|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES
This page is subject to discretionary sanctions; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted; page level editing restrictions may also be imposed. Enforcement and/or appeals should be requested at WP:AE.
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nair article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21|
|WikiProject India / Kerala / History||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
|Threads older than 1 month may be archived by.|
Kathakali,velakali,thiruvathirakali were nair traditions, why is that there is no mention regarding them? What about the partial scythian origin of nairs?(polyandry, matrifocal family functioning and Snake mother/goddess worships were Scythic customs and further proven by genetic studies. Such large number of sources ( Sitush seems to have spent a lot of time searching them and scanning for negative POVs) ,all by British anthropologists who were treated as Avarnas(untouchables) by Nambudiris and nairs (until the rise of Syrian christians and Ezhava) seems to be a delibrate attempt to defame the community
"Syrian christians who were treated at par with nambudiris"-Blunt stupidity, many of them got Kudikidappu from their nair/nambudiri landlords and was abolished from oozhiyam by the proclamation of Dewan Reddy Rao,18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, anything published before about 1950 is not considered reliable scholarship. Do you have any contemporary sources for your claims? - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh really,then why qoute panikkar (1918)?? Fawcett (1907)??
Whats the idea of such claims, the proclamation was issued on 29 December 1815, now how can you modify the date and time of a Royal proclamation?
Syriac Pulapilly Says" Nairs and Ezhavas have common ancestors" well another typical christian vandal whose problem with nairs are historic, The proximity of EZHAVAS AND SYRIAN CHRISTIANS seems more evident from the fact that many ezhavas converted to christianity to escape casteism,Both communities are into LIQUOR AND COIR businesses, Both became influential after the World wars, Syrians claim namboothiri origin while in kerala and Jewish origin while in USA just to "big up" their status.
- Wikipedia is a work in progress. sitush has been in the process of replacing the Panikkar citations. However, in general, we attempt to progress, not regress. (By the way, the welcome message on your talk page tells you how to write talk page messages and sign them.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Kautilya This is Rabtman. You mention that Sitush was in the process of removing Panikkar's citations. He has not not done anything yet, and if we are in the process of builiding an Encyclpedia, why is no one else allowed to contribute and to do the exact same thing? The fact that this article is written in a deragatory manner is beyond question. However, I have read many Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and am now clear on the citations. This has gone too far, and I would have expected a little more from other editors who are not so keen on defacing Military Castes (see Jatt article). I will repeat what has been said for far too long and far too much. There is too much bias in the sources of the articles for starters. The intro itself doesn't say what the Nairs were, but rather says "also known as Nayar, are a group of Indian castes, described by anthropologist Kathleen Gough as "not a unitary group but a named category of castes". The Nair include several castes and many subdivisions, not all of whom historically bore the name 'Nair'.". What is mentioned by Kathleen Gough in a tiny section of her book has all but been copied into this article. None of the military activities, family rituals, and role of the community sections found in the book has been found in this article. In fact, there is no Polygamy section at all in Kathleen Gough's book and the only section which has polygamy even mentioned is in the introduction (and there is no particular reference to Nairs in that intro regarding Polygamy). This is an article about a Community that has been oppressive to lower castes for hundreds of years, to an extent that there are literally organizations which seek to bring down the Nair community. This Wikibullying is going a little too far. Rabt man (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- You do not advance your case by sockpuppeting, as you have done. I will continue to trawl through the sources as and when I feel well enough but I am not going to pay much attention to you, sorry. This article has been infested by sockfarm(s) for years. You are another Nair POV-pusher and frankly I don't give a shit what you think and will just concentrate on the sources. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@kautilya -you said that any literature earlier than 1950 is unreliable, in that case the Law should be applied to the articles of communities such as Ezhavas and Syrian christians, By the way The sources for "SYRIAN CHRISTIAN" article are christian missionaries while Ezhava article seems to have referred from a lot of News papers!! and that too with communist leaning!, Now give me a reason as to why the references earlier to 1950 is unreliable?, are you questioning the credibility of historians and anthropologists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Because prior to 1950, during the colonial times, the scientific standards in social sciences was rather low and scientific racism of all kinds prevailed. There is a lot of contemporary literature that shoots down the theories and conclusions formulated in those times. The guidelines formulated for history, WP:HISTRS, insist on "recent" scholarship. Similar conventions are followed in all social science-related areas. In any case, if any of the claims made in pre-1950s literature are in fact true, they would again be stated in recent literature. If they are not stated, we presume that they weren't true. So your best bet is to look for recent literature. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
That is too childish,as i have mentioned why is that there is a double standard while writing articles pertaining to Syrian catholic and ezhava articles, even communist oriented newspapers are made references.More over the book by Kathleen gough has clearly mentioned that NAIRS FORMED THE CORE OF ARISTOCRACY IN ALL PARTS OF KERALA, not some militant organisation like LTTE- your opening paragraph suggest that nairs were some militant oraganisation!!, now this is very important in context of the social renaissance in kerala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
In the discussion that followed regarding Montages in Caste based articles, there were 2 people who said they opposed them while 2 said they had approved of them, while some who were pro-montage inevitably left the discussion. There has been no consensus during that issue, and I feel as if it should be brought up again. However, I would like to discuss this issue before someone 'reverts' my edits without giving solid reason. Rabt man (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- See User:Sitush/Common#Montages for the background, and try to understand that consensus is not a vote. I have no idea why you think it was "inevitable" that some pro-montage people would leave a discussion, unless you think they recognised theirs was a lost cause or you recognise that this article has been plagued by sockpuppets and believe those who left were among that number. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Why has the article not talked about Nair wedding rituals like Murai kalyanam or in plain words- Cousin marriage? this was the most common form of wedding, Sambhandam was done only by a few of them while the majority practised cousin wedding 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Where are your sources? Many sources refer to sambhandam, which is why it gets so much attention in the article. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
you have to understand for nairs the marriage was MURA KALYANAM, sambhandam was not a common affair, you seem to have referred so many sources and if you don't find any information it simply means that you are then trying to stereotype the community with all negative POV https://books.google.co.in/books?id=MgwaAAAAIAAJ&dq=editions:0AFLRE73TKdVYLaZfFRR9ig5YsqjVtreKIM0nwcpVHHlWTszLoOau0nM&lr= Refer this book on the link i have shared "The Eastern Anthropologist" (vol4),flip to page 29 and enlighten yourself,I REPEAT SAMBHANDAM WAS NOT A COMMON AFFAIR,do not meddle with the identity of an entire community
The reason for the persistent trouble in the article can be dealt with as per the given reasons. Ill try to keep it as short as possible.
1. Diet Section
The Diet section uses a lot of statements which say that the Nairs eat beef and pork etc. In fact, they actually contradict each other, as one says that they do not eat beef . The entire diet for a particular community can not be generalized in such a way, and has caused a ton of problems.
2. Origin Theories
Completely based upon the work of Cyriac Pullapilly. By origin theories, I am referring to the common origin with Ezhavas, and the 'Aryan Jains needed protection' theory. This is presented only by Pullapilly, and per, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&redirect=no#Due_and_undue_weight, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article". The point is, the article isnt an ancillary article like for example, Aryan Invasion Theory.
3. NPOV Concerns
NPOV can be addressed in two areas, one in the religion area and the other in the lead. In the religion area, I do not mean that the source is biased, but rather, the way in which the religion section is worded can be changed. Namely, this;
"Panikkar, writing in 1918, describes the religious practices of Nairs as being "an extraordinary mixture of Hindu and Dravidian cults." and that the community was at that time "as a whole, a people almost without a religion". Of those who were devout Hindus, he notes that " ... although they have been Hinduised in form and have belonged to the Hindu fold, their primitive beliefs have survived to a great extent ... [The Nairs] still maintain with undiminished vigour their spirit-worship, black-magic, and demoniacal ceremonies ..."."
As per, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion, I am not asking for removal of it, but merely a change in wording to reflect a less offensive tone. The other point as well ties to the above statement, but words such as 'unusual' in the lead do not reflect NPOV at all. This leads to the next issue.
(3.5?) Neutral Sourcing
There are two main sources which are of concern. One is, Pius Malekandathil who glorifies the Syrian Christian community of Kerala whenever possible in his works and degrade others. The other one is much more obvious, and is the minority rights and Syrian Christian assertions source. Although Malekandathil's work has a title of Portuguese Cochin and the maritime trade of India, 1500–1663, the material itself is a Syrian Christian glorification text. Much like Sadasivan's work which was at first thought to be reliable but later found to be complete nonsense.
Some information in the lead can be cut down/and-or/moved into the actual article itself. For example, the snake worship section does not give a significant portion of what is in the article itself. This can be moved and re-worded into a new section known as 'Naga Worship".
I have explained this in the edit summaries, but mainly move some things which pertain toward the Modern Era into a section with that itself as the name. For the history section, perhaps removal of the two subcategories into one cohesive section. Also, an etymology section from the first part of the history section.
Namely two areas:
Some new information was added earlier, which was reverted. When this "most are about specific people, not the community" was said, I assume that it means the Velu Thampi section. The information pertaining to the Nairs themselves were in the article alongside the information that he himself was a Nair.
There is already a citation for military history which said,"Fuller has noted a general opinion that Nair soldiers were drawn only from the higher subdivisions of the community but believes that these subdivisions formed numerically the vast majority of the whole.". This can be added to the beginning of the Martial Traditions section which was removed. This will address that concern.
This revision attempts to deal with such issues in a much more cohesive manner; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nair&oldid=702472398 Thanks, Rabt man (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)