Talk:Ezhava/Archive 6

Question to Admin..
Isn't physical appearance of entire populace of two different community evident enough that they are different? or does everything require proof on paper? Have you met any thiyya or ezhava person? Are you in any way acquainted with their culture? Don't you think there must be some reason for people to keep making these requests? I think you should conduct a more fair research before writing a sensitive article. Any person who has met these two caste people can understand the difference between them, thiyyas, 90% of them are fair and indo-aryan, while ezhavas are dark skinned. What joy do you get by giving wrong information? Caste and things are man made, but your genes, that doesn't lie. Even if there is no written paper proof. Amal89 (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Amal
 * Hi Amal, and welcome to Wikipedia! First off, it's the community that decides on articles content, not administrators, they have no extra rights in that regard. Second, this article is not trying to say the Thiyya and the Ezhava are the same community. There are many reliable sources that say that they are the same caste, but they are clearly at least geographically devided. This is evidenced immediately in the lead: "They are also known as Ilhava, Irava, Izhava and Erava in the south of the region; as Chovas, Chokons and Chogons in Central Travancore; and as Tiyyas, Thiyyas and Theeyas in Malabar.", but also in the dispute section, which starts out with "The Ezhava and Thiyya communities", pointing at different communities. That they live in a different locality is beyond doubt. That they are different communities seems to be somewhat reasonably supported, but we're still having trouble finding clear sourcing for that (most reliable sources that touch the matter lump them in together, making a difference in name and location, but nothing else, though there is some support Thiyya claim a somewhat higher social status). While you aren't making the point that they are the same caste: this articles does claim that the Ezhava, the Tiyyas and the Chovas are different communities within the same caste. I still can't properly get my head around what a caste is exactly, and how that differs from a community, nor do I understand the social structures in the region very well, but from everything I have seen, that is one thing that really isn't supported by reliable sources - though there are a lot of less reliable sources that do claim so. You have probably noticed that this subject is fairly contentious. We really must go with the reliable sources - not doing that will plunge this subject into chaos. If you are serious about becoming a Wikipedian, I think it would be a good idea to get a taste of other, less controversial subjects first before revisiting this article. A good grasp of how we deal with different sources, and how that all comes together as an article without original research will certainly be a great asset when discussing this subject. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I know this is disputed. But this article is way beyond misleading. This is the website of National Commission for Backward Classes - It's a government Website and so can be considered reliable. http://www.ncbc.nic.in/centrallistifobc.html This is the link to the central list of obc (other backward castes) maintained by Indian Central Governnment. If you click on the state Kerala, the list of castes in kerala will be shown. Now look at the entry number 14(Ezhava,Izhavan, Ishavan,Ezhavan, Ezhuva,Izhuva, Ishuva,Izhuvan, Ishuvan,Ezhuvan, Izhava. While Thiyya is mentioned as a separate caste in entry number 21, (Izhavan,Ishavan, Illuva,Illuvan, Irava, Iruva,Thiyyan, Thiyya). At least its proof enough that Central Government considers them as different caste. Now this is important as when a thiyya person is applying for a job, he has to mention himself as thiyya ( entry number 21) and not as ezhave (entry number 14). This has been totally ignored by this article which claims that thiyya and ezhava are same. The Kerala government has merely for the purpose of administration considers them as same. This could be compared to the existing situation in India where christians and muslims are considred as minorities. This is for administration. Because of the sizable population it's evident for them, but unfortunately thiyya is limited to north kerala. But any person who is slightly acquainted with the thiyya people will in no way say they are same as the ezhavas. As i have mentioned earlier thiyya are light skinned with possible origin somewhere in central asia. There has been articles saying that thiyya are from Greece or Kazhakistan. This article has also attributed the art of theyyam and others that belong to the the thiyya people to the ezhavas. This is evident from "In northern Kerala, Teyyam is a popular ritual dance. This particular dance form is also known as Kaliyattam. The main deities of Ezhavas include Vayanattu Kulavan, Kativannur Viran, Pumarutan and Muttappan." This is vandalism of culture. These people either have some political agenda to destroy thiyya culture or is so ignorant of kerala's culture. Sri Muthappan is only prayed by thiyyas and no ezhava has ever heard about God Sri Muthappan. Aren't we supposed to protect a culture? Thiyya people have developed a distinct and beautiful culture when compared to the other castes. They have no dowry system, they give importance to education of girls. And I am not talking about the current situation. This is how they were when the rest of the castes were going around practicing 'sati' and 'untouchabilty'. Their distinction need to be preserved. If you destroy it, there wont be any theyyam art. (ezhavas don't do theyyam). I say do a better research, understand the ground reality, and when thiyya people visit Wikipedia to know about them and there culture, don't hurt there sentiments by attributing their art and unique culture to ezhavas. Any educated person from Kerala reading this article knows that its purpose is to mislead others. Amal89 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Amal
 * First, please go read WP:RS, which explains the difference between the value of Primary and Secondary sources. This, in fact, explains the problem with this list. When I look at it, just like you say above, there are 2 overlapping names; (14) has Izhavan listed as the second name, while (21) has it listed as the first. They also have the same resolution number and date. So does that mean that there are two different groups under the name Izhavan? If no, then what is the relationship between the two? This is the problem with primary documents: there's not enough information here to tell us anything; any substantive claim we could make would require interpretation of that document, which would be a violation of Wikipedia's prohibition on original research. But, let's just say that we accepted this, and somehow agree on what it meant. It still would mean that the article would say, "Some people think the two groups are the same, some think they're separate". We cannot just arbitrarily choose one side. And, in fact, we're more likely to side with what researchers say than what a government list says. Finally, please stop implying there's some secret, nefarious purpose here. No one is trying to mislead anyone. All we are trying to do is to summarize the information that is found in reliable sources. That's it. There's no plot here. No lying. No misleading. All you have to do, and I wish you and everyone who's being recruited to come here needs to do, is provide reliable sources. No one has done so. Instead, people just tell us what they obviously know, or give us ambiguous, unclear government documents. Find the sources, then we'll adjust the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have supplied reliable sources as per wiki WP:RS but they were rejected by you guys just because they don't come inline with your views on this subject. Since this article is edit protected I don't want to edit it but wanted to get the writer to correct it based on reference book. sitush put a sanction notice in my talk page a few weeks ago. He just wanted to stop others talking this subject. Like I said many times before, he just trust Nossitor book only even though Nossitor was a politician and his all books were written in political background for political gain of communist party, still he believes his books are as per WP:RS. When you say Edgar Thurston book doesn't meet WP:RS requirements, then the same rule should apply to Nossitor books. Bye the way the reason to make Edgar Thurston non reliable was Mr Thurston was a part of British Colonial Government, which doesn't make sense at all. Hundreds or thousands articles using Thurston books as references. Ok leave Thurston. What about Ritty A Lukose..... Ambiguous..... That's what Sitush got to say. Leave Ritty. What about t Damu, dr. Muhammad Ali, Dr. C.j. Roy,   They all wrong. ......... They all valid and reliable references. Still.... So someone's personal interest playing game here. Blocking people one by one... How long you can do that. Irajeevwiki (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are your choices: If you think a source is reliable when we've said it's not, go to WP:RSN. If you think that the article, overall (or even specific parts) are non-neutral, go to WP:NPOVN. If you have a specific question about something that should be changed in the article and want others to weigh in here, start an WP:RFC. I'm no longer interested in telling you the same thing over and over again, when you're the one refusing to listen and/or learn about our policies. The fact that you still think Thurston is within a dozen kilometers of being a reliable source shows that you simply have no regard for our rules (and no one ever said he was rejected for being on the British Colonial Government; it's because he doesn't meet WP:RS). But before you do that, stop with the personal attacks. Immediately. Because on that one point, you are right: you'll be blocked. Sitush and I have exactly one "personal interest" here, and that's making sure the article follows Wikipedia rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is good advice. If you don't agree on a source being reliable or not, take it to WP:RSN. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

All the 81 caste mentioned in that list has the same resolution number and date. The resolution adopted by the constitution of India dated 10 - 09 - 1993 and again on 6 - 12- 1999 clearly says that Thiyya is a seperate caste. The confusion as you very blithely pointed out is in the case of Ezhavan. The entry number of Thiyya is 21 and the name thiyya has not appeared in any other entry numbers. If I may point out, while submitting a document for a job or admission, e.g. an IIM NCOBC certificate you are supposed to mention the entry number of the caste and not the caste itself. When reputed institutions, government organisations and courts have used these resolutions/entry number. Why is it that some people here are relying heavily on secondary sources like stories and legends written on the whims of authors? And that is why I say that this article is misleading, because the purpose of this article to point the people in the right direction has failed. You say Ezhava and thiyya are same. But the Constitution of India says against it. If a person belonging to thiyya caste refers Wikipedia in this matter and writes the entry number as 14, you have mislead him by giving wrong information. And the same goes for an Ezhavan as well. Your secondary sources, fairy tales, legends doesn't matter in practical matters. We are governed by laws and not by books written by authors. '''Now to better understand the entry number situation/confusion, let us apply deductive reasoning. Ezhava is either 14 or 21. But thiyya is always 21. In other words, Ezhava can sometimes be thiyya, but thiyya can never be ezhava (as thiyya is not in entry 14). In normal sense, A car can be a vehicle; but a vehicle is not always car ( ezhava = car; vehicle = thiyya). I hope you take this into due consideration.''' Amal89 (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Let me be very clear about one thing. I am not here to fight or make any personal attack. I am only interested in a very civilized discussion. I have given you a very reliable source, its up to you to take it in a good way. I have no gain or loss from this, but if the purpose for which this article is written is to help people, then give them something useful. As far as this article is now, maybe it might interest some hobbyist. But for a real person who refers it to make it of use in some practical matter, this is a totally useless article and serves no help whatsoever. Amal89 (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Amal
 * What you are doing now (deductive reasoning from sources), is what we consider original research, and we don't allow that. I understand that this might feel odd, but we have some very good reasons for this, which are hard to appreciate without more experience on Wikipedia, but let me ask you this: what specific change would you like to make to the article based on this observation? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Something really clunky is happening with edit conflicts, because MH mistakenly deleted this comment I made Apologies, but I have nothing further to say until you read our policies and guidelines, specifically WP:RS. That document clearly explains to you why we use secondary sources, not primary sources. Neither you nor I can overlook those rules.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (post ec) Again, you need to read the reliable sources guideline; a primary source can never trump a secondary source. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The primary source in this case is now the resolution adopted by the Constitution of India. Resolution number 12011/68/93-BCC(C) dt. 10/09/1993 and 12011/88/98-BCC dt. 06/12/1999 which clearly states that thiyya be seen as a different caste. The primary source has made all your secondary sources no longer reliable and trustworthy. The reliable secondary sources will now be those that support the above mentioned resolution. Now you tell me who should read the Wikipedia: Reliable sources page. This article is also now inadvertently violating the resolution adopted by Constitution of India. A chargeable offence I presume. I am no legal expert, but I do know that using mass media to intentionally mislead people is an offence. The change needed in this article is to remove all reference to thiyya and thiyya culture, make this article 100% ezhava article. Wait for reliable sources that actually supports the resolution and also gives information on thiyya. When i say reliable sources I don't mean some DNA test done by some hollywood director. If no reliable sources are there, don't write an article on thiyya. It's better to give no information than giving wrong information. Amal89 (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Amal, I strongly suggest you clearly distance yourself from the implication that this article violates law per WP:NLT. If you do not mean that any prosecution of Wikipedia or indivitual editors could take place, please state so clearly. other than that, I'm quite interested in those resolutions, and would like to see them to check if we can use them for anything. Where can I find them? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is very very important that you don't attempt to use the threat of real world consequences to attempt to win an argument here on Wikipedia. Some admins will instantly block you for such a statement. The best thing you could do would be to strike out that portion of your response, as I'm sure you made it not knowing our rules on that. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not threatening anyone. I do not speak for the Government of India. My views are as it is, purely mine. And I am not taking any legal action against anyone. But I do know for sure that the resolution passed by any Constitution of any country need to be respected. I have given the link before as well, http://www.ncbc.nic.in/Centrallistifobc.html Click on the link kerala, and you will see that ezhava and thiyya are mentioned in two different entries, 14 and 21. The different entries mean they are different caste, at least according to the Government of India. The resolution number and date are given as well. If the government has made it clear they are different, I wonder why you are so obstinate on your view point. It also proves that this article clearly misleads people by saying thiyya and ezhava are same as the Government of India doesn't consider them as same. What more proof do you want? A supreme court verdict? Amal89 (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making it clear you will not take or encourage any legal action. I saw that link, but was hoping to see the resolutions themselves. Do you know if they are available anywhere? If you can tell me who would have passed these resolutions, I might be able to find it myself more quickly. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One final point before I stop responding here until Amal reads WP:RS: just because a government says a thing does not make it true. Africans used to be legally defined as only 3/5 of a person in the United States; this certainly did not make it true (except, again, in a legal sense). The government of India is not the final arbiter of what constitutes a caste/group/tribe. They can certainly be one stakeholder, whose opinion we should report, but we'll need a secondary source (even a secondary source written by the government would be fine) before we can include that opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you should contact the National Commission for Backward Classes (Govt. of India) office directly, they might be able to help you. Their contact address and phone numbers are available on their site. As far as I know about resolutions, they are passed by a cabinet of ministers, this will help you http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/rules/rulep13.html. I really need to stress this and I am very serious now, every year hundreds of thousands of people depend on these resolutions passed by the Government to get jobs, education, and so many other facilities. You cannot have on Wikipedia something that directly contradicts something given in the website of National Commission for Backward Classes, Government of India considers them as different, Colleges, universities and pretty much every institution that recongnises cast considers thiyya and ezhava as different caste. Marriage between a thiyya and ezhava is registered as inter-caste marriage. How can you ignore all these realities and say they are same based on some secondary source? My honest opinion is that as pretty much everyone in India who is acquainted with these casts(district administrators, police, lawyers, pretty much all government servants) recognizes them as different, and as it is law of the country, where a government employee has to recognize the difference between them, is only inviting trouble. (this is also evident from the photo of the SSLC leaving certificate submitted by someone, and you dismissed it as not reliable). I think you should find out the law of the country before saying something based on secondary sources. I am saying it again, not making arguments to win, this article is terribly misleading. Sooner or later it will definitely attract the wrong attention. All it takes is one person to loose a job or admission or something of that sort by taking this wrong suggestion and complaining to authorities that Wikipedia says so. Amal89 (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Qwyrxian, you have listened to and believed lies for long that you don't want to know the truth. Ok, setting aside the fact that they are legally considered as different castes. On what basis do you claim they are same? these thiyya and ezhava people look different; thiyya are of fair complexion, looks more like a person from punjab (indo-aryan) while ezhava look more like the sinhala people of srilanka; they have a different culture; How do you explain this? I think you are blindly believing those secondary sources. Amal89 (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hasn't the constitution of the Republic of India held caste to be illegal and unrecognised legally ever since the constitution was first enacted? Furthermore, the NCBC exists for a specific and highly politicised socio-economic function and not as an ethnographic or similar body. Still further, the lists produced by the NCBC are notoriously ambiguous - an example is that their supporting documents frequently say something along the lines that the names shown within them may be "castes/subcastes/communities/synonyms", as here without actually specifying which of those a particular entry is. And yet more: there are often differences between the state and the national lists, and it is the state ones that have day-to-day impact - this is presumably why our article mentions the alleged threat of a legal challenge on the Kerala government by a Tiyya mahasabha. Finally, the NCBC has changed its mind over 1100 times since its inception in the 1990s. reclassifying various groups, renaming them, etc - it is about as authoritative as ventriloquist's dummy and indeed it often seems to be just that. We probably can mention what the NCBC say but it is nowhere near being a major source & its foibles would need some elaboration. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't bring unwanted facts into this. The discussion is not about the members of NCOBC list or the NCOBC list itself. The members of the list keeps changing and are politically motivated. The list is about castes trying to include themselves in the OBC category to get the benefits of reservation. The Constitution of India never made caste illegal, it has only made the caste based discrimination illegal. I was talking about the resolution passed in the Constitution of India that clearly shows that thiyya and ezhava are two different castes. You have very deliberately misinterpreted it and deviated it to NCOBC list. You have refused to give any substantial proof as to why is this Wikipedia article still having these two castes mentioned as one, which is now clearly violating the above mentioned resolution. You have tried to mislead people by giving wrong information, this is one such line "The Ezhava and Thiyya communities are officially treated as one but there has....". No official document from the Indian Government substantiates this claim. The resolution clearly states them as two different castes. Using the word 'official' to express your personal views is not ethically right. Isn't this also violating Wikipedia policies? Any claim made by any other party including the state governments are superseded by this resolution. Your secondary sources are novels, stories and newspaper material. None of these has been verified scientifically to be accurate. In the absence of any scientific evidence on genetic level that directly links the thiyya with ezhava, the only observable evidence is the physical appearance and culture. Neither of which are in any way remotely same as ezhavas. This article is unnatural and gross violation of human sentiment. Amal89 (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC) There is no organisation by the name Thiyya Mahasabha registered with the Government of India or with the State of Kerala. Neither is there such a name registered as an NGO or as a company in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. How can an organisation that does not exist oppose SNDP? Although googling this name brings some newspaper articles as results. Newspaper article on an organisation that does not exist is not credible. If these are your sources, perhaps there is no point in discussing about it. Amal89 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, let's see the text off this resolution. From what I understand from what you are saying, it is a resolution passed by parliament (Lok Sabha? Is that right?)? Or is it passed by the NCBC? The resolutions are all suffixed BCC, but I don't know what that stands for. You keep saying that it is passed by the constitution, but constitutions can't pass resolutions as they not bodies that can pass anything - which leaves me puzzled at which body is actually passing these resolutions (or constitution must mean something different in this context). It would at any event be a primary source, but a resolution passed by parliament would carry a significantly different weight than a resolution passed by NCBC. Pending that, Sitush or Qwyrxian, do you have any alternative proposals for the phrasing off "officially" in that last section? Can we find something that both sides can live with (like are treated as one by x, y and z(someref) or something else?) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * BCC = Backwards Classes Commission = National Commission for Backward Classes now. Previously, there were instance such as the First BCC, also known as the Kelkar Commission. It is the NCBC who determine which castes/subcastes/communities/synonyms appear in the national list of Other Backward Classes, which is a positive discrimination scheme for groups of people who were traditionally discriminated against on a socio-economic basis. With that background, all my prior thoughts should make sense. The "Constitution" does indeed pass nothing; it is the NCBC who do that stuff. Amal89, please note that I did not capitalise "mahasabha" and that it was either Irajeevwiki or Pnranjith who added that info to the article. Myself and Qwyrxian have already expressed doubts regarding the usefulness of showing it (see above, somewhere). Martijn, you may not be aware but was topic banned not too long ago, fundamentally for his failure to understand the vaguity of the NCBC documents in a Wikipedia context. They certainly cannot be used a verification that Tiyya and Ezhava are different castes because there own terminology does not support that. We could add a note to the effect that "since YYYY the NCBC has separately identified the Ezhava and Tiyya groups in their national List of Other Backward Classes" but I doubt very much that we can say more. - Sitush (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me. I didnt add Thiyya Mahasabha section into Ezhava article. Irajeevwiki (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I said either you or Pnranjith. It turns out that it was the latter. I've got around 40 tabs open in Firefox at the moment due to all the disputes going on, and at the time I didn't feel like opening yet another, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And we can only say what I suggest if it is true. in a meaningful sense For example, see this document relating to the NCBC classification of Tiyya/Ezhava, which neatly encapsulates a lot of the primary source problems that have already been mentioned here (eg: one family had SSLCs issued under different caste "names"). The thing is worth reading in full: it seems to contradict the Tiyya advocacy on this talk page and even in this very discussion, despite being the basis for the listing that is being referred to by Amal. - Sitush (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)Thanks for the explanation. So am I right to say the resolutions on the NCBC document are NCBC resolutions (or actually BCC resolutions as they were called back then), which hold little overall significance on the issue at large? I wasn't aware Doncram got topic banned, yet I plan not to follow in his footsteps: I carry my ignorance with aplomb and ask things instead off before saying stupid stuff. So, to carry on asking stuff that is probably obvious to everybody else here: do the ordering numbered sections in the NCBC document carry any significance (in the eyes of the NCBC), or is that basically just an item counter? (not that is likely highly relevant to this article, but we all got to learn). I'll look through the linked document. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mention of Doncram was merely to illustrate that using these primary sources on-wiki can be a hazardous exercise: fundamentally, he did not "get" the extent of ambiguity that exists even in these official documents, which he treated as being a database. To the best of my knowledge, yes, these are NCBC resolutions and the NCBC is a department of the Union government. It has no powers regarding the opinion of state governmenst. Also to the best of my knowledge, the numeric ordering is of no significance in relation to this discussion. From a wide reading of these lists and the > 1,100 changes to them, they appear to be merely an item counter. The lists are more-or-less arranged alphabetically, although the inconsistencies that are a common feature of India's bureaucracy makes me hesitate to say that this is always the case. There is one list per state/union territory (some administrative regions of India are known as UTs rather than states). The country and its predecessor existences are a truly fascinating subject area and it is great to see someone wanting to find out a bit more, with aplomb! - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have just reverted Amal89. I am becoming irritated by the personal attacks and for all its fine words disclaiming any legal implications, in my opinion the references to legal action constitute a chilling effect. - Sitush (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * NCBC changes to the lists since 1993 amount to 1,221 instances. Even spelling changes matter, as in the instance of adding Ezhuva to the Ezhava list referred to in the previous document that I linked. With so many changes going on, we'll probably need to use an as of template in any proposed sentence. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverting a genuine and valid evidence on the some personal attack basis is improper. Until a neutral person like Martijn could read that and say there has been evidence of personal threat. I demand that, what i said has every right to be on this section. It has valid evidences from this http://www.ncbc.nic.in/Pdf/Ncbcact.pdf. which clearly suggests that this article is not only misleading but legally incorrect. I merely explained the points in the ncbc act, some of which clearly contradicts the views of others. Amal89 (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the second time the admins are doing this to us towards the government document which we have submitted, One the mark sheet which is issued by Kerala Government, the admins took the discussion to some other topics and stated " The government is simply using two different names as these groups prefer one term over the other" and for this evidence admins are of the opinion " The numbering system which the government is using is "JUST LIKE THAT" and the claim that Indian documents are inconsistent and it is business as usual in INDIA, as an Indian it is VERY  HARD TO DIGEST. This itself is a BIG INSULT TO OUR INDIAN CONSTITUTION, I am afraid that the admin rights are in wrong hands Keepwalkingji (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS, which explains the actual problem with these documents. Second, please note that admins do not decide content. The only authority admins have is to do things like block people and protect pages. Page content, on the other hand, is decided by a combination of consensus-based discussions and our site-wide policies and guidelines. There is no way under our guidelines to use those government primary documents. While those guidelines can be changed, this is not hte place to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The government documents and other evidences submitted here proves that the so called secondary sources referred to write this article is untrustworthy. What evidence do you have to prove the secondary sources on which this article is based is genuine? When we gave proof showing that the Indian government considers them as separate, your argument was Kerala government considers them as same. Well, seems like proof after proof has already been submitted to show that kerala government doesn't consider them as same. Doesn't that violate the WP:RS? Is it that this issue has been here for long that admins who are supposed to be neutral are now taking it personally? On a side note, the higher to lower ranking of caste system in India based on the color of skin will lose its validity if the world knows this. The mere existence of thiyya people proves that ranking of caste is a sham. They are educated, civilized and of Indo-aryan ancestory. We have now reasons to suspect that vested interests of some pro- racial people whose ancestors stood against the self-respect movement might be behind this. Their assumption is based on this "Using the internet to show that the small population of thiyya as part of the large ezhavas will eventually lead others to believe the same." This will also help them prove that the discrimination of aborginal Indians like SC and ST is valid on grounds of racial segregation. A modern approach towards apartheid. Verifying the background of those involved in writing this article might prove this. Amal89 (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The same fight is going on in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nair
While browsing through the wiki, i have observed the same fight is going on everywhere with the same admins and I am sad about the way how the feelings of the people are not cared about and how the admins are misusing their powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepwalkingji (talk • contribs) 10:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That talkpage doesn't even mention Ezhava or Tiyyar. There is nothing there that is interesting for this dispute, other than noting that castes in south india are highly prone to heated dispute, which we pretty much already know, seeing General sanctions/South Asian social groups. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is two-fold: (a) there are only a limited number of experienced contributors dealing with caste-related articles, so paths are bound to cross; (b) most caste-related articles attract contributions from members of the respective castes who are generally not familiar with Wikipedia's requirements concerning verifiability, neutrality, puffery etc. As Martijn says, aside from the obvious core similarity of cause and effect, what is happening at Talk:Nair is of no relevance here. And, actually, the Nair article is pretty stable nowadays: things got worked out. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have just removed an unhelpful IP contribution. If people want to discuss Nair then go to Talk:Nair. Alternatively, if they have general concerns about the behaviour of myself or others then take it to WP:ANI. This talk page is for discussion of matters relating to improvement of the Ezhava article. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I posted that as a reply to your statement " Stable" and you cant delete the proof of being stable.09:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.238.120.149 (talk)

Emic and etic
I apologise for this unsolicited intrusion. As I understand the issue is about emic and etic views. Many a times emic views are more useful at other times the detachment of an etic perspective gives accuracy. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, there are many arguments that use the words "I know...", "I've seen...", "I have a certificate...", you see these kind of arguments are completely useless on Wikipedia. The sources that we use should be so clear and unambiguous that it should be understandable even to someone for whom Ezhava might as well be a species of butterfly and Thiyya an African river. My suggestion is that as a first step a consensus ought to be achieved regarding the quality of sources that may be considered acceptable. Edit warring would only lead to blocks and bans. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Emic and etic. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good essay here: Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed - thanks for that. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

'''Another primary source? or not?''' This is the judgement of a very old case in the Kerala High court by Chief Justice Govindan Nair. The case and judgement is itself 30 years old. http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1556504/. Points to be noted is that the judge did not use the word Ezhava to refer to a thiyya male. Another notable point is Cochin Makka-thayam Thiyya Act, XVII of 1115. Although this may be out of context, but it gives you a fair idea about the reality in Kerala and how thiyya is considered as a separate caste. Amal89 (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not calling him "Ezhava" does not mean that Ezhava and Thiyya are different - I have documents that describe me as British, but that doesn't mean I'm not English. As the document makes no mention at all of "Ezhava", it says nothing at all about whether the two are the same or different. If the two are different, then we might expect to see what we see in that document. But if the two are different names for the same thing, then we might still expect to see the same thing - some documents using one name and some using the other. We would not expect every writer to always explicitly say "Thiyya or Ezhava" every time. If, as one of the sources we have says, the caste is known as Ezhava in one area and Thiyya in the other, then individual documents from different areas using one or the other name is exactly what we might expect. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And in answer to the question heading the section, yes, it's a primary source. And Boing!'s explanation shows, once again, why primary sources don't help us much, because they don't provide an explanation for why they use the terms the way they do. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just as an additional thought. If an academic were to investigate numerous legal documents like this, and deduce that there really does not appear to be an overlap between Ezhava and Thiyya, then we could use that in Wikipedia and present it in appropriate balance. Then if other academics joined in, wrote their own publications, and if there was a general consensus in such reliable sources that Ezhava and Thiyya are different, we could change the balance of Wikipedia to reflect that. But we, at Wikipedia, cannot be the instigators of such research, and we cannot use these primary sources to reach generalised conclusions of our own. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is the way to go about Amal, bring sources here, they will be discussed and will be allowed or disallowed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And the cochin makka-thayam thiyya act? Why didn't they name it as cochin makka-thayam ezhava act? Did they think like, ezhavas no no,, we are making this act exclusive for those people who claim themselves as thiyyas.... !!!! I mean year 1932, A group deciding to make some act, they wouldn't do it for fun to confuse the future generation. And like Zebedee said, perhaps only an academician can help with this. Amal89 (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why they named it as they did - and neither do you! Your speculation about the naming might be right, but that, once again, is Original Research from Primary Sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Izhathu_Mannanars
Izhathu_Mannanars is a Thiyya Dynasty and you have mentioned in your article that he belongs to Ezhava which is wrong, please correct it.

Please REMOVE THIS or provide us a " Secondary and Primary" source which says its a Ezhava Dynasty?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepwalkingji (talk • contribs) 09:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Edgar Thurston is not reliable? Why
Hi sitush, you said Edgar Thurston was not reliable, would you please explain why. You have got a list of writers and you only agree references from those books sounds bit childish ! Doesnt it ? Edgar Thurston CIE was a superintendent at the Madras Government Museum who contributed to studies in the zoology, ethnology and botany of India and published works related to his work at the museum If you say that he is not reliable then who would you trust ?. Irajeevwiki (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, as you said before the documents which we submit are not a reliable source; i would like to understand from you; which reliable source you had drawn the conclusion that both Ezhava and Thiyya are same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepwalkingji (talk • contribs) 11:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Also the given reference link in the article to backup your claim that Thiyya and Ezhava same is "Nossiter, Thomas Johnson (1982). "Kerala's identity: unity and diversity". Communism in Kerala: a study in political adaptation. . ISBN 978-0-520-04667-2" Which published in 1982. I would say it was written for political gain. You cant actually use that as a valid reference here in wikipedia. Irajeevwiki (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a valid point Irajeevwiki, I have never thought in that line. Was that really published in 1982.!!! Pnranjith (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thurston, like basically all of the other British colonialists, are not reliable sources for most information on Wikipedia. This is not something Sitush decided, but rather that has been decided at numerous discussions in the past. The reasons are fairly simple. First, Thurston (et al) were not trained anthropologists/sociologists/whatever. Second, they didn't actually conduct very good research; mostly, they just asked the people who happened to be friendly to the local British occupation forces. Not too surprisingly, what they heard tended to boost up the image of those particular people and show other groups negatively. They didn't do any work to try to get independent verification, and thus their work does not meet the standards of modern historical research. Third, the results that they drew tended to "confirm" British racial theories (I forget the term, I'm sure Sitush can remind us), which often tended to be closely related to skin color, stature, etc., perceived similarity to European-ness. The work was clearly not a neutral inquiry. Fourth, and most importantly, Thurston (et al) are not cited by serious modern historians. Oh, sure, the groups that Thurston praised have their own "historians" who then cite him, but neutral, high quality researchers generally do not, unless their researching British attitudes. In other words, Thurston is reliable if what we want to know is how British colonialists thought about some of the people of India, but he's not reliable in establishing what was actually true about people of India. This is not actually different than many other colonialists in other parts of the world--no serious scholar would take the words of white "historians" writing about Native Americans in the 17th through 19th centuries as literally true, either. I imagine Sitush has links to previous discussions on Thurston, but I can assure you that this has been discussed before. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Same is the case with Thomas Nossiter whose book you refers to say both ezhava and Thiyya are same. Or at-least tell us how did you make into a conclusion that both are same? Nossiter is also a British. If you cant trust Thurston, who lived here in Malabar for more than 30 years, how do you trust another British who was here only for few months? What study he might have conducted to derive the conclusion that both caste are same? Nossiter is basically an economist and he was studying about communism in Kerala in recent years not about castes and tribes of Kerala.Pnranjith (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Scientific racism is the term that Qwyrxian could not remember. Pmramjith, not for the first time, you have misread what has been said. The problem is not that Thurston was British but that he was one of the British colonial administrators and not an academic - the rest as per Qwyrxian's explanation. Nossiter was a notable academic, was subject to much more scrutiny and modern peer review, is widely cited today, used modern methods of analysis, and so on. And, by the way, you have also misread the Nossiter article: he was not an economist. Honestly, the number of misunderstandings going on here is quite remarkable and I'm beginning to wonder whether you might find it more congenial to contribute to one of the version of Wikipedia that exist in other languages. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain Sitush why did you cite his books in this article, citation no. 3 is from Edgar and Thurstons book (11 March 2013) if his books are not reliable then please take it off from the article please.

' ''Nossiter completed his higher education at the University of Oxford, as an undergraduate at Exeter College and a graduate at Nuffield. He took the degrees of Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, and Doctor of Philosophy. His thesis, completed under the auspices of the Faculty of Modern History and submitted in 1968, was entitled, Elections and political behaviour in County Durham and Newcastle, 1832-74.''

For the rest of his life Nossiter studied and lectured in political sociology.

In 1999 he was elected a Councillor on Leeds City Council for the Liberal Democrats, although he resigned after only six months in office.

This is what Wikipedia says about Nossiter. He is a politician and a political writer. It is not clear which political party he biased towards, but one thing is clear he is a politician and writer. I wouldn't cite his books here. He might have written this books for popliteal gain. Irajeevwiki (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You have misread it, or did not see the "sociology" part. Or the history background. Or his reputation in India. He was a local councillor for 6 months for a British political party, which has no bearing at all on India and at the time was really not a party with much influence even in the UK. Honestly, this is clutching at straws. As for the Thurston cite (which is [2], not [3]), well, I didn't add it and, yes, it is unnecessary. I am finding it odd that only hours after you said this article did a good job of depicting the Ezhavas, you are now trying to tear holes in it. I, on the other hand, am well aware of its weaknesses and always have been. If I didn't spend so long dealing with interminable discussions such as this then I might have more time to actually improve content that is viable. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the Thurston citation referred to above. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure everyone is on same page. we are discussing here for a consensus to remove all Thiyya references from this article and Sitush is still not convinced that both castes are separate castes. He doesn't trust Edgar and Thurston books because it is dodgy in his words. But he reckons Nositter is trustworthy.

I have done a research on Nositter, He is biased towards Communist (Marxism) and communism is not limited to a small area or country. Since Kerala state where Ezhavas and thiyyas living was the first Communist State in India, we have to see this seriously. This book was published in 1981 not very long ago and i strongly believe that this author of this book wanted to merge ezhava and thiyya and portray them being downtrodden by ruling congress party. It was written for political gain and I think Sitush removed the reference.

Sitush has been making changes to Ezhava page many times since we started this discussion, I appreciate him for making changes. But he reverted some changes back to previous.

Since this article title is Ezhava, I am again requesting Sitush to remove all Thiyya references from this article. Thiyya is a separate caste and we need a separate wikipedia article page for Thiyya. I hope he will take this request into consideration. Irajeevwiki (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what we are discussing. You're trying to push a POV without any evidence. And your "beliefs" about an author don't mean anything. We base our decisions about what sources to use based upon WP:RS. Nothing you've said above indicates any reason to doubt the source, since it's based purely on your belief about someone's bias. To establish that bias, you'll need to show that reliable sources say it, not you. And if you want there to be a separate page about Thiyya, or even just to show that they are a separate caste, you're the one who will need to provide reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * interesting reply Qwyrxian. When Sitush says he can't trust Edgar Thurstons you are giving full support. When we say Nossitor was a political writer with genuine and concrete evidence, you are just ignoring it. Have a look on Internet, google Nossitor and learn that Nossitor was a politician as well as a writer.Irajeevwiki (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * for your information qwyrxian we are discussing here for a consensus to remove all Thiyya references from this article. Look the edit request. This is follow up of that threadIrajeevwiki (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Nossiter was a local-level politician for the Liberal Democrats, who are not remotely a Communist party. and indeed are now one of the two parties forming the first coalition government in the UK for many years, together with the traditionally right-of-centre Conservative Party. I've had enough of this fooling around and incompetence. Take individual sources to WP:RSN or the Thiyya issue to WP:DR but be warned: whatever the outcome is on this occasion will stick for the foreseeable future - I am not prepared to go through this Thiyya POV pushing palaver yet again in six months time, so I suggest that you marshal your thoughts well and do your research beforehand. Nothing more from me here: you've had your chance and have consistently failed to follow policy. When the article comes off semi-protection on 25 March I shall not hesitate to request reinstatement of that if the POV pushers return and have not done as I suggest. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In reference to the comment directed at me above, yes, I am rejecting the use of Thurston and supporting the use Nossiter. Being a politician does not make one's writing inherently unreliable. We look at the book, the type of info, the publisher, and whether or not it's used by others in the field. On all of these points, Nossiter passes, and Thurston does not. If you disagree, Sitush is right, take the matter to WP:RSN, because it seems very clear to me. And your thing about the Thiyya is just completely backwards. You're starting with the supposed "fact" that Thiyya are a separate caste, and you want to start removing sources that don't conform with that fact. That's absolutely not how you should ever edit a Wikipedia article. Instead, you need to look at each possible source, and then decide if it's reliable and due, and then figure out how to incorporate it. Anytime you start from the "Truth", you will always go wrong. As with Sitush, I don't think there's anything more that we can usefully say here. Sitush and I have pointed you to policies, principles, etc., and you haven't really responded to (or perhaps don't understand, or perhaps don't agree with) them. So, if you want to pursue dispute resolution, go ahead. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * SORRY QWYRXIAN YOU DIDNT UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAID. I DON'T WANT SITUSH TO TAKE ALL THE THIYYA SOURCE REFERENCE LINKS FROM HIS ARTICLE. I WANT HIM TO REMOVE ALL THE THIYYA TERMS HE HAS UED IN HIS ARTICLE. *****NOT THE CITATION LINKS*****

BECAUSE THIS ARTICLE DOESN'T EXPLAIN THIYYA CULTURE IN DETAIL. AND IT IS UNFAIR TO ALL THIYYAS LIVING AROUND THE WORLDIrajeevwiki (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The situation is becoming more complex. When we debate something we expect the other party to understand and listen in a neutral way. This is like few admins always wanted to support each other and we are left in a difficult situation.Pnranjith (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes Pnranjith, it is very unfortunate and feeling hopeless. Above comments from admins sound like they are controlling everything. Sitush was using Thurstons books in Ezhava article and when I uploaded a page which explaining the differences of the castes he changed his stand and moved against Thurston books,  unfortunately qwyrxian giving him full support withoug knowing the fact. Have you noticed that qwyrxian has been defending ezhava caste and giving backup for all baseless claims from Sitush.

How easy they can say that Thurston books not acceptable and Nossitor books ok. Well, 100 + articles maby more using Thurston books as references.

Nossitor wrote three books and they all related to politics, still Sitush thinks he is writing books in a neutral point of view.

Below given list is books from Nossitor, Influence, opinion and political idioms in reformed England: case studies from the north-east, 1832-74 (Hassocks, 1975) Communism in Kerala: A Study in Political Adaptation (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982) Marxist state governments in India: politics, economics and society (London: Pinter, 1988)

I wish if any other admin can come forward and say something on this ! Irajeevwiki (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ima let you finish, but I do think maybe an RfC could help here, but it needs to be properly prepared with standpoints. I really don't understands what a caste is properly (I read through our article a few times, but I suppose one needs to get a more inate understanding). From what I gather the Tiyyar consider themselves a seperate cultural group from the Ezhava. In that regard it would be odd to say they are the same. On the other, it is probably a good idea to reflect the view that they are regarded by some (I really can't judge the reliability of sources on this issue) as an offshoot from or a subcaste of the Ezhava. So I think the open questions are: Should the Tiyyar be mentioned as a subcaste in this article? If so, in how much depth. Should views be included they are a subcaste? Should views be included they differ stronger? Should there be a separate article on the Tiyyar? If so, how should their relation to the Ezhava be described? For as far as I can see Sitush (who I see as the champion for this position in this discussion) is off the opinion that there are no reliable sources that claim anything but the Tiyyar are a caste that are historically part of the Ezhava, living in a different region with a different name, and in so far should not be anything more than a mention in this article as a different name in a different region. He indicates there are other sources that do name them as separate, but the reliability of those sources are in question, as they are sources from british imperialists, that did not do proper research, and indicates that there are no more recent scholarly sources that still hold this opinion.
 * Irajeevwiki on the other hand (who I see as championing this position) believes that the groups are completely separate, have nothing to do with each other apart from having some of the same professions, puts forward older sources for this and also (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to speak from experience with the Tiyyar. He believes that this article should not even mention the Tiyyar, and that a completely separate article should exist. He rejects (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that there are reliable sources that say otherwise, and if they do exist that they are wrong and written for political reasons of advancing the social position of Ezhava.
 * As I said before, I'm really unsure of the whole subject matter, and attempts to quickly educate me on the issue will probably fail; let's not even attempt that, as I don't think there are high chances for success, and long spun explanations will not help the issue. What I'd like to know is


 * To what extent am I right on your positions?
 * Are there any others with positions somewhere in between?
 * Are there any modern (say, post 1970) scholarly sources that the Tiyyar are a separate caste?
 * Are there any modern sources at all that put the Tiyyar as a separate caste?
 * Is there any public social debate on this issue in the region?
 * Do the Tiyyar themselves see themselves from different from the Ezhava? If so, are there dissenting voices from the Tiyyar? For both positions, are there any sources for that?
 * To what extent can we say a group that sees themselves as a separate caste (if the above is true) is actually the same caste?
 * If (and only if) they once were the same caste, does that mean they are historically the same, or are they in fact the same?
 * Is everyone here willing to discuss their position, and abide by any consensus that may arise, also if that means that their current position is not going to be the outcome (it's ok to think for a moment on this one)?
 * apart from my questions (that go to show I know nothing about the subject matter itself), a few notes. I'd like everyone involved in the discussion to read WP:SPA, WP:TIGER, WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. Even if you've already read them, read them again. In case you think you may be violating the letter or the spirit of any of those, stop doing that. It's ok to back down now, and I don't think anyone will come back to it to prove any past wrongdoing - it doesn't even need any mentioning at this point. If you're unsure of any off those, but think you might be violating them, in letter or spirit, or think someone may interpret them to include you, even if you think you don't, do speak out, and ask if its ok. If you have any connection outside of Wikipedia to any others in this discussion, it's a good idea to disclose that now (know them in real live, live in the same house, know them from a messageboard somewhere, whatever. If somewhere down the road violation of any of those (and especially sock and meat) are revealed, that will seriously harm your position. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I can not find much valid points with Sitush here. What was the reason they were considered subgroup? Is there any book which specifically says that they are sub caste of Ezhava? From my understanding sub-caste concept itself is very weak in India. I have never heard any caste claiming them under a different caste. Even though other caste claims the other way. So obviously this document has to be parted to reflect that.Amal folsom (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a valid point Amal folsom. Even I have never seen any book specifically saying that Thiyya caste is subcaste of ezhava. So what Sitush says is absolutely invalid. Sitush, can you get a quote from the book which specifically says Thiyya is subcaste of ezhava? I have digged the same book which you were referring almost for 2 hours and could not find anything specifically as a subcaste. Also, if the article was once wrongly written does not mean that it has to continue the same way always. We should be ready to modify the article to correct those mistakes.Pnranjith (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Martijn, I think this might overcomplicate things. The situation is simple: provide reliable sources supporting either that the two are considered to be the same or are not. In the event that there are such sources for both positions then we are bound to show the difference in position. As things stand, I have only been able to find sources for one of those positions, and the article (which is not "my" article, although the Thiyya people often seem to think so) does reflect that those same sources do note some differences whilst still treating the as the same caste. The state government appears to do the same, hence a threat of legal action by the Thiyya community last year. I have always been open to suggestions of such sources for the "Thiyya is a separate caste" position but they have never been forthcoming and, sorry, until they are then I will continue to insist on WP:V being applied. I remain well aware that the article needs to be improved and that there are some differences between the two named groups but these have never really had the chance to happen because things have just got so bogged down by repeated discussions/article recreations etc by SPAs. Plus, sorry, an awful lot of my time being spent keeping things policy-compliant/developing previously poor caste article content elsewhere on WP. Without going into detail, castes come and go, from the Raj period onwards they have done so mainly for socio-economic reasons and a real-life battleground mentality is quite common in India, as seems to be the desire to protest at the drop of a hat. This article suffers from the backlash of all these things but until someone comes up with reliable sources that enable us to satisfy their desire for changes within it, we are stuck. Believe me, I have no axe to grind regarding this issue and I have tried to find sources for the "separate caste" position but the best that I have found so far have been merely ambiguous, saying, for example, "Ezhava/Tiyya" and Ezhava (Thiyya)" in various contexts that really do not advance the situation, I've read widely on these issues and am aware of the numerous different spellings of the caste names. The burden is on those who want change here to justify it, which means WP:V by use of WP:RS. If there is sufficient justification (or perhaps even just development of a strand) then, yes, we fork. - Sitush (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hii User:Martijn and User:Sitush.

RFC not a bad Idea. There is a book published in 2005 by T. Damu. Book is Lankaparvam. It says these two castes originated from different places. Unfortunately no online link available but I might get a hard copy of the book and will try to upload pages online. Modern sources are available. I have uploaded Kerala Government Issued Secondary School Leaving Certificate of Ezhava girl and Thiyya boy here, On the caste section tells which caste they belong to.

There is a lot of anger and resentment for being called Ezhava by some of the online sites and some Ezhava goups. I have seen a facebook page setup by thiyya youths to protest. Also many well known Thiyya people coming forward to protest. Actor Vineeth Sreenivasan said on TV program to stop calling him ezhavan because he is a Thiyyan and he is coming from Malabar. Thiyyar consider themselves different from Ezhava, because they are two different cultures. A recent study here from Dr Nelliat Shyamalan who is living in US with his wife and son (Manoj night Shyamalan) who is hollywood director This link would tell you his recent study. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/nelliatt-shyamalan-to-present-research-findings/219526-60.html.

These two castes never been the same, two different cultures but they were doing same jobs in the past such as toddy tapping and agricultural labours. Majority of the Ezhavas were Agricultural labours. The other common thing between these two group is they belong to Other Backward Communities in Kerala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irajeevwiki (talk • contribs) 05:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look this link http://books.google.co.in/books?id=3IEeAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA117&dq=Thiyya&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NyBAUdeOHonMrQedy4DIDQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%20thiyya&f=false It is regarding Hindu law. On page 117 first paragraph clearly tells the difference between castes. It says about Thiyya marumakkathayam, Thiyya Makkathayam and also Ezhava. There were Cochin Makkathayam Thiyya Act, Travancore Ezhava Act etcc. I believe this would clear up any doubts you have. Even government issued certificates show separate caste name. Irajeevwiki (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Irajeewiki, I am pleased that someone so new to Wikipedia understands what a RfC is. Unfortunately, you seem not to understand what a primary source is, nor that Damu is not going to be reliable and even that review of his book says "Disputing the general belief that Ezhavas of Travancore and Thiyyas of Malabar in Kerala are the one and the same community". All of this (including Shyalaman) has been dealt with previously, eg: see Articles_for_deletion/Thiyyar and note there have been prior discussions both here and at Talk:Thiyyan, Talk:Tiyya, Talk:Theeyar, Talk:Theeyya, Talk:Theeyyar, Talk:Theeyan. No-one has ever found a reliable source, POV forks have been created and deleted/redirected since at least 2007 and on practically every occasion, the issue has been pursued by SPAs. And, Pnranjith, for the last time, the article does not say that Thiyya are a subcaste of Ezhava: it says that the community is known by different names in different areas of Kerala, which is not at all uncommon for castes and has to my knowledge not caused any issues on Wikipedia with any other caste. - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sitush, Review of Lankaparvam was done by a website which is not reliable at all. It is an opinion of that website. I think it is varnam.com or something. It is not book review site like bookpage.com or allreaders.com. It is a local site which may be running by ezhava. We dont trust it.    When I cited Edgar and Thuster, there was a reason for you and many admins gave you backup. It is Damu a new writer, published book in 2005 and you are rejecting that and the reason is a review report appeared in a local website. Sorry I dont know what to say here. It is a big shame. Irajeevwiki (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? The news story that I linked is from The Hindu, which is generally recognised as being the most reliable of Indian national newspapers and is not a "local site". It also says that this is Damu's "latest book", so you would appear to be wrong in suggesting that he is a "new writer". You are also wrong in citing Edgar and Thuster, when you mean Edgar Thurston, and in making a wild claim regarding the caste origins of the "local website" author (ie: The Hindu's writer), you conveniently ignore the potential conflict of interest that might exist with Damu and certainly does exist with Shyalaman. There is neither logic nor obvious veracity in this latest message of yours, which unfortunately seems to be par for the course. I await with interest any reliable sources that you may know of. - Sitush (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then, here is another link from the same most trusted "Hindu" which says that Thiyya and ezhava are different? http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/03/stories/2004090310670500.htmPnranjith (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You see, this is what I mean. You are not reading things properly. You have just provided the same news story from The Hindu that I linked to. It does not say that the newspaper thinks the two groups are different but that Damu thinks so, contrary to the general opinion. Why not read properly what others people have said here before retorting, and why not correctly read (or convey) the information that you provide when you do retort. It demonstrates a severe lack of competence and, frankly, if ever you do find a likely candidate now then I am going to have to insist on seeing it for myself in full rather than adopting WP:AGF - you have made far too many misrepresentations etc for me to assume that good faith, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See, now you are doing personal attack on a mistake. Did anyone grand you for that? When I mention similar words against you, you started with a Sanction. Other admins please take appropriate action. I am new to wiki. 01:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnranjith (talk • contribs)

I failed to understand what did this means Sitush " It does not say that the newspaper thinks the two groups are different but that Damu thinks so" If the newspaper is publishing this, it means that the news paper has agreed to Damu's thought and agreed to publish his thought, otherwise they will reject his publication and if you can accept this upload " "Ezhava-Thiyya convention in Kozhikode". The Hindu. Retrieved 28 March 2013" which doesn't even have an author? What are your thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepwalkingji (talk • contribs) 10:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That seems incredibly naive, sorry. Outside of totalitarian regimes, please name one newspaper that only prints what it believes rather than what news sources say etc. Sure, the papers can spin their content to suit the proclivities of their audience and/or their owner but it is complete nonsense to say that they show only what they believe to be true. In fact, if they did then they would be unable to report a vast number of stories at all because, for example, news items concerning politics often make no sense unless the "other side" or the context is referred to. - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hence using your same logic I WOULD SAY " Ezhava-Thiyya convention in Kozhikode". The Hindu. Retrieved 28 March 2013" this should be removed as it is politically biased and we cannot print newspaper article in wiki because it is driven politically as per your logic??Keepwalkingji (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove points without any reference.
There are many points mentioned in this article without any valid reference. The citation given is wrong and invalid. Need to cleanup this as soon as possible to remove invalid details — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnranjith (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. Give me an example, please. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, given the subject matter this article is remarkably neutral, well-written, and clean. Semi-protection is a good thing. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been written nicely and English usage is very good. If it was a story or something I would have enjoyed reading, but is is an article about Ezhava caste and Thiyya has been dragged into this article that is not agreeable by those readers who know the caste and  history. Irajeevwiki (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what the sources say, including this article, for those with JSTOR access, and this book. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Drmies Please see my reply to sitush above, Irajeevwiki (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Muthappan is not an ezhava God. Muthappan is God of all people in North Malabar and Coorg. So remove photo of Muthappan from ezhava page198.175.68.36 (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * i agreeIrajeevwiki (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You both misunderstand, sorry. The article does not say that this deity is an Ezhava. What it says it that this is a deity of the Ezhavas. I've not checked the sources yet but your point of contention is clearly misguided. - Sitush (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Sitush, what ip says is Muthappan is not deity of Ezhavas. Muthappan kavus are found in North Kerala.  Ezhavas won't worship Muthappan.  It's just like Pulluvan pattu, it's common among Ezhavas in TravancoreIrajeevwiki (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. This is yet another Tiyya/Ezhava point based on location. Unfortunately, neither of the sources that are cited appear to have the relevant page numbers and in any event it turns out that I cannot see them here. I will add Pn tags now. I'm not good on deity stuff but I am loathe to remove something that appears to be sourced just because of some potentially pointy rationale. - Sitush (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't understand what I said above. It is not point based on location difference. It is because they are different castes and worshipping is different. I have given Pulluvan pattu as an example. Only ezhava people conduct Pulluvan pattu while doing kalamezhuthu pattu. A Pulluvan from different caste comes and conduct the ritual. It is among Ezhavas only. . Muthappan is a deity of THIYYAS, There are Muthappan kavus they are thiyya temples, they conduct pooja and other rituals there,. THIYYAS worship Muthappan at their homes as well, they give offerings in the form of food, toddy etc. That's what I said ezhava and Thiyya completely different Irajeevwiki (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Since Thiyya is a separate caste i strongly suggest Separate Page for Thiyya and Separate page for Ezhava. We can say "See Ezhava" on Thiyya and "See Thiyya" On Ezhava. Irajeevwiki (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That issue is not a matter for this page. This page is only for discussing improvements to this article. Whether or not there is or should be a separate Thiyya article can be handled at AfC, or, if the article is created, on a discussion on that article's talk page. In any event, we cannot say they are a separate caste; what we can say is "Some reliable sources think they are a separate caste, and some people do not". Qwyrxian (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While some may disagree, I don't think that AfC is at all an appropriate venue for creating a Thiyya article, not after AfD has deleted it on grounds of it being a POV fork. Since the discussion focussed on it being a POV fork of Ezhava, I do believe a discussion here is the best place, though policy wise DRV is the 'correct' place. I personally don't care much for correct places, and in this regard, since discussion on the issue has been here historically, and that one of the main issue of the AfD was that it is in fact the same group (hence POV fork) keeping the discussion in one place makes sense to me. YMMV. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Entire paragraph regardign Teyyam should be removed. THere is not even a single reference that says Theyyam is ezhava culture. Why are we accepting unsourced points?Pnranjith (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's two sourced right in the paragraph. I'm not sure why you're saying they're unsourced. It's true that we don't have page numbers, but that doesn't strictly mean they're unsourced. If we do doubt that the info is in the source, and no page numbers are forthcoming, then the info could be removed. Also, please make posts in chronological order, putting the newest ones at the bottom. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I didn't add those statements but I have recently added the Pn tags per a discussion on this page. It seems likely that the reason there are demands for removal of this section is because, per our article on the Teyyam subject, it is a North Malabar ritual and hence - if you believe that Tiyya ≠ Ezhava - has no place here. Basically, it seems to be part of the ongoing campaign, but whittling away at the edges. I have no idea whether our Teyyam article is accurate or not, nor whether the sources in this article fit the bill, but if the request for removal is indeed based on the Ezhava/Tiyya palaver then that is certainly not a reason for removal. Yet. - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sitush, Please align with wiki principles. Wiki does not encourage to use materials without any reference. There is no reference which says that Theyyam is ezhava deity. So, it has to be taken out.Pnranjith (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read the two that are mentioned? I cannot access those but I can see several other sources in snippet view that appear to mention T(h)eyyam in connection with Ezhava/Tiyya. I'll search JSTOR and see if anything is available there. - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It is mentioned in
 * several places in
 * and also in.
 * and also in.

In all cases, the connection is with Tiyya - I haven't read them thoroughly and so have no idea if they also refer to Ezhava under that or any variant spelling. Off out now but those three articles alone could improve our Teyyam article as well as this one. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So, basically it is no where mentioned that Teyyam is ezhava diety. So, if we follow wiki "Principles" we are not supposed to keep that here.Pnranjith (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I said and even if it was, the fact that at present the article still equates Ezhava with Tiyya makes the content valid here. You are trying to change things to suit your "let's have a separate Tiyya article" using an approach that might be described as underhand. I have several thousand pages of reading lined up at the moment, including five books that have turned up only in the last week: things do not always happen overnight here, and a full read of the articles that I've noted above now forms additional material that has been added to those several thousand pages. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Now, you are twisting the points as per your convenience. You only asked for references. You can not simply derive a conclusion by saying Thiyya and ezhava are same and then claim all the heritage of Thiyya under ezhava.. This is baseless. Come up with a valid reference which says Theyyam is ezhava diety and then publish that. Or else, it has to be removed.Pnranjith (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Until you or someone else can produce reliable sources that establish that they are separate, our own rules require us to treat them as the same, because that's what is said in the reliable sources that we do have. Should you produce those sources, we can revisit this issue. Until then, the sources currently provided appear to be sufficient to support the statements in the text. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, there can be a statement which says that Thiyya accepts dowry. How will we contradict that!!!Pnranjith (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source saying that Thiyyas favour the dowry system the it can go into this article. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "How will we contradict that" - there would be no need to, unless I am misunderstanding you and/or unless another reliable source says something different. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I had gone through the " Theyyam" reference and NO WHERE IT IS mentioning about Ezhava's...then how come it is in Ezhava page? wondering what is the reference used or the SO CALLED RELIABLE SOURCE to derive this? Keepwalkingji (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Local Government recognition of Thiyya and Ezhava as two different community




Local government has recognised Thiyya and Ezhava as two different castes. See the Matriculation certificate attached here which clearly shows one is Thiyya and Other is Ezhava. Pnranjith (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't prove anything. It just shows that some local government let people fill in those names on the forms. It doesn't mean that they're separate groups; a similarity in the US would be that you can write both "Asian-American" and "Chinese-American" on some forms. In any event, we have no way of verifiying the authenticity of these documents, nor do we know if the stamping agency has the authority to make decisions about group distinctions, nor whether this was a normal event or a special exception, nor even if it was anything more than the decision of a single individual. Primary sources like this will never allow you to make claims in a Wikipedia article. As we've told you before, please read WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * These SSLC Certificates are issued by Kerala Government. May be you are the only one person who wont accept it. I have noticed that Qwyrxian you are giving backup to Sitush on all of his wiki pages. If you go to Nair, there are many people complaining about the way Sitush wrote the article but, you are just giving backup not even checking whether Sitush is right or wrong. Wherever Sitush is Qwyrxian is there.

Regarding Asian American and Chinese American. It is out of Context. We are talking here about Castes.

As you know that Ezhava and Thiyya has got two different tradition and culture, why cant we have a separate wiki page for Thiyya.

Also, Ezhava page has got biased or opinionated sources which is against Wiki Rules please read WP:RS Nossitor is a political writor and his books are not trustworthy.

Below given links are from reliable sources, will clear any doubt you have.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=R5gNOdw9E_0C&pg=PT269&lpg=PT269&dq=The+blindness+of+insight:+Essays+on+caste+in+modern+India+(Chennai:+Navayana,+2006)&source=bl&ots=B2pj6tuyzg&sig=8Nk9Rgn0gzUktwXJb8_ci4qyF50&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lf9DUc3CMeuaiQe87ICAAQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=tiyya&f=false

Please read page number 235 last paragraph..

Book published by Duke University. Printed in USA (2009) Author Ritty A Lukose.. (IT SAYS SAME CASTE POSITION AS EZHAVA)

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=GulBDMgxcU0C&pg=PA211&dq=malabar+caste+thiyya&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2gJEUYX3JJDTkgWOx4GYAQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=malabar%20caste%20thiyya&f=false Encyclopaedia of Backward Castes, Volume 2 By M. L. Mathur ISBN 81-7835-069-6

This book has got all the caste’s names in India. On Page 189 You can see Ezhava, Eluva for Ezhava Caste.. Individual Caste.

Page No 211 Thiyya (Malabar District)

Also i have provided reference links in my proposed thiyyar article from T Damu (Book Lankaparvam) which says these two castes are originated from two different parts of the world. Irajeevwiki (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Lukose book looks like a good source, and seems to point to that author thinking the two groups are separate. We should find a way to incorporate that. On the Mathur book, are you sure that they don't list groups under multiple locations? I'm just asking, as I don't know how the book is laid out. If each individual entry absolutely refers to a separate group, then that would also be evidence that they are separate. In that case, we would probably need to make a new section in the article that says something like "Some authors believe that the Thiyya and Ezhava are the same group,(refs) while others state that they are two separate groups.(refs)". We should probably take the info out of the lead, then, too, since it's too complex to summarize there. As for me defending Sitush, it's because he's almost always correct w.r.t Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and with proper reading of sources. As for the sources, if you don't want to read WP:RS, that's not my problem. We have rules, we've explained them to you, and if you don't like them, you either have to try to get them changed, or edit somewhere else. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There are many books published in the past explaining differences of these two castes and they are completely different and individual castes. There was a confusion before, it was because both castes are in OBC (Other Backward Community) But culture is different. Wedding, Ritual and evan physical appearance of people from these two castes are different.

I REQUEST ADMINS TO REMOVE POV FORK OF THIYYAR, SO THAT I CAN GET MY ARTICLE PUBLISHED. HOPE ADMINS WOULD TAKE NECESSARY STEPS ASAP. Irajeevwiki (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I am not convinced by Lukose. I had already seen and discarded it when this issue blew up a few months ago: the words "same caste position" seem ambiguous to me. Mathur is just reprinting the OBC lists (and is published by Gyan, which is an unacceptable publisher - see User:Sitush/Common). As Qwryxian points out, being called different names does not necessarily make them a different comunity.. In fact, since this entire argument appears to have its basis in the way that the Kerala government treats Tiyya as Ezhava under the reservation system (see the mahasabha legal threat mentioned in our article), the fact of this and that the government shows them separately in the OBC list is clearly either a contradiction in government policies or confirmation that they are known differently around the regions but in fact are treated as being the same. This, ultimately, is one of the reasons why we should not use primary sources such as the OBC lists and was at the heart of a recent dispute that led to the topic-banning of . I am at present reading some stuff that  has found but, so far, none of that appears to assist in this dispute. There is some useful info worthy of inclusion in the article but while this dispute meanders on, there seems little point in developing content relating to Tiyyas within the article. Irajeewiki, you asked for more admin input and you have got it - Martijn, RegentsPark and Drmies are all admins, as is Qwyrxian and was Boing" said Zebedee. If you accuse someone of inappropriate bias once more, I'll be taking you to the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents and requesting a block per our caste sanctions. It is unacceptable behaviour, especially since you have been told this on so many occasions of late. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

SORRY SITUSH. WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT RESERVATION SYSTEM IS COMPLETELY WRONG, YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO MISLEAD OR CONFUSE. GOVERNMENTS WOULDNT LEGISLATE LAWS AS PER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES. YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG HERE. I DONT THINK SOMEONE CAN PRESENT A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE IN COURT FOR GETTING BACKUP OF HIS/HER CLAIMS. Irajeevwiki (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if this advances things but says, Low-status groups, largely composed of people known as Tiyyas in northern Kerala and Ezhavas in the south, composed 30 to 40 per cent of the population. Probably more useful is  which notes Lenin's book "Free Society" (Swatantra Samudayam) became the bible of a whole generation of Ezhava young men organised under the Akhila Kerala Thiyya Yuva Jana Sangham which was very active in the Alleppey-Shertallai area. Works by Robin Jeffrey, a professor, have been cited on many pages on Wikipedia. Thomas Isaac may be less reliable because of his involvement in the politics of Kerala; however, the article appears to be sourced well and (given my own knowledge from wide reading) a reasonably neutral review of the subject that he is addressing. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Every time i provide a genuine and valid book reference link, you just ignore it by saying ***NOT RELIABLE*** Do you know that it is 'not reliable' to YOU ONLY. I gave you book reference which published by DUKE UNIVERSITY, USA PRINTED in 2009 and you just IGNORING it by saying NOT RELIABLE......

Regarding Gyan... I wont worry about that, If you want to ignore, Ignore it. Its just OBC List. Just put that link here only to show you OBC List in KERALA which Shows Ezhava and Thiyya Separately.

Now this is the 4th book you are saying not reliable. You are legislating your own wiki laws. Irajeevwiki (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * using caps doesn't (ever) help your case. I suggest you refactor. Feel free to remove this message if you decide to do so. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As said above " It just shows that some local government let people fill in those names on the forms" it is government of Kerala which issues this certificate and this certificate is not filled just like that by the people' it is filled in reference to the caste certificate issued by the panchayath or municipal office and if you find the documents provided by Government is NOT RELIABLE...and the documents provided some writer as RELIABLE..I feel it is time to re-look at the definition of "RELIABLE and NOT RELIABLE"- Sitush- Would like to understand the classification of what can be called as a " Reliable source" ( I am new to wiki)Keepwalkingji (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As you're new, you'll want to review some of our policies. Specifically, here, the issue is WP:RS. Documents like these are primary sources. They are reliable for only exactly what they say (though they may never be used for info about living people). So, here, the only thing those docs verify is that one person was labeled as "Ezhava" and one person was labeled as "Thiyya". Taking that info and then saying that the Government of Kerala recognizes them as two completely different groups is pure original research. They could have simply used two different names because two different employees preferred one term over the other. Or it could be that they consider them separate groups. We have no idea. And, in any event, even if you could get a reliable 'secondary source that said that the Government of Kerala considered them the two different groups, that would not suddenly mean that we would treat them that way--all it would mean is that we include that information in our article in addition to the other info we have. If you want to consider changing how Wikipedia uses primary sources, the place to do that is WT:RS; however, it's not really worth your time as this is a very longstanding set of rules with very very wide consensus based on very sound reasons. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"They could have simply used two different names because two different employees preferred one term over the other. Or it could be that they consider them separate groups"- as you said, if they are using two different names there could some basic logic behind this segregation? or you think our government is doing all this just for fun? and do you think two groups prefer to keep terms of their choice and government recognize that need and approve it? there has to be some logical classification with proper evidence and study and my question is still not answered about what we can called a RELIABLE SOURCE and WHAT CANNOT? BE, I have lots of evidence to prove Keepwalkingji (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, please read WP:RS—those are Wikipedia's guidelines for what is or is not a reliable source. Of particular interest here is the difference between primary and secondary sources. As for these documents, my hypotheses were just that--hypotheses. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to drawn conclusions, to interpret things; we call that original research, and it's forbidden per WP:OR. If you have other sources, and they do meet WP:RS, please start a new section on this page and provide them. I recommend that you read the rest of the discussions first, as other editors have tried to introduce a number of "sources" that, in fact, do not meet WP:RS or don't say unambiguously what they claim. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

As per guideline this is a clear proof of " PRIMARY SORUCE" Keepwalkingji (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please remove all references about Thiyya from this article
This article written for misleading readers, please understand that thiyya is not a sub caste of any caste. Its independent cast and they have their own culture, tradition and history. Its just like Nair, Menon, Nambiar, Ezhava etc. If you look nair wikipedia article, they mention about menon caste that doesnt mean menon is sub caste of Nair, You can mention about thiyya in your article but dont mislead people by making thiyya as subcaste  This article deceiving readers, written for political gain or something,  please remove all above said references immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.178.150.186 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read the rest of this page, as well as the article itself, as there are actually far more sources that state that they are the same caste with 2 different names than there are sources saying they're two difference castes. Note that it does not say that Thiyya is a subcaste--it says that the two groups are identical. The article was not written for political gain; it was written to comply with Wikipedia policies. As always, if you can produce reliable sources that state the two groups are different, we can include both theories in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am curious as to how the IP contributor thought that this article said Tiyya are a subcaste. This was an (erroneous) point made a few days ago by Irajeevwiki due to misreading a section that I removed for other reasons. Are people now coming here and commenting without reading the article first? I wonder if someone posted an incorrect message a few days ago on an Orkut noticeboard or similar, and this is the result. The last thing we need here is more SPAs. Alternatively, there is something in the article that appears to be misunderstood by the IP and Irajeevwiki. I'd be grateful if they could copy/paste the relevant sentences here so that we can look to amending them to avoid confusion. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly saying. This article indirectly portrays Thiyya as a sub caste of ezhava. There was a section a month ago in this article which did say Thiyya a sub caste of ezhava, after many people complained, Sitush removed. If you remove Thiyya terms from this article then this would be a beautifully written article exclusively for ezhava. Majority of people visiting this talk page against writers view. The neutrality of the article has been questioned for that reason. Irajeevwiki (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This article neither says nor implies that Thiyya are a sub-caste of Ezhava. What is says is that "Thiyya" = "Ezhava". This is exactly like saying that "Ice" = "Frozen water". The article is not setting up a hierarchy: it's saying that there is one single group, sometimes called Ezhava, sometimes called Thiyya; it does note that there were some differences between those in different areas, and it could probably do more in that regard, but it does not say that they are a sub-caste. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not only does the article not say that but indeed it didn't when the accusation was originally made by Irajeevwiki. I am fed up of repeatedly having to correct this misunderstanding of the section that I removed after Irajeevwiki made their original incorrect interpretation. Irajeevwiki, if you raise this issue one more time then, for sure, I'll propose that you are topic-banned: this head-in-the-sand and tendentious style of discussion has got to stop. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If as per your logic " Thiyya"= "Ezhava" why is the heading of the article as " Ezhava" ?? Keepwalkingji (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

THE REPLY TO THIS QUESTION IS STILL PENDING Keepwalkingji (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONNAME. - Sitush (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This link doesnt say that When both are compared as equal you should choose the title as per your choice? I think we should rethink and make the title page as Thiyya.. as per your logic of Thiyya = Ezhava — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepwalkingji (talk • contribs) 09:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that you misunderstand. The link says that article titles should usually reflect the most commonly used name for the subject. That is most definitely not "Ezhava/Thiyya", "Ezhava/Tiyya", "Ezhava/Thiyyar" or any variant of those. Nor is it just "Thiyya" etc since, assuming that the two are fundamentally synonymous, there are far more references to Ezhava and its alternate spellings than to those of Thiyya. You are not going to get a POV change to this article by renaming it: let's deal with the real issue (is the current statement of synonymity correct) and keep off the point-y stuff, please. You are not going to advance your cause by resorting to cute-sy "cleverness". - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

So where does the logic Ezhava= Thiyya goes? Now you are contradicting your own statement by saying this article is for Ezhava and the majority of the contents are related to ezhava, where by it says Thiyya doesn’t have anything to do in this page? Keepwalkingji (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but I cannot explain it any better than I already have. Maybe someone else can but, if not, then the issue is likely to be your comprehension and/or tunnel-vision regarding this issue. Maybe contribute to some other articles and pick up how we work from that? - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I dont think i have a tunnel vision and I am still sticking to your logic and the reference you provided, you said Thiyya = Ezhava and the article which you supplied regarding the naming of title says One title is used over other when the article or the content mentions more about that specific word..This is where you are contradicting your thoughts..you cannot say both at the same time? One hand you say both are equal and other hand you say..this article talks more about Ezhava? Keepwalkingji (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not what I said at all and it is not what the policy says either. This rather confirms my suspicion that there is a comprehension issue here. Are you aware that Wikipedia exists in languages other than English? It might be that you would find one of those to be easier to use. There are, for example, Hindi and Tamil variants and (IIRC) one in Malayalam. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Copy pasting your own words " The link says that article titles should usually reflect the most commonly used name for the subject" which means Ezhava is the most commonly used words in the article and on the other hand you say Thiyya = Ezhava? So isn't it contradicting, if Thiyaa = Ezhava this article should have more reference of Thiyya which you don't have unfortunately Keepwalkingji (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keepwalkingji, right now, the majority of sources say the two groups are the same. As we start to get more sources, like people have begun providing below, that say they are different, then we can start to reconsider the article title. Until that time, though, this is just taking away from the much more important work of finding good, reliable sources to expand the coverage of this group/groups. I recommend we close this discussion until we have a better idea of what the shape of the article, and the main line of argument, will be. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Common ground
Circling around in circles all day may be fun if you are an eagle, but I think none off us are enjoying the going in circles. So let's stop doing that. I want to try something - I would like to explore the common ground we hold, to see where we stand. What I would like to do, is place some statements, and ask if any/all off you agree on them. At the moment, I'm just looking to establish common ground, so I would like to ask everybody to not make any comments or give arguments for their position, just indicate below the item if you agree or not (in no more than 5 words per item). This is very emphatically not a vote, but is trying to give eachother insight in what points we all agree on, and on what points we are not agreeing, and still have to work on. Feel free to add items to the list that are significantly different from other items, but don't make them longer than 50 words. Avoid adding items that are essentially the same as other items. Don't forget to sign! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that blew up in my face. I expected the statement that these two groups have nothing in common at all to be uncontroversialy false, but unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. We don't even have consensus that Izhava is a spelling variation on Ezhava. Statemens that Thiyya people might be filling out applications wrong, because they looked up Thiyya on Wikipedia and came to the conclusion that they are in fact identical to Ezhava, and fill that in instead - even though that doesn't really affect how we should build this article - sounds so unlikely to me, that I'm getting the feeling people are dragging in any argument they can think off to push forward their point. With such a battleground mentality, I doubt there is any chance we can find much in the way of consensus here, which will make for a very stagnant article. Which is a shame, as we do have agreement that this is not a perfect article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the world of the caste warrior - we've been up against this kind of aggressive intransigence for years -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * MH, I am sorry that you are disappointed, I think some new editors have understood a little of what contributing to Wikipedia is, one of them has even bought a book to use here. I feel it is unfair to paint everyone with one brush. It seems that there are a few "A"s who don't want to be associated with "B"s, they come across this article and try to take matters in their hand, imagine for the sake of argument an article that says "Roman Catholic and Irish are one and the same thing" and consider looking down the barrel at a Unionist. That is just an example please don't take it too literally. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand this point very well (see also my talk page, where I make a very similar point (but about English and Scottish). Yet I would (perhaps foolishly?) expect a Scotchman to acknowledge there are some ways where the English and the Scottish may be at least similar. I would classify the examples I named above as extremist and non-compromising as denying the is a group that self-identifies as Thiyya from the other side. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference in being perfect and being wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepwalkingji (talk • contribs) 16:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Right now this article is perfect.
 * No. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * NO. Amal89 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No User iRaj  talk   06:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No.Keepwalkingji (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, and no Wikipedia article ever is. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Both are different. One mainly in North Kerala and Other in South Kerala. Kvn nair (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but then I've never encountered anything that is perfect (and I think striving for perfection should be avoided, or we will be forever disappointed) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There exists a group of people who self-identify as Thiyya in Malabar
 * Yes. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Amal89 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes User iRaj  talk   06:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think so, though we would have to source that, of course. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Indeed. Keepwalkingji (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we need Reliable Sources for this assertion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently so, yes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This group is a caste in itself
 * Not sure, lean no. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember one movie actor from north Kerala claiming himself as Thiyya in an interview. Kvn nair (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a caste itself. Provided another secondary reference link here. Peasant Struggles Land reforms & Social Change. Malabar (Cooperjal Ltd England) Author. P Radhakrishnan. Please read page 159 which clearly explains Tiyya caste.  link  This is one of many books i have provided here. This is not primary source.  Irajeevwiki (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Amal89 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some sources say yes, others say no. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of them seem to think they are but RS tend to say otherwise - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know - we have primary claims they are, but RS which say they are not. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Kvn nair (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This group is completely distinct from Ezhava, there is no overlap in identity whatsoever
 * No. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This group is completely distinct from Ezhava. The only connection between these two castes are they belong to OBC and also these two castes have been given two different sort numbers in government caste list,Irajeevwiki (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. (Two entry numbers in resolution means two different castes)Amal89 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the rest of this, but I promise that our article will never say this unless there are a massive slew of new publications. We have several different RS right now that say they are the same group. Now, once we have RS, I'm happy to include both opinions, but we will never simply say "Sources A and B are correct, and sources X, Y, and Z are wrong." The only circumstance under which we would do so is if there were multiple, high quality, academic sources, which looked at evidence from both sides, and resoundingly came down on the side of "two castes". Said sources would need to be the the equivalent of a review article, which is basically the gold standard in academic publishing. Since we have very few even normal research articles on the matter, I would bet that any such claim would be many years away...and that's assuming that scholars actually come to believe the opposite from what they believe now. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes because in all my government certificate where caste is mentioned it is written as Thiyya, so it is a separate caste by itself Keepwalkingji (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you meant this for the quesion above this one. IF so, it might be a good idea to move it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems very unlikely, judging by the sources we have. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The NCBC list of backwards castes mentions one caste that includes only Ezhava and variations on the name, and one caste that includes both Ezhava and Thiyya with name variations for both as a different caste
 * Yes. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * NO, (the 'Izhava' included with the Thiyya in entry number 21, does not necessarily have to be the 'Ezhava' mentioned in this article) Amal89 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Completely agree with Amal.
 * No, I agree with Amal's example of CARKeepwalkingji (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure but haven't seen any clear evidence they are. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but irrelevant because NCBC lists are primary & always open to interpretation - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently so, yes, but these lists are compiled for practical purposes and not as accurate historical documents, so I don't think it is relevant. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The NCBC caste list is a politically motivated document, and sometimes it does not fully conform to reality
 * Yes. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. It is managed by ministry of social welfare. So I guess its trust worthy.
 * Yes, for politically motivated (only for inclusion and removal from the list); If ezhava and thiyya are same, inclusion of one of them would have sufficed, but the list has both the names ( eg., exclusion of thiyya does not mean ezhave will be excluded and vice-versa, political motivation has nothing to do with the two names being considered different.) Amal89 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely the case. Caste/varna is fluid over time and place. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it, may we have evidence? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, these lists are compiled for practical political purposes - of addressing caste-related discrimination etc - and are not intended to be accurate academic/historical records. The aims (to address some of the vast inequities caused by the caste system) are honourable, but are political by definition. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Ezhava article should be cleaned of any mention off the Thiyya
 * No. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. But Ezhava article should reflect about Ezhava caste and Thiyya should reflect about Thiyya caste.Kvn nair (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Ezhava article should be an exclusive article for Ezhava. Since Thiyya is a separate Caste, it cant be included in Ezhava Article. Apart from that, the existing article definitely needs some cleanup.  If writer needs to keep article as is, then I would suggest for a title change. I recommend title as "OBC Castes"Irajeevwiki (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, or else the name has to be changed as Irajeevwiki suggested and all the 81 castes mentioned in the ncbc list also need to be included, as for example, the arguments that sides with the inclusion of thiyya alongside ezhava is also applicable to any of the other 81 members as well. Amal89 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are facing identify crisis because of thisKeepwalkingji (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there seems to be some association/connexion, and fixing "identity crises" is not a Wiki mandate. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The "identity crises" argument merely supports what I've said all along: the intent here is to use Wikipedia to bolster an off-wiki campaign, and this is exactly the reverse of what Wikipedia is intended to do. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No - not without some very good reliable sources. The "identity crisis" should be solved elsewhere, and then Wikipedia can potentially be changed to reflect that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The two groups are racially and culturally different.
 * Yes. Amal89 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Agree User iRaj   talk   06:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are different in all ascpect starting from worship, marriage etcKeepwalkingji (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No opinion, but despite all the personal assertions we haven't seen a clear "Some class Tiyya as Ezhava but this is incorrect" from an actual academic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some RS suggest a ritual superiority for Tiyya but nothing yet has been provided in the way of detail of this using RS. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't now - we don't have sufficient reliable sources to decide. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No temple for the deity Sri Muthappan found outside malabar; clear indication that ezhava doesn't pray to God Muthappan.
 * Yes Amal89 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, User iRaj   talk   06:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Keepwalkingji (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I have seen that in Coorg(part of Karnataka and even in Mumbai) Muthappan is worshiped by all Hindus except Namboothiris. So, its not relevant here. Kvn nair (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely immaterial, that is WP:Original research and not admissible. You can't just make leaps of logic and add them to an encyclopedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Original research. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually wp:SYNTHESIS, Amal we need a scholarly source that says, "Thiyya and Ezhava are separate for many reasons one manifestation of the difference being "no Muthappan temple outside Malbar area". We as editors cannot add the two. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Purely a technicality, Yogesh, but WP:SYNTH is a part of WP:OR. Also, I think that you may again be misunderstanding the applicability of the SYNTH section, which would require a unique position being derived by combining multiple sources when, in fact, one source might indeed say this. Until we have that source, however, it is OR. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The SYNTH description was based on the assumption that it would be easy to find RS for the two separately, (not withstanding the two temples that Zebedee has linked, they are diaspora temples, one such temple may come up in Kentucky as well...) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Factually incorrect - there's one in Mumbai, and one in Johor Bahru, Malaysia -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, like that, there are lots of them, wherever significant 'rich' thiyya populations are there, they have built a temple. There is one in Bangalore as well. I meant more in terms of traditional one, like the one's that have historical importance and been there for long time. The mumbai temple and malaysia are made by people who have money, after buying land etc etc.,  There is nothing outside malabar that can be compared like a Sabarimala temple, Guruvayur temple or a Thirupathi temple. If soon, some 'rich' thiyya guy decides to convert some mall in UK to a temple, it doesn't make a temple of historical importance right?? Amal89 (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's part of the problem of original research/synthesis. When one factual claim is refuted, it gets qualified by "What I actually meant was...". The bottom line is that it is WP:OR, and it is WP:SYNTH in that it puts two factual claims together to deduce a third. If the temple business is evidence of two separate castes, you would need a reliable source to connect the two and cannot use your own personal deduction (even if you are correct). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Amal is right (not that it is useful to prove Tiya≠Ezava), the temples Zebedee has linked are diaspora temples. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, they're disapora temples - I don't dispute that. I just refuted the original claim as it was presented, to illustrate the way OR arguments tend to go. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of thiyya will only lead to more arguments as people are aware of the reality and verifiabilty doesn't matter to them.
 * Yes Amal89 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes User iRaj   talk   06:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's basically a threat: "give me my way or I'll keep complaining". Totally unacceptable behaviour. If people keep complaining incessantly we'll just lock the page and be done with it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Threatening to lock the page is also a threat. Amal89 (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You might think that but it is something that complies with our policies. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. We have means to stop disruptive behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right Amal, but can we change good policies, "I stick to verifiability and not truth". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant - we don't change Wikipedia based on the number of people shouting or how loud they shout. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Kvn nair (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of thiyya alongside ezhava misleads/confuses people who refers Wikipedia to fill applications to be used in government offices and other institutions.
 * Yes Amal89 (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes User iRaj  talk   06:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Immaterial. Wikipedia is not a study guide for government forms, and government forms are not necessarily a reflection of reality. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No because they should not rely on WP in the first place. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia confuses anyone caveat emptor. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant - it is not the job of Wikipedia to assist with the filling-in of Indian government documents. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I dont think people refer Wiki to fill in their application form!Kvn nair (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

QUOTE: [The problem is not that Thurston was British but that he was one of the British colonial administrators and not an academic}

What a joke! As if academicians know better! To what levels has Wikipedia sunk to?