicts WP:RSOPINION which states that "[s]ome sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact" and WP:SCHOLARSHIP which states that "[m]aterial such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Emphasis added. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No they don't have any "expertise in the field of Indian history", and they are plainly unreliable for Indian history. These unqualified writers don't contradict each other because they all are trying to prove Nangeli folk story to be real which is simply WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

How come there is evidence of taxes in Vedic period, 300 BCE Maurya Empire, Jizya from 12th century-18th century but no no evidence of a breast tax for covering breast? Fact that it did not exist has been already established.

I also saw that you have rejected the historian Manu S. Pillai when he is much better than any sources you have provided so far. He has written Ivory Throne: Chronicles of the House of Travancore, published by HarperCollins and it makes no mention of this subject.

Regardless of your repetition and failure to move on with what has been already discussed above, what you are doing is called WP:SYNTH by mixing up sources to create a poor conclusion. You have missed the sentence from WP:HISTRS which say "Books, book chapters and articles by social scientists and scholars in the humanities, working within their area of expertise".

If you can't find any sources which meet the above requirement then you should simply comply by the consensus. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I rejected Manu S. Pillai because unlike the others (your "unqualified writers") who have doctorates and tenures at academic institutions, he at present is a student and writing books for a mass audience doesn't give one an expertise. Also HarperCollins is a popular press in contrast to Duke University Press and Princeton University Press which are academic presses and have peer review from scholars. I'm going to ignore the rest, badgering me and falsely claiming that you have a consensus is not going to help you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Expertise in the subject, not degree is important here. HarperCollins is a reputed publisher as well and is not unreliable compared to Duke or Princeton Uni press. Having a publication with a reputed publisher like HarperCollins, Manu S. Pillai is clearly more proficient in these subjects than the rest of all other sources. I haven't made a false claim since most people here actually reasonably agree that the subject is not independent of Nangeli folk story and should be restricted to the folk story. Dhawangupta (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

References

@Azuredivay: The same Telegraph India editorial goes on to say

J. Devika, a historian at the Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, agrees. “Men and women, both were expected to leave their chests open. The upper cloth was a mark of the upper caste.” ... “We don’t have a lot of records. But it was a normal tax. It was levied on the patita jaati workers,” says Devika. Patita were the fallen women of the lowest castes like Ezhava, adds Devika. The interesting point is that similar taxes were levied on lower caste men, too: the head tax and the moustache tax, talakkaram and meeshakkaram respectively; the nomenclature chosen for the male gender.Lower castes had to pay to be entitled to their entire bodies, not only a part of it.

That is why I emphasized that Manu Pillai's viewpoint, as well as the viewpoints of other historians, should be included impartially with ascription. Best regards103.13.229.228 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think it is just an 'editorial'? The source does not lend any credibility to a "breast tax". No one is saying that there was no tax. I am opposed to combining "viewpoints of other historians" as well because unqualified historians need no entertaining because it would seem as if we are encouraging revisionism. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• J. Devika states it was a normal tax and accepts that mulakkaram or Breast tax existed but as a general tax. This minority view can be included impartially with ascription in this article in addition with the other view . Hence it should be stand alone article particularly if we incorporate the view that it was a general tax. Further per WP:NEXIST we have not analyzed Malayalam language sources. Further almost all major national newspapers report on this including BBC we cannot say all the national newspapers are reporting Hoaxes .Forbes,The Hindu,The Hindu*The Times of India,The News Minute,*The Economic TimesTimes of IndiaDeccan Chronicle and there are several other sources including scholarly journals and books etc Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument won't work. I suggest you to read the discussion carefully as you haven't found a proper WP:HISTRS but still repeating the same post-BBC sources news sources which fail the requirement that any of us needs to look for. Azuredivay (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the 'breast tax' was to be paid to be allowed to cover the breast. It seems to me that two topics got mixed: a tax on adult labor forces, called 'breast tax' in the case of the women; and the 19th century for the right to cover the breast. Does any of the reputed sources g8ve a reference for their info? None. And are there descriptions of lower class women, paying the tax, who started to wear upper cloths after paying the tax? I doubt it. If they paid the tax, why then was there a revolt to gain the right to wear upper clothes? If lack of money, making the right to cover the breast, was the problem, then that would have been a well-known fact. Obvioussly, it wasn't. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

What it should be

Is this:

The "breast tax" (mulakkaram or mula-karam in Malayalam) was a head tax imposed until 1924 [dubious date] on the lower caste and untouchable Hindu women by the Kingdom of Tranvancore (in present-day Kerala state of India).[6] The lower caste and untouchable women were expected to pay the tax when they became laborers, about the age of 14.[7][8] The lower caste men had to pay a similar tax, called tala-karam, "moustache tax," independent from their wealth or income.[9]

According to a local village tale, the breast tax was imposed to lower class women who wanted to cover their breasts in public,[3] a story which is often repeated.[1][2][3][4][5] According to Sadasivan, the tax was evaluated by the tax collectors depending on the size of the woman's breasts,[Sadasivan] a story which is also often repeated.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] These stories have been questioned, and may be a misunderstanding of oral histories,[sources] as lower class women "were not allowed to wear upper garments in public"[9] at all until 1859.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Some inconsistencies:

• "The breast tax was levied by Travancore on lower caste Hindu women, which was to be paid if they wanted to cover their breasts"
• "The women of the even lower castes, such as Nadars, Ezhavars and untouchables castes, were not allowed to cover their breasts at all."
• "a state-law prevented this covering which served to demarcate the caste hierarchy in a prominent manner"

So, lower-caste women were not allowed at all to cover their breasts, but if they paid a head tax, that is, a tax which had to be paid by all lower-caste men and women, they were allowed to cover their breasts? So, all lower-caste women covered their breasts, since they all paid this tax, yet they were not allowed to cover their breasts? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Via Sitush' mention of S.N. Sadasivan (A Social History of India) at Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?, who may have introduced the notion of the mulakkaram as a tax on covering the breasts, I came across the following:

• Maddy's ramblings, The Breast Tax and the Upper Cloth Movement. The author also argues that two topics, namely a head tax called "breast tax," and the struggle to gain freedom of dress, have become intertwined. The author gives two tales somewhat similar to Nangeli, and refers to legislature in Travancore in the mid 1800s, which forbid the covering of the chest. Again, such a rule is hard to reconcile with a tax that allows the covering of the breasts.
• Were the women of Travancore India taxed for covering their breasts?:

This appears to be a myth manufactured by S. N. Sadasivan from oral history. He wrote:
"The breast tax was levied as soon as a woman of the Ezhavas and castes below, attained puberty and more attractive the breasts were, the more the tax she had to pay."
No citation is given. The Quora user reports he cannot find a tax where the "more attractive the breasts were, the more the tax she had to pay" mentioned anywhere before Sadasivan's book, and I cannot either. The claim of some versions that women paid for the right to cover their breasts is also incorrect -- they were not permitted to cover whatsoever. However, the head tax on women really was called mulakkaram or "breast tax."

• Samuel Mateer (1871), The Land of Charity:": A Descriptive Account of Travancore and Its People, with Especial Reference to Missionary Labour, p.61-62, describes 19th-century changes regarding upper clothes; no mention whatsoever of a "breast tax" to wear upper cloths. On the contrary, when upper clothes became allowed, lower class women hardly did so, because clothes cost them money.
• Eliza F. Kent (2004), Converting Women: Gender and Protestant Christianity in Colonial South India, OUP, p.207-211, treats caste-regulations for upper clothes, referring to Mateer; no mention whatsoever of the "breast tax." Some minmal form of upper clothing was restricted to upper class women, while leaving the chest bare was the norm, due to the climate.
• Also, the BBC-story seems to be based on a local village story; so, it's oral history, or bettersaid, folklore.

Obviously, our Wiki-article needs to be rewritten, as it gives undue weight to press-coverage, and ignores certain information and foresaid inconsistencies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm taking the blogpost, skeptic stackexchange answer and also Mateer 1871 with a pinch of salt but Kent 2004 was a pretty insightful read. One thing though, it gives a very qualified statement that "[i]n the estimation of Western observers, none of the indigenous residents of this hot, tropical region wore very much clothing. But one must bear in mind that this assessment comes from people who were advised to wrap themselves in a thick layer of flannel undergarments to protect them from the disease-carrying tropical "miasma" of south Asia", and itself presents something much more nuanced with regards to clothing norms.

I think the following lines best sums up the prevalent notions behind bare chests (although I would just recommend reading the entire part on "the conversion of gender").

Extended content

To missionaries it made sense as a symbol of upward mobility through the idiom of modesty. For them, covered breasts were a sign that the wearer possessed a mature and proper shame in nakedness; thus, they perceived the wearing of the upper cloth as evidence of an increasing concern for modesty in people who were gradually being civilized by the Christian gospel. Nadars and Nayars shared a very different understanding of the symbolism behind the cloth. In the Hindu context, a bare chest was a symbol of deference and humility ... Both the British and Indians perceived a relationship between humility and clothing, but whereas the British read the presence of clothing (on the chest) as a sign of modesty, Indians read the presence of clothing in the company of persons of higher rank as an offense. The women of the Nayar caste sometimes drew the other end of the cloth up across their breasts and over the shoulder, in a style much like the present-day sari ... Nambudiri Brahman women had to be much more scrupulous in covering their bodies than women of other castes ... They not only drew one length of the lower cloth across their chest, but they complemented this garment with an undergarment, a short-sleeved blouse of colored cloth tied with a knot in the front (muditichi-ravakkay). On the very few occasions that Nambudiri women left the seclusion of their home, they further obscured their bodies from sight by traveling under huge umbrellas ... What precisely was meant by the disputed "the upper cloth" is actually more difficult to determine than one might think ... In any event, sources of the period are unanimous in stating that custom required women to remove any clothing above their waist in the presence of males of high rank. There is no reason to assume that breasts were as sexualized in nineteenth-century Kerala as they are in our day. Nevertheless, literary sources from the period do suggest that a woman’s breasts did function in some ways as a sign of sexuality ... The expectation that a Nayar woman would expose her breasts in the presence of men of higher rank (and conceal them in the presence of men of lower rank) is related to the question of sexual access ... The perception of defiance in Nadar women wearing an upper cloth in the presence of Nayar men must be understood in this light. The upper cloth certainly denoted status. The Nadar women appropriating it for themselves certainly was taken as an encroachment on the traditional privileges of women of the upper castes ... The highly valued feminine virtue of karpu had been considered the exclusive possession of chaste women of the upper caste, and in fact was their exclusive possession so long as low-caste women like Nadars, Chogans, and Pulayars were subject to sexual predation by upper-caste men.

Also, note that Kent 2004 stresses on the importance of styles; e.g, Nadar Christians rejected the adoption of "Christian jackets" recommended by the missionaries and adopted "upper body clothing" in the explicit style of the upper castes/classes which ultimately led to legislation allowing lower classes to wear upper body clothing but still restricted them from adopting the particular styles of Nairs and Namboodiris.

Kent 2004 does not explicitly mention "breast tax" or any specific tax for the matter but it mentions the following; "Rulers in Travancore had, in fact, previously bestowed on select members of the elite class of Shanars (the Nadars proper) the privilege of wearing the breast cloth" and that "[i]n Travancore, a council of "Sudra" (probably Nayar) leaders called the Pidagaikarars was responsible for enforcing [caste rules], as well as for adjudicating disputes that arose over the transgression of caste rules. Each year villages would send two or three delegates to an annual meeting of the body in Sucindram. This council would discuss whether individuals of their own and other castes "had adopted the costume, food, speech (provincialism or brogue) and general habits of the other class," and would mete out sanctions to transgressors" which is consistent with Jain 2021 that refers to the fine being imposed by "Travancore State’s council of "upper" caste Nairs".

Otherwise I agree that the article itself needs a rewrite and a more careful use of the sources (i.e relying less on media sources and more on secondary scholarly sources which do mention "breast tax") is necessary to determine what's what for a consistent article but we ourselves should not be analysing primary sources or relying more on older secondary sources (the preference should be in the other direction) to make determinations of whether secondary sources are accurate or not. If a qualifications for a mix-up or something similar has to come, it has to come from scholars. I don't see how the absence of a mention is grounds for second guessing the ones that do provide mentions or how we are apparently catching a mix up but they can't? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Jain (2021), Gods in the Time of Democracy, note 32 seems to be the only source qualifying as WP:RS which relates mulakkaram to covering the chest. Yet, Jain writes that this was a fine given to both men and women by the state council; while in fact the mulakkaram was a head tax ordered by the royal. So, Jain seems to mix-up several things, and does not give a reference for their info, which only summarily presented in a note. I don't thrust this "info"; at best, it could be presented as an attributed quote.

Otherwise, it seems to be the BBC-source which introduced the misunderstanding, and that source seems to present a local village story. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Jain 2021 isn't the only RS, there are others provided in the discussion above and several others are present in the article, i.e Gupta 2019, Manilal 2012, Santosh 2017, Charles 2018, Keen & Slemrod 2021, Kiran & Pathak-Shelat 2021, etc. There are inconsistencies in the article at present because it uses a jumble of sources of varying standards and contains inaccurate summarisations which is why I said a more careful use of sources is necessary. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This wiki has a better version. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a mirror of a July 2018 version of the Wikipedia article. Reads quite partisan but despite that, yeah it does appear be a better version of what we have now. At least superficially, I haven't went through its sourcing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This is more like what it should be: User:Joshua Jonathan/Breast tax. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, is it alright if I edit that userpage? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sure! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It had to be created on Draft space, not main space. I still don't see a reliable source that would verify the subject as factually correct. I would repeat that every single source on the article as well as the non-expert sources from 2020-2021 provided here are still affected with serious issues like: 1) it is either focusing on Nangeli, 2) it is about Channar revolt, 3) it ultimately emerged after 2016 BBC article as mentioned above.

Sections about Nangeli is not needed because we have separate article for it and having it here represents it as a real event. Section on Channar revolt is not needed because it has nothing to do with the subject. The article is still better off as a redirect to Nangeli where it belongs. Wareon (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that July 2018 was a better version, but still it appeared to be getting undue weight as a stand alone article. "Jain 2021" aka Kajri Jain is associate professor of art history and visual studies. She is not specialized in Indian history, therefore unreliable for the subject. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• If the sources also describe the Nangeli or Channar revolts, it isn't a serious issue. I'm also perplexed as to how a few editors came to the sum up that the entire tax was created after 2016. What's going on here?. The article is noteworthy by itself, and it should be written using the reliable sources available. I haven't come across any reliable sources that indicate it's a hoax.103.13.229.228 (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Per Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax? and also above, Hardgrave (1968) and Cohn (1996)[19][20] and many who have written extensively about the Channar revolt does not mention a 'tax'. Nothing called "Breast tax.... if they wanted to cover their breasts in public" existed which the article falsely claims to have existed. You seem to be also ignoring that this article was created only in 2018. Azuredivay (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Meh, most of this has already been addressed. Instead of repeating yourself ad nauseam and claiming every source in the article is unreliable, start a formal process i.e an RfC, if you want a redirect. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RFCBEFORE. Most editors here have agreed that we don't need a separate article for this subject. It hasnt been answered that why this should not be merged or redirected to Nangeli. I don't see a valid reason to promote the misrepresentation that is restricted to Nangeli folklore. Wareon (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus for a redirect this went through a Deletion discussion and was kept as stated by Tayi Arajakate you are free to start a RFC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Onus is on you to find consensus than rejecting the existing one which allow merge/redirect to Nangeli. Enough discussions have happened since AfD with more than a dozen editors disagreeing with only 3 editors about retaining this article. You need to read WP:STONEWALLING. Dhawangupta (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC) 

No sorry do not see any consensus on this page for a redirect. Actually if one wants to delete a page one one has to open a Deletion discussion this page already went through a AFD and it was a Keep now anyone is free to reopen a discussion for deletion. But consensus is not there a redirect.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No one talked about deletion. Just because you don't want to see or listen, it doesn't mean that consensus does not exist. Dhawangupta (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Too many references

Coming from a Twitter outrage: I did not have a chance to look at sources but (hat tip to Johnbod) 18 references within a single paragraph is almost always a sure sign of trouble. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

True That. Anyways, We have to work on one at a time.Dhawangupta (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Venkat Pulapaka, The History of Breast Tax, STSTW Media

Venkat Pulapaka (May 17, 2019), The History of Breast Tax and the Revolt of Lower Cast Women in 19th Century Travancore, STSTW Media, clearly is not WP:RS:

• "The breast tax or locally known as Mulakkaram, which was prevalent in the Travancore Kingdom, was imposed on Dalit and backward class women. It was especially slapped on Avarna women, who belong to the lower caste. These women were forced to pay a tax on their breasts if they desired to cover their breasts with an upper cloth."
• "As the caste system in Kerala of that time was oppressive, people of the lower castes were not entitled to wear any upper cloths."

If I read this exactly, lower class women had to pay the breast tax for the mere wish to cover their breasts; however, they were not allowed to cover their breasts." Shame. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It is just a personal website and automatically fails WP:USERGENERATED, but the article at the end shows the subject is agitated with revisionism when it say: "Though the story of Nangeli’s sacrifice spread across the state, it has no mention in the official history of Kerala.... Also, there is no mention of the breast tax in the book ‘A Hundred Years in Travancore, 1806-1906: A History and Description of the Work Done by the London Missionary Society in Travancore, South India, During the Past Century’. This is a reflection of the official apathy towards a revolt that changed the very caste structure of Kerala today." I agree there is no "mention of the breast tax" because there was no tax on breast and seems to be a recent invention. Dhawangupta (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Bullshit. There was a 'breast-tax', but it was not a tax to cover the breasts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

By saying "there was no tax on breast" I was clearly talking about "a tax to cover the breasts". Dhawangupta (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've rewritten the article diff, since the 'breast-tax' was not a tax to cover the breasts, but a head-tax, imposed on all women aged fourteen and older. The idea that the 'breast-tax' was imposed when lower-caste women wished to cover their breasts is contemporary folklore, and untenable; they were not allowed to cover their chests at all untill 1859. Sadly, those editors who wish to delete this article seem to miss this point... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

PS: I will solve the syntax-errors; they're probably related to the notes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The article certainly needs a better title for now because "breast tax" can be easily misrepresented to mean the contrary to the actual meaning. An immediate solution would be to move the article to "Mulakkaram". Wareon (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. And what about the/a next step: merging this article to Nangeli, or vice versa? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Nangeli is the main topic while "breast tax" found coverage only after BBC published Nangeli folk legend. Merging necessary parts to Nangeli would be alright. Azuredivay (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I expect there are also arguments for the other way round, and for keeping tw distinct articles. But anyway, who's going to open a merger-discussion? Preferably with two questions: 1. Merger? 2. If so, which direction? Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree too. Dhawangupta (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Breast tax is the WP:COMMONNAME and both words are same, so opposing it. The AfD agreed to keep "breast tax". Wareon is striving to go against the tide and move it to Mulakkaram. Start a merger-discussion if you so desire.103.13.229.228 (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Breast tax is the WP:COMMONNAME as per above and to a Start a merger-discussion can be started on this as well. Mulakkaram also means Breast tax in Malayalam language and with both words agree with above as to why this change is being done. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

I've had to move some of the notes into the main text, as they were causing cite errors (see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references group mismatch). This appears to be an issue with defining ref group names inside named ref groups, inside a refgroup list. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I've moved a couple of them to a note above the reflist. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

blocked address

This blocked person is vandalising Breast tax.[21].CoachEzhupunna (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Adithya kiran chekavar

Travancore kingdom was located inside Malabar Coast. Adithya kiran chekavar created new account (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Malayalee0121&action=edit&redlink=1) again also. He will create new account again and again to delete content if he sees bad for his Thiyya/Ezhava caste pride. Admins block him. Warning: He will come again also. I add new images only. But he will come again to delete it als. He will use many account or address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoachEzhupunna (talk • contribs) 13:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

He attempted delete the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Tinanweib_von_Malabar.jpg&diff=612603564&oldid=576865107 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoachEzhupunna (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

He think Thiyya is better than Ezhava and all lower caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoachEzhupunna (talk • contribs) 13:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC) CoachEzhupunna why this comment is relevant to this article?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malayalee0121 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I warned .Malayalee0121 edited this page 14:47, 8 December 2021, 172.103.134.113 edited 14:51, 8 December 2021. 4 min difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoachEzhupunna (talk • contribs) CoachEzhupunna I understand your frustrations. But the pictures are not related to this article. Why pictures of Thiyyas who have been historically living in Malabar area added to this article which writes about the tax only applicable to historical Travancore state. Travancore, Kochi and Malabar were seperate states until the formation of Kerala state. Also why are you accusing anyone without evidence. Thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malayalee0121 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Travancore is located inside of Malabar coast and Kerala. It is related because women are stopped to to wear cloths.u hate this because of caste pride only. CoachEzhupunna (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

He is blocked. He will edit using other accounts. CoachEzhupunna (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant pictures

Some of the irrelevant pictures are being added to this article. Travancore was a vassal state for the British until 1947. So the rules were reflecting orthodox Hinduism. But the Balabar was under direct rule by the British where the rules and regulations were more westernized. The breast tax was imposed on Travancore citizens, not Malabar. The pictures of the Tiyya woman and the Tiyya people are from the book named "Castes and Tribes of Southern India" Vol. 7 of 7 by Edgar Thurston & K. Rangachari. It clearly states that the book only examined North and South Malabar, not Travancore. Please do not post the pictures if they are not relevant to the article. Thank you.

Anyone needs reference please see the links below,

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42997/42997-h/42997-h.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travancore

the book named "Castes and Tribes of Southern India" Vol. 7 of 7 by Edgar Thurston & K. Rangachar book was also tells about Travancore. Read it correctly. Travancore is located inside of South Malabar. I feel you are tricking other editors because the pictures are telling about kerala only. Read the book properly first. Malabar is a area only not a kingdom or a state.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42997/42997-h/42997-h.htm CoachEzhupunna (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

CoachEzhupunna I have read the book and in the introduction, it says about Ezhavas of Travancore as it is a similar community. But it is clearly stated in the book as Tiyan.—The Tiyans, and Izhuvans or Iluvans, are the Malayālam toddy-drawing castes of Malabar, Cochin, and Travancore. The following note, except where otherwise indicated, is taken from an account of the Tiyans of Malabar by Mr. F. Fawcett, page 37 on the book. I hope it is clear now. Also, we can have different opinions but please do not attack personally. I am not trying to trick, just trying to have some input to the article. Thank you. Malayalee0121 (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Image

User:Joshua Jonathan, User:Pharaoh of the Wizards : Iam requesting to adding some images I added here in this talk. Travancore is located inside of Malabar coast and also inside of South Malabar. The book is also telling this only. If you don't believe me then read the book. Choose the correct image for this page.

Tiyya woman from Kerala in 1909, when women from such castes did not have the right to cover their breasts.

Tiyya women working in a coir making unit, Kerala, 1909

Woman of the Tiyyar lower caste in Malabar in 1912, where the females of many castes are not allowed to wear clothing above the waist.

CoachEzhupunna (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Opposing this edit suggestion. Travancore was a separate state. Even the Wikipedia page regarding Travancore is enough to prove this. The map of Travancore is in the article too. We are not talking about the Malabar coast, it is about the Malabar region or the British ruled (or ruled by Zamorin)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travancore 172.103.134.113 (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC) Sorry forgot to sign in before. Malayalee0121 (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, considering other aspects, being born and raised in Kerala and aware of Kerala culture, I am certain that Keralite women (not only Thiyya) will find these pictures as anti-feminist and get offended. It is possible that there are existing family members of these women who can feel uncomfortable in seeing their ancestor's pictures in such a manner in an article online. The matter of women's clothing has been always a sensitive topic, especially in India. And moreover, these pictures are irrelevant as these are the women from Malabar, not Travancore.

I have to also include the recent incidents in the Tokyo Olympics where women athletes were concerned about their outfits and the image captured during their games. https://www.france24.com/en/sport/20210722-tokyo-olympics-female-athletes-face-double-standards-over-uniforms

So, please consider avoiding this edit request. Malayalee0121 (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't tell about the geography (I'd have to dive into it), but I agree that these pictures are not suitable, since they may be offensive according to present-day norms. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not an argument against the pictures as we're not censored here. But they don't seem relevant to the topic at hand directly based on the description of the photos vs the subject of the article so I'd still exclude them. spryde | talk 13:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Heavy grammar mistake

Hello, I would like to change the first paragraph of article from :

According to local beliefs[web 3][web 4][web 5] the breast tax was imposed on lower-class women if they covered their breasts.[web 3][2][3][4][note 2] This belief has been questioned,[web 6][web 1][web 2][web 5] as lower class women "were not allowed to wear upper garments in public"[5] at all until 1859.

To

According to local beliefs[web 3][web 4][web 5], the breast tax was imposed on lower-class women if they covered their breasts.[web 3][2][3][4][note 2] This belief has been questioned,[web 6][web 1][web 2][web 5] as the upper cloth was not considered as a matter of modesty in the matrilineal society of Kerala according to historians.

The first paragraph of the content itself shows heavy grammar mistakes which might be due to disruptive editing before locking the page. The paragraph is saying the same after this belief is questioned.this grammar error would affect the quality of the article .kindly correct it to improve the quality of the article Bilgiljilll (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not a grammar mistake, but a correct summary of the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Kindly check the second line, after this belief is questioned the same line is repeated which was not th case before , and the cited source is that of historian Manu s Pillai who proved that it was the normal clothing style of a region.

Bilgiljilll (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

sources

why are sources grouped into web and scholarly? it is mess. And also an eyesore. some sentences are repeated in multiple sections. I am going to make some changes. ChandlerMinh (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I have made some significant changes

Some of the sentences are repeated in multiple sections. I have deleted them

I added one new scholarly source (Krishna Iyer, 1937)

Most of the web sources deals with 2016 BBC article. such sources have been removed from the lead. Those sources are still are part of 'Breast-cover tax' section ChandlerMinh (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)