Talk:Nair/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

S. N. Sadasivan as a source

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

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

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

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

Odd, that. There are some "pros" who actually edit Wikipedia. This includes at least one admin who is a tenured professor in the US. Pros would be less likely to accept articles based on hearsay, misread sources etc, which is what the majority of contributors to this talk page are providing. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
So... the Indian Institute of Public Administration has "no indian"s in it? The dozens and dozens of PhD Indian academics who cite Sadasivan's work don't count as "Indians"? Having acutal published paper books from major publishers, and being cited in other formal published products of universities and academic publishers worldwide counts as "having an internet presence" as though he were a blogger or YouTube sensation? It's becoming abundantly clear that you and others have no actual real argument against Sadavasian other than "make the mean man stop saying things I don't like". This is called WP:I don't like it, so a good guideline to read. Like Sitush, the amusement factor of arguing with rants has lost its fun for the day, so like him I will no longer respond to any editor comments which do not follow WP procedure, such as personal attacks, unsourced statements, etc. I will be happy to converse with anyone who brings legitimate sources, has suggested input, specifically stated concerns backed up by reliable sources, etc., but we're getting nowhere by trying to maintain a civil conversation with people who apparently don't like Nair history as recorded by dozens of academics, and instead would like the article to be based on personal opinion. If your personal opinion conflicts with dozens of academics, both Indian and foreign, with reputable university educations, perhaps you need to reexamine the veracity of your personal opinions? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Prominent Nairs

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

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

Anti-nair Propaganda

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

Please to to the main Nair page and hit the "History" tab. Note that justification has been given for all material that was removed, generally because it could either not be cited to a reliable source, was cited to an unreliable or discredited source, or conflicted with more reliable data and could not be defended with equivalent reliable sources. I suggest you skim through the History tab of the main article, and also check out the archives of the past couple months of this Talk page, where you can see that these matters have been discussed in minute detail. If you have WP:Reliable sources calling into question the assertions in the article, by all means produce them here. The polyandry issue may be contested, but there is plentiful anthropological work documenting its history, so you'd need to provide some very clear academic sources calling into question these portrayals of polyandry, and even then the material would likely not be removed, but the debate itself noted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The debate is already noted in Nair#Polyandry. Although one bit of it is likely to disappear before long unless someone can sort out my query below. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Most of the "25" (which likely includes multiples) have been unable to produce actual evidence in line with Wikipedia policy. People have not been banned for being pro-Nair, they have been banned for obscene language, unexplained deletions, replacing cited text with uncited or improperly-cited text, etc. As posted above, there is an entire Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard where you can raise issues of POV and get some completely fresh and uninvolved eyes on this topic. However, I do not in the slightest expect that neutral editors will oppose the current version, much less revert to an earlier version, nor block constructive editors who have undertaken massive cleanup and footnoting, and responded politely to ongoing abusive language. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Ok, I will address your original points:
  • Dog-Ayyappa legend: it is cited to a source that has all the appearances of being reliable and, although modern, is 10 or so years old. If the statement is so untrue then I would have expected a rebuttal in another source during the intervening decade. I should point out that a similar statement appears in a source from around 20 years ago & is noted somewhere on this talk page. Furthermore, the legend is discounted by the very source that is used.
  • Polyandry: yes, there is a debate. The debate is discussed in the article.
  • Ezhava: the article makes clear that this is one person's opinion. The person appears to be reliable & the source has been used on many other articles about India, often provided by Indian editors themselves. We are talking of a very ancient connection here, not 200 years ago or something like that.
  • OBCs: this is the government classification system. If you do not like it then blame the government.
Hope this helps. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Sujith.Kumaar, all you have to do if you believe the article to be "heavily inaccurate" is to discuss each specific inaccuracy, suggest a more accurate version, and provide a reliable source to support it. But so far, I've seen none of the complainants doing that - all we get is accusations of "anti Nair hatemongers" thrown about, and no constructive efforts at all to improve things. So come on, let's see something constructive - identify one inaccuracy and provide a correction backed by a reliable source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and just a technical point - nobody has been banned, just blocked, and only for short periods so far -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Ah, the good old fashioned "I'm very upset but too busy to do anything" defense. You have posted several lengthy complaints, with time that could have been used to find alternate sources and bring suggested modifications. And while you were expressing unclear concerns, I managed to add another two paragraphs with multiple references to the "Attire" section. I would suggest that you either take constructive action, whether providing alternate references and suggested changes, or filing a specific and clear complaint at the POV Noticeboard, or else refrain from commenting on issues that you have explicitly stated you have no intent to fix. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
FOR THE LAST TIME ... I do not claim that Nairs are dogs, or whatever variation you want to put on that. Nor does Sadasivan, nor does anyone else who has contributed to the article. Furthermore, I did not introduce that source to the article. Get your facts right, please. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Well, if you want to put it like that then, yes, I am questioning your ability to understand what is written. Honestly, the article does not say what you seem to think it does. As for your comment to MatthewVanitas, that may well earn you a warning or even a block for being a threatening comment. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Tell me where in the following Sadasivan says Nairs are dogs (or similar). And where I say it. "Legendarily, as narrated in the Brahmin work Kerala-jatyachara-nirnayam, the term was said to have been bestowed upon three Naga girls by a Brahmin after an image of a dog ('nai') they created was brought to life and became the escort of Ayyappa.[9] It should be noted that comparisons with and relationships to dogs were not derogatory references at the time when theses ancient texts were written,[11] and that Sadasivan comments, "However credible its objective may be, the story is as incredible as any other Brahmanic myths."" - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want a "neutral admin", again suggest you toddle on over to the POV Noticeboard and solicit one. You have added far more text to this page than would be needed to file a formal POV request there. Nobody is "bullying" you, I am simply stating the clear fact that you are providing no argument, and my opinion that you are unlikely to gain any support from a "neutral" admin, which I think rather unfarily labels Boing as "non-neutral" in a rather impolite way. Also, please see my brief research into Sadasivan's credibility, posted at the bottom of this page. This may help you to appreciate why we consider him a reliable source. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
NB: Boing is not the only admin who has regretfully had to block contributors to this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Well, then, provide some sources to back up what you say! We can't just take personal assertions that such-and-such is true and such-and-such is not true. Please just think about it for a moment - how can we possibly accept what you say without some sources? If we accept what you say without sources, then we'd also have to accept other people saying the opposite, wouldn't we? Simple question - are you really expecting us to just believe you, and just disbelieve the people you disagree with? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
No offence intended to the above IP but as a general comment I think that I am going to simply ignore all statements of this type from now on. Provide some evidence that meets Wikipedia's criteria and you (or anyone else) will get a reply from me. Provide no evidence; just go off on a rant; call people names; fail to read the article correctly etc and, well, forget it. I have far better things to do with my time here helping out people who either want decent information or want help in presenting decent information. Getting into arguments with people who simply do not understand how this place works and seem often not to want to understand is just giving me a headache. If you don't like it and cannot provide evidence then just go some place else. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I think in wiki, there is a separate criteria for you. Axxn (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sujith.Kumaar is blocked for 24 hours for making an apparent threat and for repeatedly making unfounded personal accusations. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations. 143.205.176.60 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


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

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

There is an ongoing thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Some_help_over_Nair discussing the Nair issue. If you genuniely believe an admin is acting in a non-neutral way, and that the principles of Wikipedia are being disregarded here, you are completely free to express your concerns there. It is not constructive to drag up concerns, particularly serious allegations about the misuse of WP, and to insist that all sorts of other "neutral" people would consider your side to be obviously right, and then make no motion to actually contact neutral people specifically involved in arbitration. You may be "busy", but the time you and others have taken to post here could have been used to go to the current ANI thread and lay out your concerns in a clear manner which would communicate your concerns to uninvolved editors.
The list of "100" earlier suggested footnotes have not been "thrown into the wastebin", they have not been used either because they explicitly say that the Nair are not literal Kshatriya (a point often noted even in the summaries of the editors who dug them up to support the Kshatriya case in the first place), or are non-substantive offhand comments, or observations by non-experts who may have noted the claims but did not analyse or investigate them. Sitush took the trouble to look into a good number of them, and added (you may note) to that thread specific comments as to what was and was not applicable, to which there was little to no rebuttal.
If you have concerns, please take them to the current ANI thread, as you have not brought up any new concerns which have not already been addressed extensively. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: "in july as I hope zebeedy sir will calmed down" - I can assure you I am calm. In fact, if I was any calmer, I'd be the Sea of Tranquility. It doesn't matter when you plan on contributing here, be it this month, July, or wherever, it won't change the way you are expected to go about it. You must discuss the changes you want on the Talk page, provide reliable sources that support your claims, and get a consensus - and that's nothing to do with me, it's just the rules -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, you've also been given the link to the ANI report I started, asking for people to review my actions (and I provided you with a link myself yesterday, at your Talk page). If you care to take a look, you'll see that my actions are actually being supported - but if you think I have acted incorrectly or unfairly, you are welcome to say so there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Form subcats of Category:Nair

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

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

Religion

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

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

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

Not "Vashi", it is "Vaazhi"

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

That is my doing, sorry. I have used the spelling that Panikkar (a Nair) uses in his book. As with many native terms, they do seem sometimes to have numerous transliterated spellings. "Sudra"/"Shudra", "Nair"/"Nayar", "Taravad"/"Tharavad", and so on. In these situations, the principle is that the article remains consistent in which ever spelling is adopted. I believe that it is consistent, so all is well.
The only exception to the rule about consistency is if a term appears in a quotation. In that situation, we use the spelling that the person quoted used. Hope this helps. - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You are so right, Tiger's tail, it is "Vazhi", not "Vashi". This is a perfect example for how a Wikipedia article can be filled with nonsenses by spoon-fed Non-Indian editors who doesn't have even slightest understanding about what they key in.
@Sitush: please see the Wikipedia article Naduvazhi. -- G O V I N D S H A R M A 05:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Now this just proves my point. Tigers Tail says that it is "Vaazhi" and Govind Sharma says that it is "Vazhi". Despite those two proferring different versions, Govind Sharma manages to claim that they are in agreement, which is odd. One letter "A" or two? "Z" or "S", etc.
I'm quite happy to change the spelling if it is wrong, but not when it is clear that there probably are, as I said in the first instance, numerous variants due to transliteration issues. If someone can make a convincing case then I am all ears (well eyes, but you know what I mean). A "convincing case" does not mean another Wikipedia article. As we know from the history of this one, they may not be reliable or even, dammit, correct. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi folks. Checking the Manual of Style, we see...
  • "For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete. If a foreign term does not appear in the article's references, adopt the spelling most commonly used in other verifiable reliable sources (for example other English-language dictionaries and encyclopedias)"
So I think what we need here is to have a look over the sources used in these articles and see if there's any predominantly-used spelling. Other than that, if there's no academically accepted formal transliteration system, there is unlikely to be any one "correct" transliteration -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I've already done that for existing article sources. It was a somewhat tedious job despite the fact that I have in fact pretty much read every source listed in the article anyway (where I have access to them). IIRC, I checked for "vashi", "vazhi" and both of those with "desa" and "nad" prepended to them. I didn't check for "vaazhi" or "vaashi", nor for "naad" (which I have just noticed appears in the article GovindSharma refers to). I was not aware of those spellings previously and so possibly they do not appear in the sources used at all. The permutations of this are clearly endless, so I just kept using the one which I had begun with, from the source which was being cited for the relevant statements. It seemed like a common sense solution to me. I vaguely recollect that Britannica offers something different but, hey, that is no more reliable than anything else used here.
If someone wants to go through to determine the preponderance of "vaashi"/"vaazhi" appearances in the sources then that is fine by me. I really do think that this is less a issue of concerns about spelling and more one of trying to find things wrong with the article. Certainly in the case of the latter contributor. It just does not seem to be constructive to me, given what I had already done, but YMMV. - Sitush (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's essentially what I was suggesting - we have a consistent spelling in the article for a term that appears to have multiple possible transliterations, so if someone wants to change that they would really need to determine which is the most common spelling used in the cited sources -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Both "Vazhi" and "Vaazhi" are correct. Malayalam has both short and long vowels and they are considered distinct. In English, the same letter is used for long and short vowels, and are pronounced based on context. (E.g.: Apple, Absurd) So, in Malayalam transliteration also, this habit is sometimes seen. For example, take the word "Malayalam". Here first, second and fourth "a" is short while the third "a" is pronounced long. Therefore, if someone writes "Malayaalam", it is not wrong. (It is more correct, in fact.) So, in short, "Vazhi" is correct, "Vaazhi" is more correct. Even alternative spellings "Vaazhy", "Wazhy", etc may be considered OK while "Vashi" is totally unacceptable. It symbolizes a totally different sound. The letter we are talking about is "ഴ". This sound exists only in southern Dravidian languages. Anyway, we have reliable sources for Malayalam transliteration.
First one is Google Script Converter. Anybody may copy + paste this word there: നാടുവാഴി (Naduvazhi). You will get this result.
If you can't read Malayalam, do this. Type "1. Naduvazhi 2. Naduvaazhi 3. Naduvashi" into the converter and select to Convert from English to Malayalam. You will get this result "1. നാടുവാഴി 2. നാടുവാഴി 3. നടുവാശി" You can see first and second spellings yielded same result "നാടുവാഴി" (this means both spellings are correct), while the third one transliterated as "നടുവാശി" which gives zero result if searched in Google (that means there is no such word) while the former gives around 1,680 search results.
In google, if an alternative spelling is more common, Google asks, Did you mean: xxxxxx . So see this link to determine which spelling is more common.
Another useful link is the definition of this word in Online Malayalam English Dictionary. Search for both "Naduvazhi" and "Naduvashi" there and see what happens.
Again, if you can read Malayalam, go here. Type "zha" and "sha" there and see what results you are getting. Only "zha" yields our letter "ഴ" while "sha" gives a totally different letter "ഷ".
If you need more proof, check how words containing "ഴ" is transliterated popularly.
I know many here are after Google Books. So two more links.
Your response please. --The Tiger's Tail Caught By The Dog (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am not reading all of that. I certainly do not care what the hopelessly unreliable GTranslate says, and have next to no interest in linguistics. I really couldn't care less how it is spelled and I have said this before. All I did was explain why I had used the spelling which I had used. Spell it however you want, as far as I am concerned, but be consistent. And do not change it using search-and-replace because that may affect some quotes. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I have done it for you. I see that you are fairly new here (unless you have previously used an IP), so it is probably quicker for me to do it. Everybody happy now? - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon Thanks for the consideration. I can't edit this page as it is protected. It will be great if the first occurrence of "Nadu Vazhi" links to the article with same name. --The Tiger's Tail Caught By The Dog (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I intended to do that. Also for desavazhi if there is a separate article. Having said which, Naduvazhi is a mess. Another one to add to my list ... - Sitush (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Some outstanding queries re: sources

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

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

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

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

Full version of the "dog" legend

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

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

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

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

No. It is way too long. There was no problem with the earlier version. I am reverting. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I have also removed your recently added image. Despite your edit summary, there was no consensus at all for this picture, which is incredibly poor quality & distorted. - Sitush (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
If it is so, I would like to know why this image of Ettuveetil Pillamar is not removed from the article despite its bad quality? In which way this image is better than the image you just removed?
File:Nayar Pillai.jpg
Your problem, as I told already, is that you want to remain the sole contributor. I am putting another image which is comparatively of good quality. I am very much interested to see whether you are going to come up with any silly arguments to remove this as well. Also, if you do not have any explanation for keeping the above image of Ettuveetil, I can see it being removed as well. Nowhere in this article, Ettuveetil Pillamar are mentioned. --CheKON 13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Much better, thanks. As for Ettuveedan, I know nothing about that other than it has been in and out of this article umpteen times. The same applies to the other image which you have just removed. I have no views on them. My problem with your previous image was that it was massively distorted & better images must surely be available (as you have now proven). My other problem was that in your edit summary you claimed a consensus that simply did not exist.
I have not added any images to this article; I have not contributed to sections such as Attire, Religion and Cuisine; much of the content in Sambandam and Tharavad etc is not mine; the Etymology section has merely been tweaked by me; the Military section has little input from me. I could go on. How the hell am I owning this article?

A sentence that contradicts its citation

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

This sentence contradicts its citation. The citation says:

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

  • Here, as per the reference, the title was given not to Naga girls, but to Sudras, for their help in jungle.
  • The reference does not say the the image was "created" by Naga girls. It just says they took the images from mount Meru to the heaven. --CheKON 13:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering why sitush, Matthew, Raj, etc. have nothing to say about this. I am planning to replace the above statement in etymology with this:

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

Naga girls and "image brought to life" incident are irrelevant and can be omitted. Looking forward for comments. Silence will be counted as consent for the change. --CheKON 00:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I am still trying to work it out. There is no rush. - Sitush (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, this particular detail was the subject of a recent discussion at WP:ANI, so a fair few people cast their eyes over it. That was why it was amended from what it originally said. Changing it would be going quite a way beyond the opinions of those of us who participate regularly on this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm open to a review of the citation so as to get some consensus on explicitly what it says, but let's not go rushing with any "no answer in five minutes means consent." The tweaking of the phrasing got pretty lost in the whole kerfuffle about how "offensive" it was (and I do note that the sentence is no less "offensive" in the re-reading, so it's not like folks were ticked off my a mis-reading, just by the sentence, period). It was phrased differently earlier, so I'm open to critique that the details are mis-ordered. But let's get a couple folks on it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Matthew, there is no question of "offensive" or "equally offensive". It is a matter of how far we are sincere to our source. As far as Wikipedia is not censored, we can use a sentence here even if it is termed "offensive" by some. The only criteria is that it should go with the reference, not against it. I did not ask anybody to answer within 5 minutes. This thread remained unanswered since Sunday and I can see you people are commenting in other threads. This is enough to suspect one that you are trying to ignore it deliberately, as you have nothing to say for supporting your stand. @Sitush, as far as I can see, even though it was placed on WP:ANI noticeboard, the discussion concluded that it is just a content dispute and no ANI required. Even such an ANI notification was the result of your misleading interpretation of Sadasivan's words. I myself tried to replace it with a direct quote from Sadasivan's book, but you immediately reverted it saying it is too long and you said there is no problem with your sentence. So I was forced to indicate that there IS problem in that sentence. Kindly note that nobody, even a group of administrators have the right to protect a sentence which apparently contradicts its source. Nobody asked you to add this misinterpreted version of etymology. You added it on your own discretion and when questioned you say: "I'm working on it". The problem here is, you are not ready to improve the sentence yourself nor you won't allow others to do so. This is what called Owning. --CheKON 06:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
1. I didn't add it. 2. It is now very clear that you are socking. 3. My reasons for removing the full quote was undue weight - an already contentious statement was expanded to the point where it would overwhelm what is a short section. 4. You were not forced to do anything. What you do here is of your own volition and you have to take responsibility for your own actions.
I am thinking about it. I have been thinking about it on and off for a few days. Some things take time. Expanding the section on Religion is also taking time. Rajkris has spent weeks thinking about something on another topic. I have not hurried Rajkris and I would appreciate this not being hurried either. Getting my head round what Sadasivan is saying is, frankly, hard work. Maybe it is easy for people who (perhaps) have been brought up with these complex myths but I struggle to get my head round the imagery just as much as I struggled with Milton's imagery at school. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Who is the Brahmin referred to in the quote? Ayyappa or Vishnu or some other being? - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I am still bewildered regarding how to phrase this but, yes, I think Chekon is correct that the info has become mangled. Somehow we need to get a sentence or two (max.) that explains Naga girls, animation of image of dog, escort and Sudras. And the word "nai", of course. I am sure that it can be done :) - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion re: direction, copied from my own talk page

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

You can think what you like about it, no problem, but you do not have consensus for some of the things you are doing. I realise that the talk page is very long but in there you will find agreement to extend and then split the article, and to formulate a lead section after the body has been sorted out. Even non-contributors to the page have recognised that there are considerable improvements.
I am not the only person who is aware that it is a bit "choppy" at the moment but your changes are (mostly) not improving anything. All they are doing is making it harder to hit a target. The plan is for this to become a Good Article, which is something I have experience of achieving. Have you? - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. This article is now elaborately describes many things that are not related to Nairs. Eg: Origin of Caste system, supernatural beliefs, Serpant groves, kuttichathan theyyam, etc etc... If this is what you call achieving, then you can go on with your idea and later rename the article to something relevant like "Hinduism in Kerala" or "Communal history of Kerala" or so. --KondottySultan (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
... continued here

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

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


The article has written to show only negatives. As there was no clear proof of these, the article need to be revised and need to be rewritten emphasizing the glorious past and proud warrior history of Nairs. It is no doubt that they belongs to the kshatria/Rajputs class (if the term is applicable to southern India) of Kerala. This is an insult to the community. Please remove recent edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viswan7575 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Marriage vs sex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All I understood is that you are afraid of Nairs getting offended and hence try to 'Beat About The Bush. If you have something to convey, show the boldness to say it straight rather than trying to embed the truth inside long words. Best of luck --KondottySultan (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, None of these sources are "old" as you say. The oldest is Fawcett which is already cited in this article. --KondottySultan (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I have some problems with Fawcett, having read some of it since MV raised his work. People of his era who measured skulls/noses etc often held a viewpoint which, at its extreme, became Nazism. However, I still have more to read & for things such as attire there seems to be a limited scope even for a white supremacist to do damage. On issues such as sexuality, however, people of his generation and origin often held a highly moralistic viewpoint and this impinges on their observations and their writing.
It is indeed the case that I do not want to insult Nairs. I want to be factual. I would hope that others feel the same. You ignore my point that your quotations were excessively long, which potentially creates an issue regarding weight. You also ignore the need for balance, which is often why it is indeed necessary to walk round a bush several times rather than just diving into it. We wouldn't want to get pricked by the thorns, would we? - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Then what is the reason for your second revert? Even after I shortened it to the following paragraph. Read it again. Where it lacks balance? Again it is clear and straight.

Historians do not have consensus over the actual validity of sambandhams as legitimate marriages. While Panikkar argues that sambandham was "the real marriage dejure and de facto", Edmund Ronald Leach reports that Nambudiris considered their sambandham partners as concubines.[1] Nair Service Society also, during the times of social reformation in Nair society condemned sambandham as lack of 'self-respect' and a degradation that permits Nair women to be exploited as concubines by Nanbudiris.[2] Edward Westermarck in his book "History of Human Marriage" opines that the polyandrous unions of the Nairs can hardly be called marriages. According to him, Nairs did not marry or were not allowed to marry.[3] This confirms Fawcett's earlier assertion that there is no such thing as marriage amongst the Nayars.[4]

I expect comments from some neutral people as well.--KondottySultan (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the article already mentions the differences of academic opinion, the role of the NSS etc. Try reading the entire thing instead of cherry-picking it. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

nair is not nagar

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

Hi Swathy and Swetha, the Nair article has been changed by a group of editors with dubious intent from last month onwards, so in my opinion, the current version is not even 10% accurate. Please see the original version of the article (decide yourself which version is more accurate), or go through the Nair article in Metapedia. Thanks. Shannon1488 (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Instead of denigrating in a random manner, Shannon, why not read the article first? It specifically says that "this etymology has been labelled as fanciful". Some of your responses tend to have the appearance of WP:COATRACK. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I also note that the Metapedia entry is mostly an unattributed copy of an earlier version of this article, entered in bulk around the time you got blocked here. This is a breach of WP licensing and also Metapedia policies. I am tempted to revert those edits there for this reason. Oddly, it claims that Nagar/Nair is the valid etymology - ROTFL. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I notice that it is attributed, right at the bottom of the page. I have added the template to the top, for clarity. Sorry about that. Enjoy your time there as Vest007. I see that you have already been blocked once. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


You are right. The name "Nair" has no connection with "Naga". Read this:

A social history of India S. N. Sadasivan (October 2000), APH Publishing. ISBN: 9788176481700. Page:331.

"..In Brahminic Hinduism dog and hound have come to occupy an important position. Even in the English language, phrases like watch-dog, dog-like loyalty and dogged resistance are expressions of high literary acceptability. Kampil Ananthan in his open letter (1952) addressed to R. Narayana Panicker, a Malayalam Lexicographer pointed out that the domestic services in Sanskrit were swavrithy (suna- eva-vrithy) which is given as "sevaswa vriti rakhyata" in Manusmruti and sevaswa vrithy in Amarakosa and, therefore he comes to the conclusion like Kanippayyoor that the term Nayar means one who serves the Nampootiri with dog-like loyalty (for further meaning refer to pp. 53-54 of the Open Letter). Even otherwise Manusmriti loudly proclaims that the Sudras' occupation is to render services at the foot of the Brahmin and the other two varnas. At the time when the Kerala Sudras fully trusted the Nampootiri and hailed him god, he had cleverly coined the term Nayar concealing the meaning of it but making them believe that it was an honorific."

→KondottySultan (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason why both sides are presented in the article is because, well, there are two views. The Nagar connection is mentioned by Barbosa, which in itself is way too old to carry much weight. However, it was also supported by K M Panikkar, which is a source we have used for a lot of the article content because he was an academic Nair and provides useful balance. I agree that it seems unlikely given the more recent research, hence the qualifier that I quoted above. We must show balance where reasonable. To do otherwise is to demonstrate a POV. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Instead of quoting the above directly from Sadasivan (whom you say to be reliable), your etymology talks about some unverifiable legends. And I saw somewhere above you asking "Who is that Brahmin?" You are really a humorous guy. --KondottySultan (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
There are guidelines for use of quotes. Yours are beyond the pale. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be collections of quotes. - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring Sitush. @Swathy,swetha & Shannon1488, another source you may be interested to see:

Images of man: religion and historical process in South Asia - Fred W. Clothey (1982). New Era Publications.

"..The latter implies the nayars are those who possessed the dog and used it in the hunt, that is, hunters. This latter etymology, if it has any merit, would suggest a striking reason for the affinity between the Nayars and Sasta."

--KondottySultan (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

What point are you making here? That Nayars were hunters who used dogs? That is a valid point, although a poor explanation of the nomenclature, given that I would have thought most tribes were hunters & many used dogs so why did this particular one become known as Nayar? We would probably need to explain this in some way. However, I also note "if it has any merit" - the author does not seem to be sure of his ground, does he? Is there anything more that can be found on this? - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Just referring back a little, you mention that "your etymology talks about some unverifiable legends". Actually, it is not my etymology; indeed, I did not even introduce any of the points mentioned in that section, and the people who did are citing the etymology as explained by apparently reliable sources. Since we cannot use primary sources here, we cannot verify to them. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

NAIR THE REAL KSHATHRIAS

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

Greetings, you have provided no citations to academic works to back up your assertions. The current statements in the article are almost entirely footnoted to professional academic works, so if you have a differing concept that you want to see expressed, first and foremost you have to bring forward some citations that back up your statements. Do please also note that a large number of Indian castes claim Kshatriya status despite being labeled as Shudra in academic works, so it is not at all unexpected that you raise this concern. But if you are "seriously learning" this subject, you should be well-aware of how common, and generally unsubstantiated, claims to Kshatriya status tend to be. If you have academic works attesting to this "pure Kshatriya" status, or any of your other assertions, please share them here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Start a sentence with CAPITAL LETTERS. Put space between sentences. Sign comments with "~~~~". Nothing else to say about your comments. Simply nonsense. --KondottySultan (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair Service Society on Sambandham

I think it very important to include the opinion of NSS on sambandham. It should be included in the article explicitly because NSS is the undisputed organisation of Nairs and hence its accord represents that of the community itself. NSS views sambandham as an evil custom and this is why Nairs of today do not use this term to denote their marriage.

As Fuller says:

"..Nayar reformers and the Nayar Service Society began to urge them to regain their 'self-respect', and to stop degrading themselves by permitting their women to be exploited as concubines by Nambudiris. (As one informant put it: 'sambandham' (to a Nambudiri) was really 'asambandham' (a mockery).) More pertinently, Nayars began to object to Nambudiri refusal to contribute towards the upbringing of the children they fathered.."

--KondottySultan (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several million Nairs. The NSS membership was around 60,000 last time I checked. - Sitush (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, the article already says that the NSS discouraged the traditional rituals etc. It also uses Fuller as a source for this. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
It does not straightway conveys anything. Both sambandham and Thalikettu kalyanam are viewed today, as an evil customs. There are people who claims sambandham was proper marriage. If so why it should be discouraged?
Membership of NSS?? lol. Man, you will never know India. --KondottySultan (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The article already addresses the decline of the practices you refer to & that they were deprecated even by Nairs way back when. This is getting wearisome. It is quite clear to me that you are trying to push a POV, attempting to introduce "needling" points. The (somewhat old, 1970s) membership figures come from Fuller or Pullapilly - I could check which, if you are that keen. I do not need to know India. In fact, being apart from it has its advantages in a Wikipedia sense. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to type such lengthy comments. You can answer every thread just by saying I don't like it --KondottySultan (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Not true. You have added some stuff to the article that is very useful, and it is appreciated. It is just that, often, you are clearly trying to place excessive weight on certain issues. It really was not necessary to explain the full barbering process, in my opinion. This is why I cut back your long quotes about depilation: the point was valid but the means of expressing here it was not. You'll get the same response if you log back in as Chekon. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I could actually see the barbering issue going into some sub-article, perhaps if there were a "Hygeine" section "Nair attire", but given Kondotty's interest in... edgy quotes it does seem there was some shock value intended. It is honestly interesting data, but just seemed an odd thing to single out and give such weight to. I will aim to gather some more attire material, re-write Nair attire, and see if hygiene issues overall (including frequent bathing, hair washing, and Kondotty's quote on loin-shaving) can be cohesively covered in that topic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This page is not properly edited.

reguesting editors to arrange topics in proper order..Chothy poorimol (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Which order would you suggest? - Sitush (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

MISLEADING INFORMATIONS..

Respected editors, the information given in this page are misleading ...There were actually no NAIR dynasties existed in kerala..EZHAVA kings ruled entire kerala.Even information regarding KALARIPAYATTU is wrong..ezhavas are real fighting class of kerala..Actually TIPU SULTAN was defeated by ezhavas..EVEN BRAHMINS respected ezhavas.. Chothy poorimol

This is utter drivel. Stop your disruptive posts here please. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Please block this user. This username is highly pejorative. In Malayalam "Chothy" means "Ezhava woman" and "Poorimol" means "Bitch". --KondottySultan (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


'Chothy po##imol'?!!! How Bad can this page get ( Aragorn87 10:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aragorn87 (talk • contribs)

Need to be rewritten entirely

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

I have removed the rewrite tag that you added. It is inappropriate and I think that you know it, especially since that tag refers mainly to WP:MOS issues and the article is actually very compliant in that regard. Not perfect yet, but far more compliant than most articles which do not have the tag in place.
I have added the (correct) tag for an article that is undergoing major work. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I can see you could have found yourself bit embarrassed after seeing the tag, as you believe yourself to be 'improving' the article for last few weeks. But I hope you are aware that state of other articles is not a good excuse for something. (Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). Anyway, as you have added this tag, I have no plan to re-add the previous one, as my aim solely lies in my wish to see a better article rather than any winning over other wikipedians. Thanks. --KondottySultan (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not embarrassed about anything. I am trying to work collaboratively. You have a concern, mainly because you appear to have missed some stuff on this talk page, and I figure that if you have missed the stuff then other people might also. Hence the tag. No big deal, provided it is the appropriate tag (which it was not). - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I do agree that going into the origins of the caste system, except as it specifically relates to Nairs. the section could be shortened up greatly with a link to the article on the subject. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The origins of the caste system are directly relevant to the frequent, longstanding (but misguided) claims that Nairs were kshatriya, which has been the ongoing cause of friction in this article. Claims that have been made - and denied by the governing body, the academics etc - for over a century.
The first paragraph mentions them in the quote; the second paragraph explains the alternate theory (this could be cut back). Thereafter it is all about the Nairs in the context of a caste system that differed massively from that found elsewhere in India. This the the crux of the problem: various people, usually members of the Nair caste, state that the Nairs were kshatriya because elsewhere in India they would have been classified as such. My suspicion is that, yes, elsewhere indeed they would ... but Kerala is not elsewhere.
Similarly the section on traditional customs etc can only deal with this community because their situation was different to that found elsewhere. This is precisely why they have attracted so much interest from anthropologists etc. They really were an "odd bunch" (meant in the nicest possible way). Yes, these things make for a long article and, yes, the odd sentence could be removed as redundant/repetitious etc, but the vast majority would have to remain.
As I see it, we keep adding content until things become stable in that regard. Then we copyedit, including pruning back and perhaps even forking. There are some forks already knocking around but their quality generally varies between poor and atrocious. It is for this reason that it seems to make sense to get one article "right" and then if necessary, deploy the relevant bits of it in other articles. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Sitush, How can you say Nairs are not khatriyas? Somebody from a different community has no business in writing up stories about Nairs. I am a Nair, and some of my relatives are directly from travancore royal family who are recognised khatriyas. If we can intermarry. we are part of that community. Dont spread false stories and we as Nairs are not at all interested in your Ezhava affairs. SO Please stop this The king555 (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Australians are Americans, coz they intermarry!! - KondottySultan (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Kondotty, We are talking about Nairs here, living in kerala having a rigid caste system. A place where inter-caste and inter- religion marrriages are looked down upon. Your answer is pathetic to say the least The king555 (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Kindly consider these images

The present revision not reflect the status of the community in Kerala history. This need to be edited and many sections are not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viswan7575 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

They might be ok for use somewhere, perhaps in some historical context, but please do not unilaterally remove existing images and replace them - it is pretty much the norm for articles on ethnic or national groups to have a photo of prominent members as its infobox picture -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
What is the criteria for selecting 'prominent members' ? Out of hundreds of well-known Nairs, how did you select these people? --KondottySultan (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Somewhat arbitrarily, same as we do for similar lead images. Usually editors try to select individuals from various areas (politics, sports, entertainment, academia); it will also depend on what photos are available, and their quality. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
And if anyone wants to add, change, or remove any, we do it the way we do everything round here - by discussion and consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

The other solution, suggested by me above and also on the infobox template discussion by someone else, is simply not to have a lead image. In this particular article, the infobox is next to worthless anyway. For example, it is impossible to include meaningful population statistics or meaningful related groups: the first are too old and were known to be unreliable; the second, according to the infobox page, is intended for linguistically related groups - this would mean including every caste that spoke the same language as the Nairs, which would be a lot.
I may be wrong, but I do not think that it is obligatory to have a photo in an infobox, nor is it obligatory to have an infobox in the first instance. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Again another non-nair teaching the nairs who they are!!! Funny indeed. hope you guys will find some productive work soon. Mr. Mathew is looking at the issue from a narrow angle. you mentions that "vast majority of individual nairs were not kings" but you conveniently forgot the fact that they were big land lords and chieftans who discussed and decided on major issues related to the state with kings or naduvazhi but at the same time had independant control of the land and people under them. even the king will not interfere in those affairs. One example is the "Ettuveetil pillamar" who were having a major say in tvm temple affair and even the king had only a half vote. This is similar to having the same recognision as Knights or Lords in UK. But i know you wil not like to hear these and there is a single minded approch to creating this article that is to throw away the facts and malign the community.Please Mathew, better leave Nair affairs to Nairs and concentrate on your church and bishops The king555 (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC) The king555 (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Chekon vs Rajkris - images

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

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

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

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

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

I will tell you my reason tomorrow morning. Good night.Rajkris (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
No probs. I have just realised that the POV part probably relates to the Panikkar quote that I introduced. I am intending to expand on it but things are going a little haywire here. However, even as it stands it is a valid quote and not out of place. The real problem is the uncited stuff that already exists in the section on Religion of which it forms a part. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to readd the images removed by Shekon. He has removed some good images and added degrading ones. I did not want to remove Panikar quotes.Rajkris (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ettuveedans are Nairs. Varma are upper castes Nairs. Concerning Nair women image there is no consensus.Rajkris (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I am confused now, since neither of those groups are mentioned in the article. Where do they fit in? I presume that they are within one of the subgroups. We'll need some sort of cite for it, especially since Chekon says that there is a debate about it. FWIW, the B&W photo seemed perfectly ok to me. Assuming that we can clear up the Ettuveedan/Varma issue, is there not room for both sets of images? Just looking for a compromise here. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Nair caste is comparable to Rajput caste in north. Historically only the royal, ruling lineage among them were considered as Kshatriyas by the local Brahmins. The others as members of the ruling caste and as lords, military officers and warriors only claimed the rank of Kshatriyas.I will discuss about this in detail later in Kshatriya wiki page. We have provided refs concerning the Nair origin of Kerala ruling lineage.Rajkris (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
here are some refs: [1] "The royal matrilineage of Calicut, (...) and Cochin, for instance, although of Nayar origin,... " page 38Rajkris (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
[2] "... and only the ruling lineages among them (Nayar) were known by the term Kshatriya" page 455 Rajkris (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Ignoring for now the ongoing Kshatriya issue, neither of those sources mention Varma or Ettuveedan. I am not sure that they advance things much at all with regard to the worthiness of the images. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Ettuveedan are nairs; Varma is a name used by Hindu Kings, especially Kerala rulers who have Nair origins, links.Rajkris (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Sitush is also not in favour of adding the Nair women image...Rajkris (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not? News to me, sorry. "FWIW, the B&W photo seemed perfectly ok to me." is what I said on 21 June @ 20:28. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
For NOPV, I don't mind adding the Nair women image.Rajkris (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Mahaprabha Thampuratti of Mavelikkara, daughter of Raja Ravi Varma
Cool, I'll go change that then. I'm adding the aristocrat pic to this page for reference so that we can easily find its image title if we decide there's an appopriate place to put it. It's a cool pic, it just appears we're still having some discussion as to which families fall under which subsets, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
No need to remove the Nair aristocrat pic... Concerning the Nair origins of Kerala Royal houses, I have provided refs. Those who assert that Kerala rulers are not Nair, please provide refs.Rajkris (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Image in or out aside, your references do not work. I explained this and then you replied with a circular reference + a statement without support. I think that this may be why MV said above "we're still having some discussion as to which families fall under which subsets etc". - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
you mean that this ref is wrong or not enough ?:[3] "The royal matrilineage of Calicut, (...) and Cochin, for instance, although of Nayar origin,... " page 38Rajkris (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Correct. I explained why; you came up with the circular reference. Am I missing something here? - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but I really don't understand what do you mean by circular reference... This ref tells that Kerala royal lineages have Nair origin, can you please tell me clearly what is wrong here ? Rajkris (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Ok, clear, thanks for your explanations. I will give you my reply tonight or tomorrow.Rajkris (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
My reply: if i don't make any mistake, the ref has mentionned all the ruling lineage of Kerala except the Travancore royal family. Concerning this family, here are some refs which show that this family is, in a way or another, linked to the Nair caste (BtW, the aristocrate woman pic belongs to the Travancore royal family):
[4]: "Though the ruling Venad Royal Family (later Travancore) and their few relatives claim to be Kahathriyas various customs and usages that were prevalent among them and their marital relationship with Nair families show that the Kahathriyas in this regions are not in any way different from Nairs excepting that they used to hold political power." page 27
[5]: "The contest was held in a large auditorium in a palace of the former maharajah of Travancore, a Nair royal family." page 90 Rajkris (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea if your original ref has or has not mentioned all except Travancore. Individually, they may be ok but what you are now engaged in is WP:SYNTHESIS. Damn nuisance, I know. Been stung by that one myself before now but fortunately self-recognised the issue before editing the actual aritcle. It really can be extremely frustrating, but those are the rules. - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you tell me why I am now engaged in WP:SYNTHESIS ?... What I have done so far is providing refs which show that Kerala rulers have Nair origins. That's it.Rajkris (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure. The SYNTH page says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Basically, you need a WP:RS that states all the rulers were Nair, rather than a source that says rulers of A were Nair and another that says rulers of B were Nair. HTH. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok. So, from Ref1 [6], we can say that the royal lineage of Calicut, Walluvanad, Palghat and Cochin have Nair origins... And from Ref2 [7] & Ref3 [8], Travancore royal family is also linked to the Nair caste.Rajkris (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but I am unsure what your point is here. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
user Chekon justified the removal of the Aristocrate woman (which belongs to the Travancore Royal family) by telling that Kerala Ksahtriyas are not linked to Nairs. I have provided refs telling the contrary.Rajkris (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the bit I do not get. The woman is apparently a Varma (correct me if I am wrong). Stuff about Kshatriyas and Nairs is irrelevant. Unless there is some way of making the connection between Varma and Nair then anything else is OR and/or SYNTH. I think that I may be losing the plot here but, believe me, if I am then the casual reader of an article certainly would be. There needs to be an explicit connection. The same applies to Ettuveedans, the WP article for which appears to be in need of some work.

I actually like these images, especially the painting. But liking them is not a good reason either! - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The woman is indeed a Varma, she's the daughter of Raja Ravi Varma [9]... Varma is the family name of Travaconre royal family which is linked to the Nair caste.Rajkris (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
You are missing my point, I think. You need to show that thisperson was a Nair and that this person was a member of the Travancore royal family. And you need to do it using one statement (or one series of statements) in single source. Not, for example, one source that says she was a Nair and another that says the family were of the royal family. I note that the RR Varma article has no cited sources for the relevant bit. To be honest, we're spending far too long on this. Is the picture really that important to the article? - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

To Sitush, don't show your lack of knowledge again and again. The children from two Varma parents is a Nair, until he does hiranyagarbha. Only the child of a Nambuthiri father and a Varma mother is a Varma. Go through this. Shannon1488 (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason you refer us to websites vice actual academic works? RoyalArk.net looks like an interesting read, but what exactly makes it authoritative or reliable? Also, there are much nicer ways to say "you're incorrect" than to accuse others of "lacking knowledge", especially when the best contradiction you have is somebody's personal website. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I have seen (in a RS) a table of the various permutations involving offspring of Nambudiri/Nair etc. Varma was not mentioned in it. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The ref I have given is clear: Travancore Royal family is linked the Nair caste and the woman in the pic belongs to this family. So she's linked to this caste... What is wrong in that ?... Is it against Wiki rules ?... Of course you can always argue that she may have been adopted, etc.
Concerning Ettuveetil Pillamar [10] connection to the Nair caste, here is one ref: [11] "Ettuveetil Pillai gang (a gang of eight from eight prominent Nair families..." page 44.Rajkris (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll give you an analogy. The royal family in the UK use the last name "Windsor". There are also thousands of people in the UK who have that last name but are not members of the UK royal family. Similarly, in India, there are plenty of last names that transcend castes. The fact that a rajah was called Varma does not mean either that every Varma was related to him or to the royal family, nor that every Varma was a Nair. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

NAIR MEN

Respected editors please don't consider this as vandalism.I have least intention to do that.In this page regarding Nair women there is an inscription that they used to shave there pubic area... Even Nair men also does that regularly..i don't have any reference, but being a nair i can tell u that....Kindly include this matter also in men's attire.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.153.249 (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. You've said it. Now leave it alone. You cannot cite it & so it is not going in. - Sitush (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
And to all the sane contributors to this page, I suggest that you ignore the above IP contribution even if you consider it to be an insult etc. Just do not respond unless a citation turns up. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear IP, if you don't know the way Wikipedia works, let me make it clear. We need proper reference for anything we put here. If not, it will be questioned by somebody in the future. Historians have already noted this habit of Nair women. The notation in the article is given on the basis of following record:

"Nayar women of all classes shave the hair about the vagina. They shave themselves, standing, placing one foot on a bench or anything a couple of feet or so from the ground, thus raising the leg. The use of scissors for this purpose is rare, new fangled and not sanctified by custom. In a few houses now-a-days razors of English or German manufacture are kept for the use of the women ; but according to general custom the barber woman pays periodical visits, and the women of the house receive from her a razor, with which they shave themselves. The armpits, the eyebrows and stray hairs on any other part of the body, excepting of course the head, are shaved by the barber woman. I have it an excellent authority that some of the elderly women - possibly those who are old and fleshy - submit their entire person to the barber woman's razor. The young women never."

(Nâyars of Malabar F. Fawcett (2004). Asian Educational Services. p. 195. ISBN: 9788120601710)
Can you spend some time to find a reliable source like this to support your claim? If you come up with any, then we shall put the info in the article. If not, someone else may come up in future saying, "I'm a Nair, we don't do this, you are insulting us." I hope you got the point. --KondottySultan (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


Vagina hair shaving shows that hygiene was important among Nairs. Generally, hygiene, cleanness are very important among high status people.Rajkris (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Selective citation = misinformation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To respond to your points in the order you made them:
  • it is cited. I agree with you that Sadasivan says it is absurd. I struggle to understand how you can approve of Sadasivan's opinion here and yet later call him "the ultimate bigot ever". Sounds like someone who is picking and choosing their sources to me.
  • as a general rule leads for articles do not have citations. They are summaries of the article content and the cites can be found in the body.
  • there is a cite for the Pullapilly point. As of right now it is #32.
  • got any info on the ethnicity? Reliably sourced info, that is.
  • if you read this talk page then you would understand that the article will probably be split when things have settled down a little.
  • we are not dealing with the entire populace of Kerala but with Nair. If the rest of Kerala did the same then fair enough, but it is still relevant to an article on the Nair caste.
  • I have a Jeffrey work waiting to be used here. It is about the upper cloth controversy. Want me to enter that info? - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment Why the etymology section is added with the cooked up story which the author (Sadasivan) himself says as absurd. - Part of that is that every etymology theory for the Nair is "cooked up". We have three theories in that section, several of which are consiered dubious by one or more historians. Given that they're all dubious, having a variety of legendary etymologies seems the most enlightening way to do it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Edit request from 116.68.83.73, 30 June 2011

Kris gopalakrishnan belongs to tamil bhramin family.


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

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

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

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

A question of style: Nair or Nairs

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

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

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

"Nair" is singular &"Nairs" is plural. Also it is better to rename the article to "Nairs" like the article "Normans". - KoyilandySultan (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the phrase "the Nair", and I believe that's use decently commonly in academic literature. My general (vague) impression is that for community-terms which work equally well in English with/without an "s", the sans "s" is preferable. Yes, we have "Celts" and "Normans", partially because those are older words where the "s" is fixed to the group name in modern English, but note that a lot of Indian castes work fine describing the group without the "s": Yadav, Rajput, Reddy, etc. I've seen similar issues for Pasthun tribes, which are uniformly singular: Achakzai, Tahir Khel. Given that the shortest/simplest correct name is best, I say stick with "Nair". MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nairs are known for What..?!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am the most ignorant person around when it comes to attire. Should you have the misfortune ever to meet me, that would be immediately obvious ... across a very crowded room, in semi-darkness.
That caveat out of the way, as a general rule I am reluctant to use old sources unless there is no modern alternative. There is one exception in this article: Panikkar, writing in 1918. Panikkar seems to be useful for two reasons:
  1. he touches on some things which are not dealt with by any more modern source that I, at least, have been able to find
  2. he was himself a Nair, and a scholar also. This provides some balance in various controversial areas.
The likes of Logan, Thurston etc were definitely writing from a British Raj POV and were basically reciting, without much thought or sometimes even attribution, early writers. Fawcett, OTOH, does not seem too bad on a first, rather cursory 40 minute glance. Certainly for something such as dress, I can see no great issue unless someone knows of a better, modern source? I am currently looking into the entire upper cloth controversy situation but making slow progress. There may be content deriving from that which might trump Fawcett but certainly for now it seems perfectly reasonable to use him as a source.
Whether he can be used more generally could be a sticking point. I think that it may depend a lot on the devil in the detail. As a support for an existing, cited statement then there is no great issue. As a support to an uncited statement, well, a little care may be required.
My suggestion would be to "go for it" for now. This article attracts quite a lot of traffic and this talk page shows a lot of, erm, interest in what is said in the article. If anything should appear that is way off beam then, perhaps, on this occasion someone will pop up with a more appropriate source which we can cite. I live in hope. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
My current intent for Fawcett is not to use him for issues he does not know directly, or does not clearly source to a specific earlier reference. However, Fawcett has a substantial amount of material that appears based on relatively sound research, in terms of surveying populations, taking measurements, cataloging local customs, etc. Again, it does have somewhat of a retro component in that it's early anthropology, but since the man was literally whipping out a tape measure and recording the average measurements of limbs and craniums of various groups, there appears to be some genuine research going on. I will of course proceed with caution, but when there are cases where Fawcett has clearly noted "I was in X town in 1898, and most Nair men wore a long cloth wrapped around the loins and hanging near to the ground", that seems a pretty solid point of evidence. Will read further, and I think I can get enough detail to fork from this article and add some real serious input to Nair attire. He has a lot of very granular info on bathing/grooming customs that might vaguely fit into "attire"; it's far too specific for the main Nair article, but fascinatingly detailed recording of small aspects of Nair life, which can certainly go in a sub-article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply

  • Backward sections in Nair community never use the surname Nair.
You are wrong. See this:

"None of the lowest untouchable communities eats from the Veluthedan (washerman of the Sudras) and Vilakkithala (barber of the Sudras) although they both may add the suffix Nayar to their names."[[12]]

  • Pork is not available in Kerala.
Who told you? See this:

"Pork and beef are sold and eaten in Goa and Kerala, supported by a high level of religious tolerance."[[13]]

  • They are many famous warriors from the community such as Velu Thampi Dalawa, Paliathu Achan Menon, Ettuveettil Pillai, etc.
Dalawas were prime ministers of Travancore and Paliyath Achans were prime ministers of Cochin. Neither Velu Thampi Dalawa nor Paliathu Achan Govindan Menon were warriors. Both were prime ministers who rebelled against British. Ettuveettil Pillais were feudal lords who rebelled against the Travancore Kshatriya kings. They were the "terrorists" of that time.
  • Nairs were considred next to Brahmins.
No, It was Kshatriyas (Varma, Rajah, Thirumulpad) who were considered so.
  • Nairs and Brahmins were allowed to enter temples.
Nairs, even today, are not allowed to enter the most sacred areas in a Temple, for example, they are not allowed to enter "Thidappally". Also, in temples owned by Goud Saraswat Brahmins, Nairs are not allowed to enter beyond courtyard.
  • Nairs are proud and kind people.
They were of course proud people, but not kind.

"A Nair was expected instantly to cut down a Tiar (cultivator), or Mucua (fisherman), who presumed to defile him by touching his person ; and a similar fate awaited a Foliar, or Pariar, who did not turn out of his road as a Nair passed."[[14]]

"Nayars retaliated by beating the disrespectful Iravas and sometimes stripping their women to the waist."[[15]]

"In the 1820s there was an increasing number of incidents in markets and other public places, when Nadar women wearing the Nair breast cloth were attacked, stripped, and beaten; chapels and schools were also burned."[[16]]

Ezhava Nair Common Origin

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

It is in the cite. You must have misread it. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Sitush, can you quote it? --The Tiger's Tail Caught By The Dog (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Not sure why I bother replying to a blocked user but, for clarity: "There are innumerable similarities between the religious and communal customs of these communities which indicate a common heritage. The similarities between the two most numerous of these communities, the Izhavas and the Nairs, are particularly pertinent here ... cannot be explained by anything other than common parentage." Pp. 26-27, although you really should read the entire section for context. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

the whole nair artcile vandalised!

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

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


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

If you provide full citations and page numbers then I'll do the rest, assuming that the sources you provide are reliable. So, now you can be constructive. Vague cites such as you have provided will not do; it would be like saying "someone says the human body includes an organ called the heart, but I am not sure who said it or where the organ is".
BTW, I have blockled nobody. And, please, do not get on your high horse about your occupation: how do you know, for example, that I am not myself FRCS? - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Some one has already spilled the beans on what happened here. See <link removed> Cinnamon123 (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
That's hilarious! I need to save it for my souvenir collection! Does it not strike you as odd that every single outside admin who's been asked to look at this page, from the ANI and POV noticeboards (as well as WikiProject India) on several occasions, has wholeheartedly supported the work that Sitush has done (which I and others have assisted with)? You would think that if Sitush were doing anything untoward, there would be at least one admin or serious editor who would say "wait, this article seems to be biased and inaccurate!" Even clearer, Sitush and I have repeatedly encouraged complainants to avail themselves of Wikipedia adjudication, which the vast majority of them ignored, preferring instead to continue whining here. I believe this is because even the complainants realise that what we are applying is neutral content based on reliable sources, and simply unassailable from a Wikipedia policy standpoint.
It appears one of these complainants, again unable to convince a single uninvolved Wikipedian that the current version of the article is worse than it was before, has concocted a ridiculous story and put it up on some "say anything" blog. So in summary, the comprehensive footnoting we have applied from a vast array of academic sources is "lies and slander" in your eyes, and fanciful accusations of Wikipedia hired-guns manipulating the system is "spilling the beans". By all means, I urge you, like all the rest, to take your concerns to WP:ANI or similar adjudication systems which deal with conflicts like this every day, and I can guarantee you none of them will find your accusations even remotely credible. My pattern of editing over three years now pretty clearly indicates I'm a devoted hobby researcher, and have been applying rigourous standards of sourcing, quality control, and neutrality. Thanks for the laugh though! MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I have mentioned it at ANI, just in case. What is the weather like in Liverpool today? - Sitush (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Cinnamon123 & Sujith.Kumaar now indef blocked. First as a sock of Shannon1488 (also now indef blocked) and latter for disruption. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Kerala Studies

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

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

The dog issue, again

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

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

I am still trying to work it out. There is no rush. -KondottySultan (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, this particular detail was the subject of a recent discussion at WP:ANI, so a fair few people cast their eyes over it. That was why it was amended from what it originally said. Changing it would be going quite a way beyond the opinions of those of us who participate regularly on this talk page. -KondottySultan (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
You are teaching someone to suck eggs here. I am the person who amended it and was one of those who saw it through ANI. It is still almost certainly incorrect, even though I did not realise this at the time. And if I did not realise it, bearing in mind that I have a certain familiarity with the "oddities" (sorry) of Indian-English, then those who commented but were not involved in the subject matter would probably have even less chance. It needs rephrasing. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The above comments I posted in this thread are your responses when this issue was raised once. Now what? Just go ahead, shut up their mouth who raise issues, intimidate them enumerating WP:Policies, block them, drive them off and when the issue is forgotten come up with it as YOUR serious concern. This is the best way to show yourself to be worthy, if you find no other. - KondottySultan (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. Chekon spotted something but it was not part of the original discussion. No-one involved in the original discussion spotted what Chekon did, not myself, MV, anyone at ANI or all those (plus their socks) who were screaming about being called sons of dogs, or whatever it was. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Then why do you raise the issue NOW? Just drop it. - KondottySultan (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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

KondottySultan, the reason it has been raised NOW is that it has been spotted NOW. If someone spots an error NOW, when would you suggest they should raise it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll give it a try, if no one minds. This is my first time to look at the Sadasivan; I was aware of the dust-up before, but, as far as I recall, never commented on it. I think that, first of all, whatever we make of the account on page 328-9 (the story Chekon quotes in the archive linked above), I think we also need to take into account the story told on page 150-151; if anyone can't read that in their google books version, let me know and I'll retype the whole thing; a quick summary of my interpretation is that it was a positive term, likening the people to dogs based on the quality of loyalty. This is similar to the Kerala-jatyachara-nirnayam, in the same way that likening someone to a lion is a way of emphasizing their strength or leadership.
Okay, back to the 328-329 story. Here's my interpreted summary: "Some Naga girls made 3 images of a dog, and brought them to life through magical means. 2 of the dogs ran away. One stayed; that one the girls offered to Vishnu. Vishnu gave that dog to Ayyappa. That dog stayed with Ayyappa. The only people who gave the dog assistance were some Shudra (they used to go hunting with it, to aid Ayyappa). Because Ayappa was pleased with their assistance and good treatment of the dog, he named those Shudra Nayar." Before I even think about transforming that into Wiki-prose (and shortening it in the process), does anyone think I've got the summary wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: Chekon is a sockpuppet of KondottySultan, so they shouldn't be discussed as two editors as they are the same person. —SpacemanSpiff 17:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Qwyrxian, that seems to be the gist of it, I think. The pp. 150151 bit you point to is the reason why the article says that the comparison was not considered derogatory, btw.
Yes, Spacemanspiff, that is why I do not understand what Kondotty is playing at. I seem to be meeting a few people who seem to be just looking for a fight, by any means, at the moment. Even if it means contradicting their alter ego. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Naga girls and "image brought to life" incident are irrelevant and can be omitted.

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

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


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

Religion and Supernatural beliefs

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

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

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

The source, who was a Nair, defined the difference. His rationale appears to be a reasonable one: there is "organised religion", with texts, priests etc, and there are other traditional practices that are not so organised. I do appreciate that it may appear to be a fine line but you have asked these questions before. Asking over and over in order to get things done your way probably will not achieve much.
I haven't looked at the war issue from the perspective you refer to, nor did I add the information there. However, I have no particular opinion offhand regarding whether it should be merged with the Military section: it is a "swings and roundabouts" situation, by the looks of it.
As far as your comment goes regarding "divide and rule", I am unsure whom you think is doing this, and why they might be doing it. The intertwining of religion and wars is a notorious situation that persists to this day, sometimes it has a true dogmatic basis and sometimes it is a pretext or even a subtext for other issues. Who knows in this instance? Under the two-nations theory I guess religion would be the predominant factor in this instance but I would have to do some reading around as this has not been an area in which I have had much involvement. - Sitush (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi KondottySultan, I've removed a duplicated copy of your comment, from the above section - I hope you don't mind -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede section

Hi,

Why is the following present in Nair section lede?

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

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

MatthewVanitas added that, I think. If not then it was CarTick. In any event, what do you object to? The lede is a summary of the article and this paragraph (which an IP or logged-out user recently queried with cite requests) is a valid summary. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Was not myself that added it, I just didn't feel familiar enough with that aspect, so I mostly did military history, diet, attire. That said, the Nair's marriage system was indeed quite unusual, and widely commented on by academics. Not just Indiologists, but when sociologists in general explore the extremes of marriage systems, the Nair are one of the first groups mentioned for having a very distinct system. I could see discussing the best way to phrase it concisely, but I don't see any NPOV way that we could not have a mention of Nair marriage systems in the lede. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The article itself says that these are controversial, and later that the practice declined 1900 onwards. Am I reading this incorrectly or is this an attempt to give some kind of POV, considering that the article is much more than the marriage practice? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
There are a few problems with the lede on polyandry. (1) Only a small minority of Nairs in Central Kerala practiced this. The vast majority of those in the South and North didn't practiced it. Central Nairs are mostly Charna Nairs, who rank lower than Kiryathils of the North and Illath of South. (2) Polyandry was widely practiced in Kerala, and the main practitioners of it were not Nairs, but lower ranking Savarna castes such as Kammalans. (3) Sources about polyandry are written by a few European researchers, who don't have first hand experience about this, and many of them haven't even visited Kerala. The last recorded instance of polyandry among Nairs date back to mid-19th century (Not 1900). (4) There are travelogues written by many European explorers like Duarte Barbosa, and none of them mentions polyandry. But every single one of them mentions about the martial traditions of Nairs. I find it quite ironic that the martial history is completely ignored and POV prone issues like polyandry are given undue weight (however a few Evangelical Christian editors who are super-active here for the past 2-3 months will disagree with this statement). 160.80.2.8 (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Barbosa did mention the unusual marriage arrangements. The article does discuss the geographic differences regarding these practices. The article does mention the military history (there is a whole section on it!). And so on. I am wondering whether you have actually read the article or been asked to throw a comment in here, because you are fundamentally wrong regarding the content. Sorry, but perhaps you need to read it again? - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Bayley, Gooch, Jeffrey & Chris what-his-name all visited and lived in the region. So, too, did Panikkar. A point is made that Panikkar's experience differed from another commentator probably because of the differences around the region. In other words, we have covered every angle, in depth. It may be true that other commentators have not lived in the region but it is not true of the ones used here. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
And, by the way, I for one am not even Christian, let alone an evangelical one. I am on record about this - perhaps do your research first? - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

From here

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

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

Ah, I see that you have been editing for a while. Your first source seems to be useless as it appears to be self-published using Lulu. Your second adds nothing to what is already said and, as a rule, we prefer not to use 300-400 year old sources when more modern ones are available. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I was having a conversation with Thisthat. I don't care about pay-for-edit users like you. Stay out of this conversation. 160.80.2.8 (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

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

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

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

The lede needs to be left as such, as the Evangelical Christian Church feels that more Hindus will convert to Christianity if they are ashamed of their history. 160.80.2.8 (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
TT, did you just ignore the entire discussion an hour ago, and start a new section as though it never happened? Sitush just explicitly explained to you why he thinks this is pertinent, and rather than discuss it you start a new section? This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and just another example of why you've been called "tendentious". MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome MW. I was wondering where were you. The initial discussion was about why the section was in lede, when the practice, however referenced is not current.
Then Sitush changed 'tense'. But that does not explain why it should be in lede.
I was wondering how the present tense in the lede was missed for all clarity expected from neutral editors. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I wondered whether it was MangoWong editing while logged out. Another block on the way, then. As for the typo, that is a direct consequence of (presumably Indian) editors fiddling with the thing in order to sanitise it. I've fixed it, no big deal. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
How does the lines like "This practice led to some women (predominantly from central Kerala) bearing legitimate children with several husbands, and in some areas it lasted until the 1960s. Some Nair women from higher subdivisions also practiced hypergamy with Nambudiri Brahmins from the Malabar area." make it to the lede? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) One way in which the article needs improving is in fact to cover more of the modern day community. I for one have asked for help with this in the past but the only response was the usual sanitisation effort, nothing positive at all. Obviously, if there was more regarding the present day situation then the lede would have to reflect that. The ball is in your court. It would be nice to see something positive happen where you are involved, TT. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
What is wrong with it? You keep asking questions but not giving reasons for your objections. Pointless: we cannot your mind. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The point I mentioned above, is why is the practice ..leading to 'some'.. as pointed makes it to the lede? It is WP:UNDUE. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
In what way is it undue weight? I am open-minded about this because I have had nothing to do with the content of the lede other than basic fixes such as the one you saw me do a few minutes ago. Bear in mind that even if the part you refer to is taken out of the lead, it stays in the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Could you put out the positive & negative aspects of Nair community on this page please? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no need of arguing here. We have seen one of the admins acting with extreme bias and banning of more than 50 users in this article alone. Unless that admin is kept out, there is no use of any discussion in this talk page. Axxn (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
If admins have blocked users on such grounds, I think it is time to revisit the standards, but that is what I think. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Re: "We have seen one of the admins acting with extreme bias and banning of more than 50 users in this article alone" - Oh come on, we've told you guys ten million times not to exaggerate! If you have any complaints about the behaviour of any admins, take it to WP:ANI - this page is for discussing article content -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Responding to the last msg from IP22:
  • they had a right to carry swords, which was then taken off them due to their failings. This is mentioned in the article but could be looked into a little deeper. Any "exclusive right" would only have applied in a limited area, of course, and we would have to delve more deeply into why they were disarmed. It was for this reason (trying not to cause more offence) that it was not emphasised in the recent past

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Rebellion against any governing power is, technically, an offence. But if the rebels succeed then obviously they will not punish themselves :)
  • Samurai - feel free. I will do also when I have some time
  • The dog legend will not go just because genetic data comes in. So if that is your purpose just let me know now and save me some effort, please.
  • I have no idea if the women portrayed are Nair or not. I would have to see the original source for the picture. However, the picture relates to dress and if the group you mention mimicked Nair dress then what is the problem, really? The correct dress is being shown. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Sitush, the laws have improved long since colonial situation. Before independence, Bhagat Singh was hanged because he offended the Queen, such was the uncivilized state of affairs. After Independence of India, laws have changed and it is clear that any act against the country/people is an offense, and Bhagat Singh would not be hanged as such. By your logic the entire independence movement was illegitimate because it went against the Queen. More on it here.
Do you see what the IP is saying, that the article looks more against the Nairs than for?
If correct dress is shown, I am sure you should be fine with what the chap is saying. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not give a fig what the laws say now. The law then, and still now in every civilised country, is that rebellion is an offence. Please do not bring up your broken record of post-colonial bleurgh. It doesn't matter. You are entitled to the opinion but it makes no difference to the article.
If you think that the article is "more against the Nairs than for" then you have two options. Firstly, you could assist in improving it by (for example) coming up with some info that has been requested - check back in the archives, not just the visible bit of this page. Secondly, take it to WP:NPOVN, where I will gladly see you fail yet again. Aside from minor points that pre-date my involvement & that of CarTick, everything is cited to reliable sources. I have already said that the outstanding statements with cite requests need to go. They have only stayed so long as a courtesy to those who had previously created a highly POV article, in order to give them a chance to come up with some verification. I do not understand your last point but, in any event, the picture has been discussed to death recently and it is not going to change just because you have decided to follow me to this article. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sorry, something above just made me laugh. Earlier there were bizarre claims of "Evangelical Christians" having written this article. It seems that TT has narrowed it down a bit & I am now an evangelical Congregationalist. Again, sorry: I do realise that it is a unintended slip, Freudian or otherwise. Funny, though. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Again some weird assumptions. Guess this is your weird assumptions day. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, I submit you (and many, many others) are confusing "making someone look terrible" with "making the article more than self-glorification". If you think there's a concerted attempt to make jatis look bad, take it to the WP:DR of your choice, but I assure you that we're attempting to balance articles. If you think there's too much negative info, as we've said a zillion times add more info of the sort you'd like to see. Note this does not mean "they are the greatest warriors of all time and conquered everything" nor "they are a royal race descended from the heavens", but actual factual, documented depictions of the achievments of Nair society. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I will see what I can do. Perhaps narrowing some stuff may be good enough. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not 100% sure what you mean by "perhaps narrowing some stuff may be good enough". If you mean that cutting out some of the present content might appease you & yours then the blunt answer is that it is not going to happen, except for those items where a request for a citation has been in place for a couple of months or longer. Usually I would want to see much more than a couple of months but given the traffic to this article and the number of people commenting on this talk page, 2 or 3 months seems enough: a lot of eyes have seen those requests. For all cited items, there is no need to remove. What may be needed is additional content. - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Edmund Ronald Leach (1982). Social anthropology. Oxford University Press. pp. 191–. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
  2. ^ Christopher John Fuller (1976). The Nayars today. CUP Archive. pp. 75–. ISBN 9780521290913. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
  3. ^ Edward Westermarck (April 2003). History of Human Marriage. Kessinger Publishing. pp. 140–. ISBN 9780766145252. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
  4. ^ F. Fawcett (1 February 2004). Nâyars of Malabar. Asian Educational Services. pp. 224–. ISBN 9788120601710. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nair/Archive_17&oldid=1144181839"