Talk:Kerala/Archive 6

New Subsection
I tried to add a section on 'Impact of Keralites on other Languages'. But it was deleted twice. I think this proposed new section will improve the quality of the article. Some examples are Swati tirunal,M. G. Ramachandran,Narayana Kasturi etc... Opinions of other editors whether to include or not include are greatly appreciated.Naayar (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A better perspective
Though I am not an expert in 'history writing', I think the way the main article has been written can give a wrong perspective about Kerala. Kerala is a state that was formed after the state reorganisation in 1956. At least two of the three main parts that now come to comprise Kerala have different historical experiences. For Malabar was under the Madras Presidency under the British rule while the other two places were under their native kings. That much for the recent history.

As to the more ancient times, when one goes back from the framework of the modern state called Kerala, history, cultural inputs, social experiences etc. gets mingled with those of the neighbouring states of Mysore or Karnataka and Madras or Tamil Nadu. The various kings and rulers may be really connected to the larger areas mentioned.

Moreover as to the language itself, the modern so-called official version Malayalam is a sort of superimposition on most of the northern districts, especially that of Malabar. The Malabar dialects and those of the tribal populations have literally got erased by this superimposition. That is not the issue here, but that trying to force a unified language history based on this new metamorphosis can be misleading. For, it is a fact that even though the various dialects of Malabar were called Malayalam, most of the Malabar words are quite incomprehensible to the official version speakers. Beyond that, is the fact the father of Malayalam Ezhuthachan was born only a few centuries back. So it is my suggestion that when writing the history of this geographical area, the caption of it being the History of Kerala can be misleading and wrong. For a different version of State reorganisation would have then lead to a very different history. The state of Kerala is new entity. If Zamorin had written a history, it would have claimed all the ages past as the history of Calicut. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Education"
The education section needs serious cleanup. It is currently riddled with grammatical errors and possible bias / unsourced claims. Keepssouth (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Insertion of corrected and enhanced information on the spelling and pronunciation of Kerala
User:Kwamikagami is launching new edit disputes with a small set of reversions of which only one is correct, and at least one that is flat out unreasonable, going counter to a Wikipedia best practice. This section discusses edits dealing purely with linguistic issues. Another new section discusses points that straddle linguistics and history.

First, I admit the correctness of a reversion in the opening sentence. I overlooked that the pronunciation being demonstrated is how the name is pronounced in English. (The phonetic transcription corresponds to British English.)

Unfortunately, this other editor also reverted the insertion of the native name of this province in the local alphabet in the existing Infobox. Just look at the Infoboxes for Fukuoka_Prefecture, Russia, and China. Kwamikagami presumably knows better than anyone that this is information we strive to include in the Infoboxes to articles on languages and in geography. In fact, this editor simply performed a total reversion of every change in a small amount of changes I made, doing so within two hours of making them, at 01:52 17 May around midnight 17 May. He did not give notice of the total reversion. Readers should know that Kwamikagami is seething with hatred of me, as displayed on a couple of talk pages. The removal of how to write "Kerala" in the local language from the Infobox can only be due to either spite and/or he didn't try to notice every edit I made because he wanted to revert them all anyway.

This other editor also reverted my replacement of an inferior source on pronunciation To support a phonetic transcription using a work of what is apparently sociology or theology (Freiberger, Asceticism and its critics: historical accounts and comparative perspectives) is not necessarily inadequate, but when I cite instead a reference grammar of the language, it's hard to imagine how anyone could defend deleting that in favor of the former source. On top of that, the phonetic spelling that was attributed to Freiberger (maybe he was misquoted) is wrong in the first vowel.

This other editor wrote on his talk page, just a week ago, addressing a third person, that he shouldn't even be editing Wikipedia at the moment. Dale Chock (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * How about that, the "Oliver Freiberger" source is garbage. There is no mention in it of how to pronounce "Kerala". The words "Kerala" and "Keralam" each appear just twice, on pp. 117 and 118. The words "Malayalis", "pronounced", and "pronunciation" do not appear in this book. By the way, this is a collective volume, and Freiberger is not the one who wrote about Kerala. By now I've seen 3 or 4 editors protecting a phony citation. Now let's find out who's originally to blame for this insertion.


 * And, editors don't want to see Malayalam script in the Infobox for "Kerala"! Wikipedia seems to get weirder every month. Dale Chock (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you there, Dale. The India project decided that there should be no Indic script in articles on Indic place names, because (a) it's too hard to verify or spot vandalism and (b) it attracts nationalists who want their script on as many articles as possible, until every place name is given in eight languages. Some of us argued that this isn't difficult to police, but in the end it wasn't worth the argument. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that sheds light. I ended up at the RfC, and it is hard to verify that there's a decisive, majority approach there, contrary to what one editor hinted. Dale Chock (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The "Freiberger" insertion started out innocently. It came from a sockpuppet, but it was only invoked to attest that the inhabitants use the form Keralam. That's all -- it wasn't associated with a phonetic claim! Valid, but really that's not a proper source. Relevant books can be found to attest to that. Dale Chock (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Abhishek 16:09 17 May 2012 reinserted an UNSOURCED and anyway false phonetic claim 16:09 17 May 2012. Last month, on 19:36 15 April 2012, User:Kwamikagami made an incorrect phonetic claim and incorrectly assumed that an existing citation (Freiberger) supported the claim. The claim was as to the native pronunciation of the name "Kerala". He copied a passage from the lead which addresses the pronunciation by English speakers. The Freiberger citation was already in place where the claim was incorrectly pasted. The "Freiberger" source, however, was never meant to attest to pronunciation in detail, but only that the locals add an 'm' to the end of the word. "Freiberger" was inserted 21:57 26 November 2009. (As it happens, "Freiberger" is the wrong author to cite in connection with the source publication.) On 17 May, I replaced the phonetic transcription and supported it with a reference grammar of the language. Kwamikagami soon agreed with this, but Abhishek reinserted the whole of the false material. The material is phonetically inaccurate as to the first vowel in the name. I have already spelled this out clearly on the Talk page and an edit summary. Thank you. (By the way, my mention that the ancient meaning of "chera" is now disputed used to be in the article's lead for many years (not put there by me back then). Now, mysteriously, people are deleting it altogether.) Dale Chock (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sloppy writing and citation providing about etymology. Improvements swept aside.
User:Kwamikagami reverted my changes regarding the earlier history of the Malayalam language, the language of Kerala. Some Wikipedians think you can insert anything if it comes from a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia jargon sense of that term. In an encyclopedia, it's usually more advisable to make a less categorical, less outspoken statement than a more categorical, more outspoken. And accuracy is very advisable.

The oafish insertion which Kwamikagami is insisting upon is the paragraph on "Etymology".

"Kerala is pronounced Kēraḷaṁ by the native Malayalis. (Reference: Oliver Freiberger, 2006, Asceticism and its critics: historical accounts and comparative perspectives . . . ) Scholars agree that Kerala transliterates Classical Tamil Cheralam ('Land of the Cheras') or chera-alam, ('declivity of a hill or a mountain slope/range'). The state was anciently called Cheralam and Cherala Nadu.  Reference: ref name='Menon_1967' -- no page number provided) (Reference: Vincent A. Smith, '1999', The early history of India . . .)  (Reference: KM George 1968 A Survey of Malayalam Literature -- no page number provided  . . .)   Another popular view is that 'Keralam' is derived from the Sanskrit word 'Kera' which means coconut and the Dravidian word 'Alam' which means place or land, as Kerala is and has been famous for the coconut trees it grows."

This scholarship is perhaps not quite horrible, but there are several things crude about it. It does not acknowledge more or less directly quoting V.A. Smith, who actually wrote, "Scholars are now agreed that Chera and Kerala are only variant forms of one word". Well, previous editors actually didn't quite offer an accurate quotation. "Transliterates" is obviously (to a knowledgeable editor) the wrong word, and in fact it distorts the original. Smith's claim is apparently not controversial, but you wouldn't realize that he wrote this one hundred years ago, that the 1999 publication is just a reprint. KM George did affirm the belief half a century later. Notice that two of three citations don't include page numbers. We are not told that the state ruled by the "Cheras" was only one of three simultaneously occupying today's Kerala. (Why aren't we told this? Both Smith and George elaborated on it.) Notice also that the article, including the lead, has a lot of promotional statements as if out of a tourist brochure. Incidentally, this biased and slipshod editing in both content and sourcing is common in the contributions from the Subcontinent.

It would be more in line with the best envisionings for Wikipedia to not obstruct thoughtful, diligent improvements. Dale Chock (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to fix your writing for you, Dale. As I've said before, you can do that yourself.


 * Oh, and could you remove the double spacing between paragraphs? — kwami (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Per [| link] from kerala.gov.in, Keralam means land of Kera or coconuts. That could be included too. इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011  18:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest insertions about pre-600 A.D. "maritime" history
You have Arab Muslims, lots of them, immigrating two centuries before Muhammad. I am dismayed to see such claims. Dale Chock (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it misleading? Arabs are an ethnic group, and Muhammed is just one of them. The Arabs who had trade-relation with Kerala before the period of Muhammed could not be considered as Muslims, at least in a historical point of view. But the inter-marriage of Arabs with locals formed a specific ethnic group in Kerala, who were under the patronage of Arabs and later on they also embraced Islam, once the message of Muhammed reached here. If the passage in the article needs more clarification, you are welcome. -- AshLey  Msg 13:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Official version but not reality!
What is given here is just textbook history; and not factual. I need to just say that Mappilla lahala though pictured as an anti-British rioting was nothing of that sort. It was pure communal clashes that included terrible atrocities committed on both sides. The British administration came into the scene only to crush this social malice with force, using equally brutal and crude native policemen.

Another thing is the mention of matriarchal system of family. The numerically significant caste in Malabar known as Thiyyas is not seen mentioned. Among them, the north Malabar version had Matriarchal family system. The South Malabar Thiyyas did not practise Matriarchal system. It may be mentioned in passing that though there are concerted efforts at depicting the Thiyyas as a sub caste of the Ezhavas, it is not correct.

As to the quality of Matriarachal system, it was not a good family system, for it generally subordinated the husband to the granduncles and other uncles of the wife. Without their permission and the husband's servitude to them, the husband had no right over his wife.

Another thing that needs mention is that till the Chief Ministership of Nayanar, many Kerala places had English names which were widely used. Some of them were even the historical names.

Some of the place names in English and their current day Malayalam equivalents are given below. It may be noted that even though officially the Malayalam names are used, the English names are still in vogue, and widely used. In recent years, a very ferocious language fanatics has been spurred up, mainly by the teaching class and leftist parties.

Cannanore        : Kannur

Baliapattom      : Valapattanam

Tellicherry      : Thalassery

Wynad            : Wayanad

Manantody        : Maananthavaady

Sultan's Battery : Sulthaan Bathery

Calicut          : Kozhikode

Palghat          : Palakad

Badagara         : Vadakara

Trichur          : Thrissur

Alwaye           : Aaluva

Cochin           : Kochi

Alleppy          : Aalappuzha

Idikki           : Idukki

Quilon           : Kollam

Trivandrum       : Thiruvananthapuram

Cape Comerin     : Kanyakumari (not in Kerala)

Another thing that needs mention is the oft quoted: {Kerala's Human Development Index rating is the highest in India.[91] This apparently paradoxical "Kerala phenomenon" or "Kerala model of development" of very high human development and not much high economic development results from the strong service sector}

This is not really an unexplainable economic phenomena; and the explanation given is not correct. It is based on a fantastic duping of the people of this nation. That is, a foreign employed person's earning is allowed to expand by a fraud known as currency exchange rate devaluation. What it really means is that the native-employed person is not protected from the devaluation of currency that is known to be doctored to suit the interests of the foreign-employed and the exporters.

For example, a person is earning Rs. 1000/-inside Kerala. It remains 1000 only, while a foreign employed person will find his 1000 denomination expanding from 17 to 50 times. This huge fraud has literally made the people of many states in India with no foreign connections literally destitute and economic slaves.

--Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Section: Kerala in religious traditions

 * 1) We need to move the section down. Almost all WP articles on state or country keeps the standard order of 1.Lead 2.Terminology 3.History. But here we are mixing the mythology with history. We need to standardize the things.
 * 2) Heading of the section could be changed. The heading "Religious traditions" doesn't mentions "Hindu" -- AshLey  Msg 16:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Last week, I moved the section down and put it just after "Culture", but User:SumerianPrince has included it in the history section. Hence I started this discussion here. However User:SumerianPrince hasn't responded yet. For such an important article, I think it's not good to wait for a long time to implement such a change. -- AshLey  Msg 09:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed because the Third Opinion project (like all forms of content dispute resolution), requires talk page discussion before asking for dispute resolution. Now that you have requested discussion from the other editor, allow him a few days to respond and if you do not get a response, then try a request for comments to draw other editors' attention to this issue. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

POV concerns about the "Human Development Index" section
This section is completely one-sided, and many sources are misquoted to present this state in a overly positive light (see WP:SYN). One such reference, used extensively within this section, is titled "The Development Debacle of Kerala", but there's hardly any mentions of similar concerns, all the talk is about the unmitigated success of the social policies of this state.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not completely one-sided. Last paragraph briefs the flip side of the story. The source "The Development Debacle of Kerala" also explains the achievements of Kerala in the Human development side, but stresses on much worsening fiscal, economic and employment issues. These issues are basically not related to Human Development Index and they could be discussed in the section related to economy. The same source is already cited in the Economy(section) to brief "paradoxical Kerala phenomenon" where we could further explain the economic issues of Kerala model of development. -- AshLey  Msg 11:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried to address the concerns you have raised. POV template has been removed. Pls suggest more improvements, -- AshLey  Msg 08:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Rfc: History and religious traditions
At present, the sub-section, Kerala is included under the title history. Is proper to include it in history? Where it could be aptly fixed? 11:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The section Kerala is oddly placed under history. It does not seem to fit under any other headings without content being altered. It may be best placed as a section on it's own after religion - or given the section Kerala links to the subject, it may be best incorporated there. It's not an easy one to answer.  Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^)  (talk)  18:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Rome has its section on its mythical origin under the history section. Same in History of Rome and History of London. That seems to be the convention. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

To add to the comparisons: History of Athens begins a section "according to legend". Memphis, Egypt (Cairo's nearby predecessor) also includes legendary history. The idea that mythological and legendary sources are "not history" has not been a constant distinction. Indeed, often myths and legends contain a fair amount of veracity; moreover, they are often the only texts modern historians have available for certain periods; periods before "history" as a distinct way of analysing the world from legend. It is - given that such sources are clearly highlighted as "legendary" - entirely appropriate and proper that such sources be within the history sections. In this case, the section under question provides only information that is relevant to the history of the city; its founding, ruling and so on, and does so in a manner that recognises the source is in myth / legend. Not only is it proper that it be in the history section; it's a relatively good example of how to encorporate such sources. -- Cooper 42(Talk)(Contr) 16:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Summary- The conclusion may be drawn as to keep the Religious traditions in history itself. -- AshLey  Msg 08:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed, this is difficult, for the religious history of Kerala is Kerala history in a manner and fashion. It is probably best to leave it where it is and have a link to an article of its own. It does not seem to fit on the Kerala page. Whiteguru (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Leave as is per Joshua Isaac, Cooper-42 and Whiteguru, because of the number of articles which have established a convention.  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 02:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Leave it in history unless or until someone makes a case for moving it and provides sources saying that ancient practices are anything other than history.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   09:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Leave it in history - per convention stated above. Also, the subsection title explicitly specifies that those described in the subsection are history according to "religious traditions". There is no room for confusion. Snowcream (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this is an accurate summary of consensus. In particular the use of Other Stuff Exists arguments is not in the least persuasive or useful for the formation of consensus. The concept that mythic histories are adequate histories is out of line with the consensus developed at major historical projects (such as MILHIST) and also in the reliable sourcing area (WP:HISTRS). The conclusion may be correct, but the arguments currently put for that conclusion are not. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm also against the mixing-up of myth with history and initiated this RFC. Could you please help to sort this out. - AshLey  Msg 12:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Section: Religions
This section could be streamlined and expanded to brief the history of major religions. My attempt has been reverted here by Snowcream alleging POV issue. Snowcream has also alleged that the author Cyriac Pullapilly's view are communally biased towards Christians and hence the source can't be accepted. The same source has been found as a stable reference for many more articles like Nambudiri, Caste system in Kerala, Ezhava etc. Hence I request, Snowcream to reinstate the new contributions. Alternatively, he or anybody else could also try to streamline and expand the section. - AshLey  Msg 08:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, giving separate subsections for religions and giving religious history is undue. The section needs to give the religious demographics of the state and does well to do so in the version prior to your edit. A 'theory' that a fringe evangelical author like Cyriac Pullapilly makes deserves no space is the section. The claim the Hinduism 'slowly evolved to the present brahmanical form' is factually untrue. The Hindu religion or its beliefs did never attain a brahminical form; rather the social stratification order did. This order, however transcended the Hindu people and included every individual in the society.


 * Since all tribe/caste/creed of people living in all parts of the world reached their current location due to some migration in former years of history; we can easily come to fact that the Nambudiri presence in kerala owes to some migration in the past. However, whether this 'Nambudiri migration' has occurred in the span of recorded history or during pre-historic times is a matter with no academic consensus. The Nambudiri arrival and their modeling of social order has been a matter of vast academic speculation. Balachandran Nair (is his book "In quest of Kerala") says Nambudiris came between the 4th and 7th century BC. Hisotorian K.P. Padmanabha Menon (in the book "Towards a transcultural future: literature and society in a 'post'-colonial world") says that the arrival of the Namboodiris can be anywhere between the 7th century BC and the 7th century AD . Leela Devi puts the date to somewhere before 4th century CE, where as Ayinapalli Aiyappan goes the farthest at 8th century CE. These dates present no congruity what so ever.


 * The point is, putting such "theories" as self-declared truths is not what Wikipedia desires to have. Snowcream (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not undue; however separate sections are not necessary, paragraphs will do. Religion could be a separated section instead of being a sub-section in Demographics(as in Karnataka (FA). Kerala's religious history has many unique features and has much encyclopedic value. For example Advaita Vedanta of adi shankara needs a mention in Hinduism. Judaism, Christianity and Islam also arrived in this land before reaching much of the other parts of the world. Hence, briefing the religious history would only increase the encyclopedic value of this article.


 * Cyriac Pullapilly: Your allegation against author with out any evidence is uncalled for. We should keep civility and refrain from personal accusations even if you don't like his theory(WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Moreover he is just narrating a theory that he has originally referred to many eminent persons like E. M. S. Namboodiripad, K. R. Narayanan, R. Sankar, K. Balarama Panikar etc (pls ref footnote 16)


 * Brahmanical Hinduism: Influence of Nambudiris in the Brahminization of Hinduism in Kerala is not a fringe theory of any Christian evangelist but finds a place in the 'cultural history of Kerala' in the official website of Government of India. As a fair use, I'm quoting india.gov.in here: "The new social evolution brought about by the influence of the oncoming Aryans was distinguished by three important features; private property in land, caste system and Aryan culture. The Aryan culture, which was first confined to the Namboodiris, began to percolate to those non-Aryans who had close contact with them in social life and slowly but steadily through them to those in the lower strata. Brahminical Hinduism, with its religious ritual and ceremony, its beliefs and practices, its traditions and mythology, its language and literature, began to have its impact on the society." Cyriac Pullapilly along with others mentioned above also support it. More over, A. Sreedhara Menon, in his book "Political History of Modern Kerala (pp.36-41) also assent to this theory.  AshLey  Msg 09:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As seen in the FA Karnataka, there are no separate sub-section with bolded titles for each religion. Moreover, it doesn't put forth any statement that 'indigenous form of Hinduism slowly evolved to the present brahmanical form' or any similar 'theories'. It summarizes important events pertaining to religious beliefs in paragraphs. The version before yours does mention that Islam arrived through Arab traders and Christianity is per-tradition believed to have arrived with St. Thomas. I am also not averse to mentioning Adi Sankara in the religion section. However, bundling the Brahminical caste system with Hinduism and theories pertaining to arrival of Nambudiris and how Aryan and non-Aryan people assimilated is out of scope and unacceptable to the religion section. Snowcream (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Bolded titles could be avoided; I also felt it as not good....honestly, not just trying to reinstate my contributions. Brahmanical Hinduism: We have to mention the evolution of Hinduism to the current form. Surely, it was just a tribal form in the pre-history and at some point it started adopting the inputs from Historical Vedic religion. If you have any sources(WP:RS) to mention this part, pls suggest. I also propose to add a few more sentences to Budhism, Jainism Christianity, Islam & Judaism, but all within a limited space.  AshLey  Msg 11:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Snow, You were so fast to respond to my request, Thank u. If you get some sources to update the history of Hinduism in Kerala, kindly do it. WP is timeless] and we could just wait for some WP:NPOV content in this regard.  AshLey  Msg 12:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The "Kerala and Hindu Mythology" section
Since I have been asked repeatedly to thrash this issue out on here, (and as that should be the WIKI norm - only that I was caught rather unaware - and a bit shocked at some of the double-standards that I believe two people here are practicing), I am opening this here, hope Abhiskek, Tito, Mr Drmies and AT1980 would refer to this as I have mentioned in my edit summary.

Regarding those parts that I have left intact :-

1) AT1980 had been itching to change the name of the section for long and was reverted on a couple of occasions before by Admins. I am leaving the section title just as he had renamed it.

2) The content of the Aitareya Aranyaka para has also been left per se.

For those I have changed (both minor and major):-

1) The order in which the legends have been written down has been changed. The MP is the oldest of the surviving Hindu Puranas (I am sorry for that, Tito, I mentioned "texts" when I intended to mean Puranas) and speaks of the oldest of Hindu legends and the beginning of civilization on Earth some two billion years back according to Hindu Cosmology/Genealogy. Satyavrata/Manu was the king of Dravida in pre-ancient times and the entire central story of the MP is set in and around what are believed to be the Malaya Mountains. Just as in the case of Pre-history and History, so also in the case of legends and mythology, we should have them up in "chronological" order. This is something that cannot change. By the way, AT has used a vague and near-meaningless sentence like "The oldest of the surviving Puranas, the Matsya Purana, has a mention of Malaya Mountains of Kerala while it sets the story of Matsya (the first incarnation of Lord Vishnu) and King Manu (the first man).", which I am surprised nobody found rather awkward. Unless my English is rank-poor, I would find it a tad incorrigible, vague and iffy. TitoDutta, as for my using those keywords you mentioned on Mr Drmies' talk-page, it was only to be able to point to the exact reference to the legend in the concerned book as an external link, rather than a hard-copy reference, which cannot always be verified immediately. I added no less than four such references and there are literally hundreds more saying the same thing.

2) In the Mahabali para, I have corrected some typos and grammatical/structural errors, like capitalizing words like Puranic and Devas. Just like how Bible should start with a capital B, or ditto with the names of the Apostles and Saints, so also this. The part itself has been moved to just after the MP, as "chronologically" it comes long after the MP but eons before the Parasurama legend.

3) In the Parasurama section, I have removed the reference to what some modern "scientists" are saying, about parts of the coast having been under the sea/ocean. There are many parts of Kerala, in fact all of the Southern and Western Indian coasts in particular, that have gone under as well. Also, if I might, I could construe could be with regard to the South Indian/Tamil legend of Kumari Kandam (which is in sync with the MP). India, or more precisely Dravida, is supposed to have stretched from Southernmost India to Africa to Antarctica to Australia. Over the last decade or less, one instance of the occurrence of blue sapphire soil was found in both Madagascar and Kerala. Another more famous one was of the occurrence of a long-extinct frog in both Seychelles and Kerala. Various theories have been put forth including a justification for the "continental drift" or "movement of tectonic plates" one. One such theory is that there was a land-bridge between India and those places. You can look up on Google if you feel I am fabricating. My point here is not to insist that these "justifications" be included in the Kumari Kandam article. Rather, it is to drive home my opinion that the piece I removed does not belong here. This section is just about legends and it should stay as such.

These are the precise changes I have made to the article. My beef was not with the article being modified which is always welcome if it is for the better. But AT1980 makes a lot of changes in the MP para, moves it (and the Mahabali para as wel) down below the Parasurama legend (which comes a lot later), and passes all this off with an edit summary stating that he modified the part with the Parasurama legend. Please look here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerala&diff=504592612&oldid=504548863.

Finally, my apologies to Wikipedia in general, and to any other individual in particular, if I owe them any. Sorry also that I could not keep this shorter. However, myself by origin being from the majority group of the state concerned, I cannot help state a point here. This began - and that stung and struck me so clearly at the outset - with the display of the typical mindset of one of those other groups of Kerala. They are people who would like to see Kerala (and if possible India) as having "begun" only after their arrival on this land. Whether in history, or beyond in prehistory, or further back in legends/epics/mythology. One 'esteemed' conventional historian Menachery had once written a book/article titled "Christianity older than Hinduism" in Kerala. Its a different thing that he has since been stripped of his esteem and even his historian part. When treasure worth what is believed to be worth hundreds of billions of dollars including the "cultural value" was recently found at a place, many of this group suggested that it all be sold off and the money used for the country's benefit, even as their own trusts and missions proliferated, in both number and worth, without even paying taxes. I find echoes of similar minded people on WIKI which I hope the higher powers that be on here will do well to curb. SumerianPrince (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally, my apologies to Wikipedia in general, and to any other individual in particular
 * – That's the best part of your post. -- Tito Dutta  ✉  13:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Seriously are all the other parts of it that bad or is it just that this is a bit better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SumerianPrince (talk • contribs) 13:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What's obviously unacceptable is that you keep reverting! You just did it again. I'm glad you have finally found your way to the talk page--what would make me even happier is if you reverted your edit to the article, lest someone report you for edit-warring, an offense for which you have been warned, and you reverted twice since then. Any admin could block you for this on the spot. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What's equally obvious about my last edit that it is not a "revert" as in what that means on WIKI. More than 70% of what AT1980 has done in the last three/four days is still intact (and that contains a few unreferenced statements, some iffy claims, and some false summaries). I am not here to make anybody "happy" and as long as am honest couldn't care less as to who is displeased with me. I have made what I believe is a very fair edit and explained the same with some pain on this Talk page as it should be. SumerianPrince (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Put your money where your mouth is. Which statements are unreferenced? Which claims are iffy? Which edit summaries are false? Esp. the latter is really a personal attack unless you can prove it. Here's what you can do: prove these claims, and see if you can find a consensus on the talk page for changing one edit at the time. In the meantime, I count three, maybe more editors who disagree with you, and the conclusion is clear: consensus is not with you, and so there is no reason for your edits to stand. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition Vedic School for Kids – for kids ages 7 to 12– is it (y)our best source? -- Tito Dutta  ✉  19:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sumerian Prince, Your major concern is the presentation of mythological information in the scale of significance rather than in a chronological order. If you refer some mainstream books on Kerala history, you would find that they do start with the legend of Parasurama and surprisingly, many books even skip the Mahabali tradition (10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ). So, as far as history of Kerala is considered, this tradition is the most significant one. Legend of Mahabali predates that of Parasurama and if there is a consensus, we may add such an info following the 1st source.  AshLey  Msg 13:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier)

Regarding this reversion by User:Ashley_thomas80:

1)The title: In my talk page this user wrote :"some veteran users conveyed that the the title "Religious traditions" is misleading as it it infers that the section would describe the various religious traditions of the people of Kerala". Yes it is damn it. What is described in the section is the religious tradition of Kerala. The religious tradition of Kerala is the Hindu tradition as it is native to the land. The user's agenda is typical of Christian fanatics in Kerala who wants to bring a form of historical cultural 'equality' to the table; by placing Hindu traditions to be only at par with Christianity when it comes to dealing with the culture of Kerala. Well, that is not the case. Foreign arrived religions don't deal with cultural history of this land - they rather deal with that of their 'holy land' which is very much outside the place we are discussing.

2)Mahabali - Purana: I do not understand why the user would want to remove the referenced Purana piece. It points out the prime motive and the immediate cause why the events of the legend happened; and is therefore central to the narrative. Appending an additional reference to bring clarity doesn't appear bad to me. Snowcream (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The title: No, you haven't fully understood the meaning of tradition.11 Tradition is not just belief, it also includes the rituals, some life-style related stuff etc. If we title the page as Relogious traditions, it infers that the section would describe all the traditions of the people of Kerala including beliefs, principles, long-living life-styles etc. Traditional beliefs would be the title that you are arguing for, once you conceive this issue. However I think, such a title is diluting the historical significance of Vedas, epics and myths of ancient India; they are not just traditions but of higher significance (try comparing Greek mythology and Greek traditions). I prefer "Hindu mythology" in the title, since Indian myths have got universal acclamation to a great extend and in the section we are trying to depict various instances in these myths which are significant to the history of Kerala. Mahabali (revert): No, you cited a primary source and that source doesn't relate the myth of Mahabali with Kerala; it could attract WP:SYN along with WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. With your communally aggressive comments directed personally against me, you haven't adhered with WP:CIVIL and hence I have decided to report you case in WP:WQA  AshLey  Msg 08:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed two sources in the section since it is a clear case of WP:CITEKILL. Just 2 reliable sources are enough two state any point in WP and here in this case Sumerian Prince has already cited two good sources along with 2 primary sources and two other less reliable sources (Gyan and a website). Let's talk if those primary sources are required or not. (My edit-summary was not fully loaded due to some error, sorry)  AshLey  Msg 10:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which are the two primary sources, can't see any on a cursory glance? CorrectKnowledge (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Original Sanskrit texts on the origin and history...." and the "The Quarterly oriental magazine, review and register" can be done away with. Didn't realize they were translations at first sight. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please also note, none of the references say that Matsya Purana is the oldest one. Roshen Dalal's Guide (1st ref) just mentions that it is one of the older puranas. I am rewording the sentence accordingly. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi CK, Good work. Oldest: I was also concerned in the discrepancy with source. With regards  AshLey  Msg 12:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Religions
"Table : Percentage distribution of population according to community by district (The statistics are based on a sample survey in 1998 and hence not accurate)"

The mentioned table shows a lot of absurd values. Either correct them or remove the table. No information is better than wrong information. In Kerala Syrian Christians constitute 75% of Christians and rest constitute 25%. Another mistake which I noticed : In Thrissur district Syrians clearly outnumber latins by all means. I doubt if there is at least one latin church in the whole of thrissur district.

I have made some sensible corrections in the figures irrespective of what the reference says. I am not sure about the figures regarding Hindus and Muslims. But I really doubt if they are correct.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No we can't modify like that; better to remove it. It's inaccurate, I know.  AshLey  Msg 13:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, then better we remove it. Another absurd thing which I found (in the original table) is when we add the values of all the districts, syrian count = 180.6 and latin count=143.5. But in total Kerala it is showing latins outnumber syrians. Clearly below all the required standards.PalakkappillyAchayan (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Go ahead  AshLey  Msg 14:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Kerala HDI
please fix the hdi. the hdi for the year 2011 is 0.920 not 0.790 (hdi of year 2007-08 is incorrectly added for the year 2011) as per the link. if the error hasn't been fixed, i'd like to edit it myself. just wanted to know if the hdi entered is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.156.14.99 (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for your comment. Do you have any source showing that the HDI is 0.920? The India Human Development Report 2011 gives a figure of 0.790: as you said, this figure is for 2007-'08. (The citation given in the article is now a dead link; but you can find a copy here.) If you find a credible source for 2011, please post the link, I will be happy to change the figure. Aurorion (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Economy
The figures given for kerala's budget is more than that of its GSDP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.11 (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Imp source
Hi, found the following source which could be useful somewhere in the article, |The Living Culture and Typo-Morphology of Vernacular-Traditional Houses in Kerala. regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Religion
“Islam and Judaism arrived in Kerala through Arab traders.” This is entirely contrary to both historical record and religious tradition. Arab traders certainly didn’t bring Judaism. According to Muslim religious tradition Islam has existed from the beginning of Abrahamic religion but it became dominant with and after Muhammad, c. 570 – c. 8 June 632. A substantial Jewish population lived in what is now Kerala at least a thousand years before that, having arrived as traders and business people from Palestine. A substantial proportion switched to the new Christian branch of Abrahamic religion when St. Thomas the Apostle arrived a decade after the crucifixion of Christ between 30 and 36 AD. Their descendants' history was fascinating. Inter alia, when the Portuguese insisted that the Oriental Orthodox switch to Roman Catholicism, a small minority submitted but only in part. They would be Catholic, and acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as the top command, but they would be Catholic, not Roman Catholic: they would not switch to Latin as liturgical language and their priests needn't be and remain bachelors. Masalai (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Massive removal of content
Please take a look at this massive removal of content. I don't know what to make of it. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Those edits look reckless, the content didn't look contentious and the reason was only a little bit plausible, but such a large scale removal is definitely not justified. The content needs to be put back and the only thing that may be needed is additional references. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please check the link to the Kerala government web site given in that content http://www.kerala.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&id=2852&Itemid=2291 I think it could be an authentic reference to the matter. Thanks and Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunaina Kunju (talk • contribs) 04:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, looks like I have to eat my own words. I have just dug into the content and the IP was right. To summarise, there is just little valuable information lost and to some extent, it is covered in the article currently. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This ref had matter copy-pasted here so, it was an obvious wp:copyvio. Moreover, I think relying on this solely is not wise.
 * Some parts of the content were just repeated and is already mentioned in the article.
 * The only issue is with the other main ref: Britanica, did mention some useful minor information but then again, that too was copied.

Correction in Kerala Wiki page
Hi all,

In the wiki page - kerala, under the title 'Post colonial period', it is written that "In 1957, elections for the new Kerala Legislative Assembly were held, and a reformist, Communist-led government came to power, under E. M. S. Namboodiripad.[89] It was the first time a Communist government was democratically elected to power anywhere in the world.Italic text[90]" This statement is wrong. please refer to the page 'San Marino'. under the title 'History', you can see the sentence "San Marino had the world's first democratically elected communist government, which held office between 1945 and 1957."Italic text I checked this fact and got the clarification that it's a true statement. So please remove the false statement from page - 'Kerala'.

please google 'san marino first communist', and you will find innumerable web pages containing this fact.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino (Read under the title 'History'.) 2. [] (Read under the title 'Election to state Government'.) 3. http://pgovindapillai.info/ArticleFiles/29bf4af8-922d-dd08-8b10-00005c8810d4article%20to%20ganasakthi.m.pdf 4. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_is_the_first_elected_communist_government 5. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/San+Marino+Communist+Party

I hope all the above given links are enough to make a clarification.

Anoopcb (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Done–Thanks for pointing this out, I have clarified it here. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No information on State Bird/ State Animal/ State Fish/ State Flag?
Hi,

There seems to be no information here about State Bird, State Animal, State Fish, etc in this page. Do they exist?

Cheers. Gulielmus estavius (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added "state fish" too and the citation is noted on the caption. jojo@nthony (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Kerela
At present, Kerela redirects to this article (Kerala). But there is another place named Kerela, Mali. It feels to me that Kerela should be redirected to Kerela, Mali (and then a hatnote be placed on the latter.) Shall I proceed? ···V ani s che nu (mc/talk) 22:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , sounds eminently sensible. Philg88 ♦talk 04:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Many thanks! ···V ani s che nu (mc/talk) 18:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Literacy
Oh my god ! Literacy of the state is 97.5%. This is the most developed and educated state in India. Awesome.-- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 18:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Detail
"Kerala was selected as a 'state of states'" by whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.13.63 (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I dug and found this 2010 India Today report, so it's according to them. Best part is, it won only the criteria for good governance, the real winner was Himachal Pradesh. India today does this every year, so I feel this is mostly irrelevant to any of our state pages. I will remove it. Also, that entire para is unfit to be in the lead section since it's supposed to summarise the rest of the article, not mention anything new; will make the changes. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

God's own contry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.208.199.96 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Section 1. Etymology
User:Jophine89 must add citations to these claims and use encyclopedic language, Kerala actually got it's name from the word is not presenting any other view, even if this is mainstream, it should be Kerala got it's name from the word.. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of word Kerala given wrong in IPA
Kerala is pronounced as kEraLa, with a long 'e' not  and 'l' as a retroflex

So the correct IPA representation should be ({ {IPAc-en|ˈ|k|e:|r|ə|ɭ|ə}}) and not ({ {IPAc-en|ˈ|k|ɛ|r|ə|l|ə}}).

I would like to know if anybody has any objections to correcting it. rams81 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What is a retroflex 'l'? The symbol that you used for it is not recognized. As for the long 'e', what is recommended at Help:IPA for English seems to be 'ɪər', from the column for vowels followed by 'r'. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the one I mentioned-> Retroflex_lateral_approximantRepresented by a ⟨ള⟩. ळ in Devanagari script. rams81 (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * From that page you get this example where the first 'l' in 'malayali' seems to be pronounced with a 'y' sound, as 'll' would be in Spanish. But in this YouTube video 'Kerala' is pronounced with a normal 'l' sound, as well as the 'e' being not long. If the latter is a correct pronunciation of the state name, then what we have now as IPA pronunciation shouldn't be too far off. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015
As this article is about a popular state of India. It faces alot of vandalism. So, The page must be semi-protected as thus incedents doesn't happen on this articke anymore.

Roshan014 Talk  12:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection. Cannolis (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Map
please fix the map.. thanks
 * You don't say how, exactly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115bash (talk • contribs) 11:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Keralam Mentioning Position
Dear Keralites, Malayalis and every revelant wiki editors, i have some queries which require some changes in the initial sentence Is Kerala referred to as "Keralam" still? What is the second present proof for other word as 'Keralam' even if the "Keralam" word is used by ethno-linguistic disapora in Kerala. Does Kerala Government recognises this word? Can the "Keralam" word be mentioned more specifically in the etymology and history sections also? Dongar Kathorekar (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"...is one of many firsts..." and the "Kerala Model"
I'm having doubts regarding the recent additions concerning these two. I think there might be WP:UNDUE weight given to this "Kerala Model" section (I've yet to go through the article). I'm seeing weak grounds for keeping things like "is the first in x", "first in y" when there might not be any much notability established for it beyond a little news coverage. Tagging for now and will look into it soon. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Requesting the editor to be more cautious while adding such content in future. Bring it here for discussing first. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Turns out the section Kerala Model duplicated most of its content from Human Development Index. Moved and merged most of it back. Though I think a section summarising what's actually written in the main article on Kerala model will be relevant here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Or not. I myself haven't found any sources establishing its relevance as a whole or whether it deserves mention on this main page. It's there in Economy of Kerala, which I feel is enough as of now. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Table of each district religion and gender ratio
Once again this page is getting too cluttered with tables which would be better off in the main articles Demographics of Kerala and Religion in Kerala. This page is supposed to follow summary style and be short, avoiding such details whenever possible. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No mention of Healthcare
This article lacks mention of healthcare in Kerala -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  05:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See the Human Development Index section, first para. &#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Images in Culture section
There are way too many images in this section. As per WP:IMGLOC, such "text sandwiches" when images are cluttered on both sides should be avoided. It seems a bit hard, but let's try to decide which stays and which doesn't. &#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

 * You may also discuss general Kerala related matters at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Kerala — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderboltz (talk • contribs) 08:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Beginning Paragraphs
I started to fix the beginning paragraphs but it needs much clean up. Can some one help in doing so...User Talk:Dewan357 A 3rd-century-BC rock inscription by emperor Asoka the Great attests to a Keralaputra. Around 1 BC the region was ruled by the Chera Dynasty, which traded with the Greeks, Romans and Arabs. The Tamil Chera dynasty, Ays and the Pandyan Kingdom were the traditional rulers of Kerala whose patriarchal dynasties ruled until the 14th century AD. Pliny the Elder who visited Kerala in the first century AC reported in his book Natural History (Pliny) that the Northern Kerala was ruled by the Chera Kings while the southern Kerala was ruled by Pandyan Kingdom who had the capital at Nelcynda with port at Porakkad (Ambalapuzha). The Dravidian Villavar tribe which established the Chera Kingdom were Patriarchal in descendency. Ay kings ruled southern Kerala. The Later Chera Kingdom otherwise called the Kulasekhara dynasty was founded by King Kulasekhara Alwar who is considered as a Vaishnavaite saint. After the repeated attacks of Rashtrakutas in the end of first millennium the northernmost portions of Kerala. Later Chera dynasty came to an end weakened by the Rashtrakuta and Chola invaders.

Feudal Namboothiri Brahmin and Nair city-states subsequently gained control of the region. Kolla Varsham or Malayalam Era, which is assumed to have been established by King Udaya Marthanda Varma, King of Kollam, in 825 AD, serves as the official calendar of Kerala. Early contact with Europeans gave way to struggles between colonial and native interests. Kerala state was created on 1 November 1956 via the States Reorganisation Act which merged the former state of Travancore-Cochin, Malabar district of the former Madras State, and Kasaragod taluk of Dakshina Kannada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewan357 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Koothattukulam
If my knowledge is correct Koothattukulam was once a part of the Kottayam district. So it also comes under Central Travancore right? As you know erstwhile Travancore kingdom divided into three southern travancore( kanyakumary to kallada river in kollam),central Travancore (kallada to meenachil river),northern Travancore ( meenachil to angamaly) ,so all the areas under ernakulam district comes under norther travancore.Jovitta (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Muvattupuzha, Thodupuzha, Kothamangalam
I guess these places are also considered as a part of Central Travancore rather than Northern Travancore. In fact the term Northern Travancore is never been used anywhere. May be for places like Aluva and Angamaly it might suite.

At present Central Travancore refers to places in Central districts of Kerala which belonged to the erstwhile Travancore Kingdom. Hence Muvattupuzha, Thodupuzha, Kothamangalam etc. are a part of Central Travancore.

Most populous city
As per the 2011 census, Trivandrum is the most populous city while per the MUD, Kochi is is most populous UA, see Demographics of Kerala. &#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thiruvananthapuram is the most populous corporation,while MUD consider UA population as city population.In kerala the borders of corporation are drawn on political basis,hence Kochi is the most populous city/UA in the state of kerala.Jovitta (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow. What do we do about the 2011 census then? I've restored the WP:STATUSQUO version. &#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any other sources to back that up? &#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Ugog Nizdast, Please point me to the content in question. @Jovitta Kochi is the most populous UA in Kerala. Trivandrum is the most populous City Corporation. We can include both but separately. - MountainWhiskey - talk 06:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Here you go. Don't think we should clutter the lead by including both. Btw, this keeps confusing me every time someone edits it. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Literacy=100%
How can we state this, without any backing from the census? Don't we wait and update it only when officially it's declared in the census rather than as soon as it's announced? BTW the infobox and the article don't state the same thing. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as 100% literacy (not in even in Western/Northern Europe), since there are always people who simply can't learn to read and write, no matter how hard they try (and I'm talking about literacy rate for people above the age of 15). Thomas.W talk 15:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor's name in the userbox
User:Jacob Antony Perumpuzhakkadavil has added the following line at the end of the infobox in the Chempanthotty page. QUOTE -- Page edited according to Wikipedia standards by SIJO, --UNQUOTE-- I think it is not allowed. --Prof TPMS (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I would have advised to WP:BEBOLD and fix it yourself, but I've removed it and notified the editor. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you dear Ugog Nizdast --Prof TPMS (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox montage
I think adding a montage to the infobox would be a good idea. There's a lot to choose from: Kerala and I'm unsure where to begin. Anyone interested? I could think of a houseboat, backwater/fishing net, etc. A little help? Then we could go hunting for them at the Commons, I'm sure there'll be plenty. Uttar Pradesh uses just one pic while Uttarakand looks splendid, dare I say they overdid it. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ugog Nizdast. I would rather prefer a single loud picture to a montage because that will look more noticeable. I will now add one and wait for your opinion. Regards, --Prof TPMS (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's lot to consider. I'm a little reluctant on images of people since that might give undue coverage to them considering this is about the whole state. Also, there's already pictures of dancers in the article. How about a houseboat or backwater? That isn't there in the article. I'll search and put them here first. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I'll go with 2; it was used before if I'm not mistaken. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 2 is certainly suitable. --Prof TPMS (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Either 1 or 3 show more variety of landscape and transport, but I'm agreed on having one image rather than a montage. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The Doctor who started a University
BLP on Dr. U. Bapputty Haji has mentioned  Darul Huda Islamic University which doesn't exist. It is a diploma mill and the organization is not approved by the University Grants Commission, Newdelhi. --Prof TPMS (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Church, Mosque and Synagogue legend
What "legend" is this referring to? "According to the legends of these communities, the earliest Saint Thomas Christian Churches,[53] Cheraman Juma Masjid (629 CE)—the first mosque of India[54]—and Paradesi Synagogue (1568 CE)—the oldest active synagogue in the Commonwealth of Nations[55]—were built in Kerala." I think this can be removed and stated as fact. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Images
See my previous post Talk:Kerala/Archive_6. This article attracts many image additions, but we're not an indiscriminate collection of images. Note that per WP:IMGLOC images are typically interspaced left to right from the article text and do not break the prose formatting like this. The criteria for selecting images is based on WP:PERTINENCE: they should be relevant to the article, preferably mentioned in the article text and near it. Text sandwiched between images and spaced-out broken text in an indication of excess images. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Vadakkunnathan Temple
Vadakkumnathan Temple.jpg

I oppose the addition of this image because of many reasons. It's not discussed in the article, there is simply no place for it, and it gives undue focus to specific Hindu temple (Why only this temple? why not other ones? or why not a church or mosque? in fact they're mentioned in the article). Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no need for addition of that image. It is not really helpful.  Ya  sh  !   17:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Anamudi
There are many images to choose from at the commons. I chose file:Anaimudi.jpg over Anamudi from Munnar Gundumalai road.jpg because I found the latter a bit dubious. If it's the highest peak, what's the other one to left looking slightly higher than it? I'm just curious that's all. The first image seems more clearer but it's authenticity is doubted. pinging do I go by your word alone that it's not the peak? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair question, . I have written about this in the talk page for Anamudi. Most of the images claiming to be of Anamudi are taken along the road on which you have the bus shuttle service for the Eravikulam National Park. The shuttle service on this road starts from 10°08′13.12″N 77°03′34.31″E and ends somewhere around 10°08′32.92″N 77°02′09.56″E. One cannot see Anamudi in this whole stretch of the road, which can be quite easily checked via Google Earth. The earlier image, which is of Anamudi's satellite peak called Naikolli Mala, is taken from this road looking north-northwest. Many of the images from the commons are taken along this stretch and frequently mistake Naikolli Mala as Anamudi.
 * For the image I have put currently, an approximate location from where the image was taken would be 10°09′02.32″N 77°04′41.83″E. One can go to this location on Google Earth, look towards northwest and sweep left to the west. We can see three peaks, the right most of which is Anamudi. The left most peak is Naikolli Mala, which is where the Eravikulam National Park bus service goes. The peak in the centre is a subsidiary peak, which is closer to us than Anamudi. This is the other peak in the current image you are referring to. The reason why it looks higher is that it is closer to the viewpoint than Anamudi is. Hope this clears your doubts. Qcrepku1 (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Radiation area and Healthcare sections

 * Naturally High background area needn't be a separate subsection, barely a two-three sentence para isn't fit for it; stubby sections are discouraged per MOS. The content about it is more relevant to maybe the Karunagappally page than here, see WP:UNDUE.
 * I agree we need a healthcare section but not in this form. I object to the lack of WP:MEDRS sources used for healthcare claims like this one "use of chewing tobacco, "fast food" diets, the highest alcohol consumption per capita in the country and "indiscriminate" pesticide use are considered to be contributing factors" to IAforums.com. This statement cannot be put unless the reliability of the source is confirmed (maybe post at the WP:RSN?) or a MEDRS-compliant source is used.

I have partially reverted accordingly and reorganised some leftover content about healthcare into a new section, along with what was added. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Map of India
The map of India shown here is not right, Boundaries are not clear. POK has shown in another shade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.0.58.143 (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Tendulkar Report on poverty
. Here's the Report from our Planning commission. I couldn't find these values which were added and as such multiple tables are there per different methodologies--so more time needs to be spent understanding exactly what is what lest we misrepresent the data. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Identity distinct from Tamil date
Hey I noticed you removed the verify source tag I added for this statement. The cite says page 24 to 27 for Kumari's book which on google books doesn't mention anything about it besides analysing the Malayalam speech; I have no reason to doubt it since even the editions match, at most, the page no ranges may have been wrong so that's why I tagged instead of removing it. The statement isn't innocent enough to not require a inline cite.

I haven't done any searching besides on WP itself.
 * From Malayali, " The oldest literature works in Malayalam, distinct from the Tamil tradition, is dated between 9th century and 11th century." cited to the same work but unfortunately no page number.
 * From History of Kerala, says the exact same thing, possible copy-paste but with a different cite which a quick search couldn't find an online preview.

Please tell me you've been luckier. Else more work has to been done on this. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Greetings ! I Googled and stumbled across this. It says, on the page 24: "Modern Tamil and Malayalam, are separate developments of Middle Tamil say from approximately seventh century AD." That convinced me to remove the tag and add the "seventh century" when I removed it. I am on my old phone right now and unable to check if they're the same edition or not (the one I linked and the one in the article) but if I recall right, both had the same title and author. Best,   Ya  sh  !   14:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good find. That's the same book with the same authors but a completely newer edition and even different publisher. Hence the page mismatch. This new books page's no 24 fits the old citation so I suppose it was intended to be used in the first place. I updated the ref. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * False alarm. It turns out the page 24 is actually page xxiv from the Introduction section, hence the confusion. Fixed. There wasn't any mismatch in pages as such between editions. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Trade with the Arabs
and your edit: I remember finding this doubtful but not doing anything because of the source provided. Menon's work seems to be as good as it gets and multiple works cite him. Unfortunately can't access his book at all via GB, maybe someone besides me can get luckier?

Kerala's spices attracted ancient Babylonians, Assyrians and Egyptians to the Malabar Coast in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE. Arabs and Phoenicians established trade with Kerala during this period.

You know what I reckon? The part "this period" is the problem and this may have happened because of content rearrangement which broke the WP:INTEGRITY. Brief search shows that the Arab trade doesn't seem to be disputed at all so it has to be mentioned. Problem is I don't know the nuances regarding the definition of "Arab" (just what the term encompasses besides the tribes etc, did they have naval trade at that time) and "Phoenicians" (they seem to have died out 539–65 BC); so say if Menon said both traded at the same time, then this easily puts Arabs to that time minimum.

Here are two books citing him and talking about Arabs:
 * "Islamic Reform and Colonial Discourse on Modernity in India: Socio-Political and Religious Thought of Vakkom Moulavi", Jose Abraham, Springer, 09-Dec-2014, pg:14-15. No exact date but says they definitely traded before spread of Islam in Arabia and roughly said during "ancient Indian Ocean World" (now ancient could surely means around/before the start of CE).
 * "Indian Sociology Through Ghurye, a Dictionary" S. Devadas Pillai, Popular Prakashan, 1997, pg:284. Says they traded before Muhammad's time (570 CE).

So as I said above, maybe "this period" was part of the below para (In the last centuries BCE the coast became important to the Greeks and Romans for its spices, especially black pepper. The Cheras had trading links with China, West Asia, Egypt, Greece, and the Roman Empire.), that's my best guess. "West Asia" could mean them too. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The oldest preserved mention of Arabs is dated to around 900BCE, and describes them as a tribal people living in the center of the Arabian peninsula (source: E.A.Myers, "The Ituraeans and the Roman Near East: Reassessing the Sources", Cambridge University Press, isbn=9781139484817; source copied from Arabs), which means that it indeed is highly unlikely that they could have established trade with "the Malabar Coast in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE". Which is why I removed it. And it takes a good very reliable source expressly mentioning the Arabs as traders on he Malabar Coast that far back in time to add it back again. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did agree that " 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE" is wrong but gave possible date which the (not checked) original source actually means. Let me be more specific, the two sources posted above explicitly say they traded before Muhammad's time citing the original source, would that be contentious? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 10 April 2017
In etymology section change "The word Kerala is first recorded (as Keralaputra, meaning Cherathala makan or Cheraman) in a 3rd-century BCE rock inscription left by the Maurya emperor Ashoka (274–237 BCE), one of his edicts pertaining to welfare." to "The word Kerala is first recorded as Keralaputra (meaning Cherathala makan or Cheraman) in a 3rd-century BCE rock inscription left by the Maurya emperor Ashoka (274–237 BCE) in one of his edicts pertaining to welfare."South Indian Geek (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've made the change you suggested. Plus, I've deleted the remaining parenthetical "(meaning Cherathala makan or Cheraman)" as not adding much in terms of meaning (are those words defined elsewhere?). Dhtwiki (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably right and don't think it's defined elsewhere. Maybe more apt in a sub article covering this in more detail. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

HDI
Kerala HDI is given in India Human Development Report 2011 as .790. The sidebar says HDI is .94 and it provides a dead link to the same report. I couldn't find any other official report that mentioned a higher HDI either by GOI or UN. There were news article but nothing official. I am changing it to .790 which is still High. — Preceding unsigned comment added by സൂരജ് (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2014(UTC)
 * Your link is dead, I found the report here http://www.in.undp.org/content/india/en/home/library/hdr/human-development-other-resources/inequality-_adjustedhumandevelopmentindexforindiasstates.html which gives Kerala HDI has medium.-- Eng. M.Bandara  -Talk  03:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What you have posted is inequality adjusted HDI. This is not the same as HDI! --21:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC) by
 * (indented posts, signed and formatted by me Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC))
 * , you're right but the report given above mentions both and .650 seems correct. Human Development Index explains the difference between iHDI and HDI., well, the infobox usually doesn't contain references and summarises the article. See the HDI section there, the high value is from this report but I infer it is dated to 2008; fixed that. I've appended what you've added to it since this older value needn't be removed due to its historical relevance. Even this report, I'm unsure about its date so I've put 2012. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC) (reformatted my post after numerous failed attempts at pinging, per next post)
 * Once again ping for my above reply. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Kerala's HDI in India Human Development Report 2011 is 0.790 . all other wiki pages of Indian states are using this report for hdi .using inequality adjusted hdi report causes confusion and non standardization(especially when people use wiki data for comparison).thanks. Eightcubed (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, the Report is dated to 2011 but it says its figure is 2008; latest one is for 2011. The HDI section in the article discusses it in detail, the infobox only summarises and shows the latest figure. It wasn't iHDI but what non-standardisation are you referring to? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

A newer edit using Livemint and adding 2015 as 0.7117 makes this interesting. Livemint cites UNDP 2015 report; Lm seems to have calculated their own state figures from UNDP's national score and various other sources mentioned. So we have the UNDP's India special report 2011 (0.625) (in use), Mint's 2015 report (0.7117) and Planning Commission 2007-08 report (0.790). List of Indian states and territories by Human Development Index seems to be in poor shape and treats Lm as official 2015 stats, these all three seem more or less equal and I can't find any more authoritative source we could use as the "official" on Indian states HDIs. hate to make decisions on my own and would appreciate if you checked what I've found here so far. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that people are finding the highest score, 0.790, and are wanting to see it here. The HDI of 0.625 seems official, as well as slightly more recent, but makes you wonder at the disparity between figures so close in time. The middle one, assuming Livemint is a reliable source, might be the one we should use, but I would rather see an official report quoted. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Gosh, this change has attracted a lot of attention. Agree that the disparity probably warrants a deeper investigation, the current version is probably fine for now. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's another posted on my talk page: "Kerala example draws U.N. praise", The Hindu, 2013. It cites an IPC-UNDP report "Human Development in India: Costs of Inequality" and vaguely says Kerala remains in the "very high" category in both HDI and iHDI. While it being top isn't contentious, the mentioning of that "very high" category is. The problem is this report isn't available online anymore to verify; the IPC-UNDP website seems to have all dead links for all of its uploads related to this. The news report doesn't give the HDI main figure and the only figures seems to be specific ones (education, health etc). Still doesn't change anything but for reference posting this. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * List of Indian states and territories by Human Development Index has the 0.790 and 0.7117 figures, and I suspect that is where people are finding the former figure, which is listed first and therefore more prominent. The sources on that page are the ones you've shown. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that the page is unprotected, I suggest we put up the 0.7117 figure, sourced from Livemint, either now or the next time someone changes the index to 0.790. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ To me we gain and lose something in any case. UDNP is good but outdated versus Mint's more recent but slightly less reliable. What would be nice in future would be finding out why UNDP was so low and perhaps reflecting this source disparity in that HDI list. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Kerala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=eONSAAAAcAAJ&q=Muziris
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=qhKGPprbQaYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn%3A9652781797&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UNa1VM-AFc_kuQSLiYLIAQ&ved=0CB8Q6wEwAA
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=lZUBZlth2qgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn%3A9780802824172&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i5ncVJiVJ4u4uATrlIGoAg&ved=0CB8Q6wEwAA
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fisheries.kerala.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85%3Akarimeenvarsham&catid=41%3Ainland-fisheries&Itemid=45
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kerala.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93&Itemid=2273
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://kerala.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3776&Itemid=3022
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810094850/http://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Publications/PDFs/35585.pdf to http://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Publications/PDFs/35585.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160708012438/http://nclm.nic.in/shared/linkimages/NCLM50thReport.pdf to http://nclm.nic.in/shared/linkimages/NCLM50thReport.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.com/books?id=qhKGPprbQaYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn%3A9652781797&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i5q6VKj1F4yJuASKnIKADQ&ved=0CB8Q6wEwAA
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217141248/http://the-aiff.com/awards.php to http://www.the-aiff.com/awards.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514040141/http://sportal.nic.in/legenddetails.asp?sno=667&moduleid=&maincatid=59&subid=0&comid=55 to http://sportal.nic.in/legenddetails.asp?sno=667&moduleid=&maincatid=59&subid=0&comid=55

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)