Talk:Nair/Archive 15

caste census and nair population
hi, i wonder what will be the state of the nair population after the caste census analysis is undertaken?... any guesses?Vivwiki (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In the last census (1968), Nair proper was 14.5% of the population. Now it will be much lower than that, since Nairs are having the lowest birth rate in Kerala among all the major communities. Also, there is huge loss of population due to intermarriage with Ezhavas and due to emigration. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm!... I wonder whether it is only marriage with Ezhavas, because i do remember reading a book on inter-caste marriage in India(Mumbai specifically), where it was noted that after Brahmins, Nairs had maximum intercaste marriage (with Marathas, Pathare Prabhus(a Brahmin caste) and Christians. This was in the 60"s... I am sure intercaste marriage among nairs is much more frequent now...but to be optimistic, it is possible that children of mixed marriages are brought up as nairs!....emigration will usually bring down the state figures of nairs, but they could by and large maintain a good number outside the state....anyways it will be a bitter pill to swallow- lesser the nair population, means intercaste marriage with ezhavas etc has led to adopting the other caste, if population has increased especially with a low birth rate like you mentioned, then ther are plenty of "pseudo" nairs around....!anyway we just wait and watch till the census figures are out!Vivwiki (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, when there is one incident which my uncle narrated to me when I visited Kerala in 2010. He was working in some govt. dept. at that time. A family approached him to publish their change of religion (Hinduism to Islam) through the gazette. The head of the family was a Dalit. His wife was Nair. And they had two sons, both had "Hindu-Nair" as their community in their SSLC Books. Anyway they converted to Islam, so they are no longer Nair. But I just wanted to say that it is possible that at least a minority of the children from the mixed marriages are considered as Nair (the family converted in 2008, this incident happened in 2009).
 * This particular incident baffled me (and my uncle) a lot. Why the children chose Nair as their caste instead of Cheramar? They would have got SC reservation in jobs had they chosen the latter. Is there any difficulty in getting SC status to the children of mixed marriages? Or, least likely, they chose Nair as their caste, so as to escape from discrimination? Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Vivwiki (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC) yes!...i am sure it is the respectablity of the title" nair" which these families wish to use, i dont think many of them, would like to avail the reservation available to them as being dalit/ obc.....as edgar thurston mentioned in his books castes and tribes of southern india... this process of "respectability "has been going on for years, people of many diverse occupations from the neigbouring states of karnataka and tamil nadu have assumed the title nair.... eg  i have heard of the very weird sounding name' venkappa nair" from kasargod!... all the same in nair- christian intermmariages( and there are quite a few of them),,,i guess an equal number opt for christianity /bringing up the kids as nairs....this whole process of intercaste marriage is quite dynamic!


 * I completely endorse what viv and chandrakanth mentioned here.I have met a lot of mixed couples using 'Nair' as their surname including a tamil dalit christian with very staunch christian background and doesn't speak a word in Malayalam. At the same time, I have come across a couple of cases in central travancore where the syrian christian ladies have brought up their kids as Nairs even after their spouses passed away. This is happening every where in India and don't be surprised if you come across 'Nairs' who are genetically totally different from the original stock (probably this article should mention this somewhere). Also I have come across Nair converts to christianity desperately seeking similar Nair converts to get their kids married. Northern Malabar is quite sufficient with a plethora of unknown migrated communities (many of whom are OBC) who all now claim for 'Nair' title, thanks to the NSS support, they are all part of this community and I wouldn't surprised if the original 'illathu' and 'kiriyath' clan get reduced to a minority. The brigher side is that this population gimmicks would go a long way in enhancing the bargaining power of NSS.- Kumar  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.16.20 (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * NSS supports these groups? I don't think so. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

no... i dont think the NSS openly supports these groups... but there is nothing to suggest that they are virulently against them either!... by the way you just have to go though matrimonial columns....caste- nair, subsect- maniyani, vaniya etc... so on and so forth...part of the blame is due to a misinformation campaign( maybe campaign is too strong a word) for example in the people of india series.....by the anthropological survey of india, one author mentioned kumar kshatriya and vilkurup as coming under the " nair cluster of castes", this is quite to the contrary!finally such statements are used by these small communities to amalgamate with the larger, more influential community....i guess in north malabar , being a point of immigration from karnataka through kasargod, it is difficult to monitor all this...even the caste status of other castes in those parts is confusing.... my wife is a payyanur poduval and my father in law told me that in kannur- payyanur there are two types of poduvals- one who is a nair, and the other lot claims brahmin lineage( ardhabrahmanas), in south central kerala from where i come, poduval is ambalavasi! one tulu brahmin friend of ours in mangalore went so far as to say>>>."oh!in kerala ,, whoseover is not an ezhava is a nayar!" Vivwiki (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The mission statement of NSS says that it will not encourage any sub sects or castes within the Nair society. While the idea was to eliminate any kind of caste within caste, the same provision had been used by many sects to stake claim and enter the community. The politicians (mostly congress) in NSS found an opportunity coming in the form of these sects and encouraged it. With the advent of malayalis settling outside Kerala, there exists no system to actually verify the family names etc. which really helped such intruders. The existence of common surnames was another loophole. I have seen at least a half dozen genetically different people having 'Pillai' surname ranging from vaisya, chettiar and vellala. Similarly 'Panicker' is a surname very widely used across communities. Many of these people also get an easy access to Nair fold once they are out of their native land. Lastly Nairs being a very dynamic and educated society, many have shed the caste status resulting in arranged marriage with other castes, especially those who have settled outside Kerala. However, surprisingly there seems to be no effort to bring in or amalgamate Nairs with the other so called same 'gene' community Bunts, who are also equally powerful and even more financially well off than the Nairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.67.134 (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

though bunts are closely related to nairs, i think they prefer their own identity, especially as tulu speakers..... it is always difficult to amalgamate a community en masse.....Vivwiki (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Kalari
Kalaripayattu was practised by the Ezhava sect --- Chekavars.It was not originally done by Nair community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.214.65 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read around half a dozen travelogues written by European explorers who visited Kerala in 16th and 17th centuries. All of them state that Nairs practiced Kalari. None of them even mentions Thiyyas. Do you have any evidence? Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

how to get nss publications?
dear all.....how to contact the NSS?... mainly the guys who are in charge of the publications? i tried emailing g s sudhakaran nair, but to no avail?... any help?218.248.84.90 (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just make a call to any of these numbers (NSS Head Office): 91-481-2422008, 91-481-2420604, 91-481-2420780, 91-481-2401577, 91-481-2420941, 91-481-2420657 Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Vivwiki (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)thanks... mr mannadiar!

foreign authors giving nairs a bad name!
bad press about nairs and especially about sambandham has been going about for time immemorial now!certainly there is not even a whimper of protest or clarification from  nair groups......sample this line from-Civil and corrupt Asia: images and text in the Itinerario and the ... - Page 28 E. van den Boogaart - 2003 - perhaps a figment of imagination!....Vivwiki (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

THEORIES OF ORIGIN: REFERENCE FROM SRI.CHATTAMPI SWAMIKAL
This section is to point the veracity of statements in "THEORIES OF ORIGIN" regarding Parasurama and other migration theories. Source of the information is from the book "PRAACHEENA MALAYALAM" authored by SRI.CHATTAMPI SWAMIKAL and published in 1913.

In the conclusion section of the book, Sri.Chattampi Swamikal says as follows:

ഈ ഭൂമി വാസ്തവത്തില്‍ മലയാളി നായന്മാരുടെ വകയാണെന്നും, നായന്മാര്‍ ഉത്കൃഷ്ടകുലജാതന്മാരും നാടുവാഴികളുമാണെന്നും അവര്‍ തങ്ങളുടെ ആര്‍ജ്ജവശീലവും ധര്‍മതത്പരതയും കൊണ്ട് സ്വദേശബഹിഷ്ക്രിതന്മാരും പാഷണ്ഡമതഗാമികളുമായ ബ്രാഹ്മണരുടെ വലയില്‍ അകപ്പെട്ട് കാലാന്തരത്തില്‍ കക്ഷി പിരിഞ്ഞിട്ട് ഇങ്ങനെ അകത്തും പുറത്തുമായി താഴ്മയില്‍ കഴിഞ്ഞുപോരുകയാണെന്നുമാണ് ഈ പുസ്തകം സ്ഥാപിക്കാന്‍ ഉദ്യമിക്കുന്നത്‌.

Translates as follows:

Objective of this book is to substantiate that the region(Kerala) genuinely belongs to Malayali Nairs, Nairs are rulers who are descendants of Elite Clan, and because of their excogitative and jurisprudent nature they are trammeled by a sort of deported and oscitant brahmins which gradually caused their political disassociation and subordinate social status.

CONTENTS(CHAPTERS) OF THE BOOK "PRAACHEENA MALAYALAM"

1. അവതാരിക (Introduction)

2. ദാനകാരണനിഷേധം (Denial of the reason of donation of land by Parashurama)

3. മലയാളബ്രാഹ്മണരെ പരശുരാമന്‍ കൊണ്ടുവന്നിട്ടില്ല (Parashurama did not bring Malayalabrahmins)

4. പരശുരാമന്‍ മലയാളഭൂമിയെ ദാനം ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ല (Parashurama never donated the land of Kerala)

5. മലയാളഭൂമി ഭാര്‍ഗവനുള്ളതല്ല (The land of Kerala does not belong to Parashurama)

6. നായന്മാരുടെ സ്ഥാനമാനദാതാക്കള്‍ ഭാര്‍ഗവനോ ബ്രാഹ്മണരോ അല്ല (Neither Parashurama nor Brahmins have any role in the supreme status of Nairs)

7. നായന്മാരുടെ ഔല്‍കൃഷ്ട്യവും മലയാള ഭൂമിക്കുള്ള അവരുടെ ഉടമസ്ഥാവകാശവും (Elite status of Nair Clan and their ownership over the land of Kerala)

8. നായന്മാരെപ്പറ്റി ചരിത്രകാലത്തില്‍ വിദേശീയര്‍ക്കുണ്ടായിട്ടുള്ള അഭിപ്രായങ്ങള്‍ (Impression about Nairs from foreigners in history)

9. ശൂദ്രശബ്ദം (The term Shoodra)

10.ചാതുര്‍വര്‍ണ്യം (Four divsions of social status)

11.ചാതുര്‍വര്‍ണ്യ ആഭാസവും ബ്രാഹ്മണമതവും (The four divisions fluff and Brahmin's makeup)

12.അനുബന്ധം (Appendix)

The second part of the book "Praacheena Malayalam" published later proves that namboodiris are the people from nair clan itself, specifically who were not having responsibility over land or military administration and were ready to adhere to the vedic system wherein the majority of original stock of ancient Nairs were reluctant to adapt the vedic system in contrast with kaula and tantric system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vekramaditya (talk • contribs) 10:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits at Preface and Theories of Origin
The second sentence of the article says: "Before the British conquest in 1792, the Kerala region contained small feudal kingdoms." In real, there was no british lead event happened in Kerala in 1792, meanwhile Tippu Sultan attempted to attack Kerala and was forced to retreat from kerala, and subsequently he got executed by British in the same year. British managed to gain control over the Extreme north regions of Kerala which were under attack by Tippu. Also the territorial regions which were under the rule of Naduvazhis and Desavazhis do not represent feudal kingdoms, they were part of the "most ancient ruling system called Kulasangha Vazhcha (Kautilya has referred this as an efficient ruling system). But of course, the entire frame was facing disintegration from 7th century.

For defeating Tippu, British has made military treatise with Travancore. In 1792, Travancore was not able to provide the military support to British for defeating Tippu. According to the treatise, the above event made a payment due for British from Travancore, it was an one-time payment, but because of the incapable diplomacy, British managed to claim continuity to the payback. In 1930s C.P.Ramaswami Iyer found this and reverted to British governor for making the money resubmitted as it was confiscated out of the interest of treatise.

Theories of Origin
The origin of Nair clan as indigenous southern Naga clan has been discussed in detail in the last section of 'archive 14' with concrete evidences. Also the content which is added to the main Nair article-Theories of Origin contains Archeological and historical evidences as reference along with mythological excerpts. Therefore, the statements which are pointing a migration theory can be removed as they are only assumptions from historians. Statements regarding Parasurama's encounter also is discussed in detail in the 'archive 14' section 'Nairs and Parasuraman' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vekramaditya (talk • contribs) 18:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever was there formally, is with proper references from well renowned anthropological and historical sources unlike the Original Research which you had added from mythology and such things. If you want to start an edit war, then go ahead.
 * Also I'd like to point out that, the references which you had added (Ref:34 to 39) doesn't even contain the word "Nair" as can be seen from this, this and this. I am not removing what you added, but I really doubt whether it will stay there if someone checks the refs.
 * Also, another ref you had added here. There is no mention of "Nair" or "Nairs" Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please help ourselves - When search, use all the possibile spellings as nair, nayar, malabar-nairi, zamorin etc. Also the links which are provided are not with single purpose to establish about Nairs. It gives reference that there were very ancient inhabitation in kerala, there were serpent worship in kerala in ancient times, and migration is not the original stock of Nairs.
 * All the versions were used and the term "Nair" is not found anywhere. No one is having doubts that the ancient inhabitants of Kerala were serpent worshipers. Now give the evidence to prove that they are Nair. I am reminding you once again that you are removing properly referenced sections and replacing them with OR. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I may cordially invite you to prove that the serpent worshippers were not Nairs.
 * Please don't test other users's patience. I am done here. If you want to continue, go ahead and face the consequences. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the references which CM noted above. None of them seems to support what Vekramaditya is trying to add. Shannon1488 (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Following is the sentence added in article with above mentioned links

"Archaeologically, excavations and studies have provided amble evidences to prove paleolithic inhabitation in Kerala region which date back about 3 lakh years"
 * http://keraladotpark.com/pdf/Archacological%20wonders.pdf
 * http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146412855
 * http://www.keralaline.com/stone-age-studies-south-india
 * http://www.todayskerala.com/history_kerala.htm
 * http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/27/stories/2010122755780500.htm

and for proving this fact, the above mentioned references were given. Alleging that it is Original Research and the term 'Nair' is not present etc. is not going to prove there was some mal-intention. All antiquities in the world do not say archeological evidence talks about name of caste. It talks about the customs and usages. If serpent worship is present in the evidence, it is nairs who practiced them, they still use to practice the same. If it was an invasion, the invaders would have tried their best to propagate their religion and philosophy. It is evident: Arabian invasion tried this with power, Europian invasion still trying with strategy and tactics. An invader will never accept the defeated land's religion.

Why this fact is important here?

Because there is another version of historic theory that all the Hindu culture in India came from north. With these evidences it is proved that either whole Indian culture is equally old as south or Hindu culture spread from south. That is how our heritage consider East dimension is representing divine powers (DevaLoka) through sun and south direction represents ancestors (PithruLoka) irrespective of caste and clan.
 * This is not the place for an argument about Aryan invasion theory. If you want a discussion on that, go to the respective article. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Following is a sentence from wikipedial vandalism article: You are trying to do this Mr. Chandra

Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful

First allegation came from you that the edit done is original research, then you tried to say reference is incompatible as the term 'Nair' is not present. Now aryan invasion theory is being pulled into the topic. Aryan invasion theory is not at all relevant here. The theory is scientifically proven wrong, authentic evidences you can see from discovery channel or youtube. I am afraid, you are biased and congenial towards European. Your affinity towards Italy, you are not a resident of India etc. also taken into consideration.


 * Stop attacking other users who revert your vandalism. Your edits are not at all relevant to this article. None of your two dozen or so Refs contain anything remotely linked to the Nair community. This is not a place to dump your fantasies and imaginations. Shannon1488 (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://india.gov.in/knowindia/history_kerala_socio.php. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

theories of origin requires editing
Vivwiki (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)hi.... This line " After the Saka or Indo-Scythians invaded India in the 2nd century BC, some Nagas mixed with the Scythians in North India. They adopted matriarchy, polyandry and other Scythian customs.[38]" requires to be deleted as the referred book i.e iyer's social history of dravidians does not contain any such references/ lines.( i have the book!).... if anybody has a difference of opinion they may please notify!.
 * It needs some editing or replacement. Here it is given: "These Nagas were not Brahminical Hindus ; they were, it is believed, or may be conjectured, a Scythian, and therefore Turanian, race which had evidently preceded the Aryans".
 * Also here, "From the prevalence to a large extent of serpent worship in Malabar, some writers identify the Nayars with some of the Naga tribes of Scythian origin."
 * Here "There is a view that the Nairs were a branch of Scythians who came down the valley of Kashmir and who worshipped the snakes"
 * Also, there is even a book, Influx: Crete to Kerala Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Vivwiki (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)good work!... that was very prompt!.. so i think the reference of "social history of dravidians- iyer" may be removed and the above references put instead.

I would like to invite your kind attention to the book written by Sri.Chattampi Swamikal named "Pracheena Malayalam." I request you to go through this book before committing edits according to the view points of historians. Also while I went for searching the origin of Scythians, they have more theories of origin than what Nairs are having. The strongly prevailing theory is that they came to Greek and Iranian land from the middle Asian region which includes India. Also, their chronological dating of theories are younger than that of dravidian archeology.

Download the book "Pracheena Malayalam."

The book is written in Malayalam - Book includes a lot of ancient vatteluthu inscriptions as reference which makes it difficult for an adept translation. Efforts are being put for making it available in English with the help of eminent historians in Thiruvananthapuram, but it would take little more time. The second part of this book also has been found in 2009 from the wife's house of Thachudaya Kaimal, Koodalmanikyam Temple(the only Bharatha temple in India), Irinjalakkuda.

Download the book "Pracheena Malayalam Part 2."

One more point would like to mention is that the names of Eight Great Serpents are as follows in the Bhagavatha purana

अनन्तं वासुकिं शेषं पद्मनाभं च कम्बलम् | शंखपालं धार्तराष्ट्रं तक्षकं कालियं तथा ||

The name Sarkota as 7th in the main article is the name of Scorpion(mentioned in Atharva Veda), that is not a Serpent. In the above verse, names are nine, as Anantha and Shesha are the same - they are called Ashtanagas (Eight great serpents). In Valmiki Ramayanam while Sugreeva describes southern regions to Hanuman, it is mentioned about Pathala, its capital, and Vasuki as the ruler of capital city (Kishkinda Kandam, 41st Sargam, 38th Slokam).


 * This is English wikipedia. Although foreign language sources can be used, there should be a translation provided - see WP:CITE. Are these books available in translation? If not, can someone please translate the relevant bits. Whilst good faith will be assumed for any translation, it is not unknown for translations provided by Wikipedia contributors to be double-checked. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

DEFINITION OF KSHATRIYA FROM OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONNARY
Kshatriya: a member of the second of the four great Hindu caste. The traditionnal function of a Kshatriya is to protect society by fighting in wartime and governing in peacetime. From Sanskrit Kshatriya, from Kshatra 'rule, authority'.86.218.62.158 (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

For refs concerning Nair-Kshatriya/Rulers/Warriors etc., see above & also the debate with user Sanam001. Talking about Nairs as Shudras is simply ridicoulous. Those who do that are either unskilled or have a biased opinion.86.218.62.158 (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OED says nothing about who is in the Kshatriya group. I do not see the relevance of the quote which you provide. I'm ignoring your second comment: it is rude and still does not address my request. I am not ploughing through 100-odd sources most of which I absolutely guarantee you will be irrelevant to the point you were making when I raised this issue, viz: "According to the definition of Kshatriya & Shudra, Nair are Kshatriyas". - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * this reference explains why Nairs are shudras:Rise of Portuguese Power in India By R.S. Whiteway The ruling and military race was the Nair caste, who like all inhabitants of Malabar except the Brahmans, ranked socially as sudras, the lowest of the four great divisions, because they were converts and not Hindus born. (page 11) --CarTick (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More rubbish from you. Anyone who converts to Hinduism is known as a Sudra? Nairs are Hindu for the last 2000 years. Even many of the current Rajput communities were converted after that date. Find some real reasons, not excuses. And FYI, R.S. Whiteway is a historian, not a sociologist. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We seem to be seeing the same problem that has cropped up in other articles where the (well-cited) issue of Shudra classification was brought up. The question is not "are Nair truly Shudra" the question is whether they have been classified as Shudra at whatever points in the past, and reliable sources have noted their being considered in that caste. There is no reason that both varnas cannot be mentioned, and maybe even a "Varna controversy" section added (as exists for a few articles) to identify the differing schools of thought. I strongly agree that whitewashing out the term "Shudra" when such can be clearly documented using reliable secondary sources, is exactly the sort of POV Wiki needs to be avoiding. We shouldn't leave out properly documented academic statements simply because somebody's feelings might be hurt. If Group X labeled the Nair as Shudra, then that is historically significant and should be included. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You people are not answering to my question. Brahmins believe that Vedic Kshatriyas are extinct and all non-Brahmins are Sudras. So are you going to classify all non-Brahmin castes as Sudra?
 * This weapon was used not only against Nairs, but also against Marathas (Unlike Nairs, majority of them are farmers and not soldiers). From here: "At this the Maratha Brahmins got enraged and said, The Kshatriya caste has been extinct in Kaliyug. Now there is no upper caste except the 'Brahmin'."
 * There are thousands of servant castes which matches the definition of Sudra according to Manusmriti and Bhagavat Gita. Then why you people are targeting castes like Nair which does not have anything to do with Sudras? Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"If Group X labeled the Nair as Shudra, then that is historically significant and should be included." - We have already agreed to that. But Cartick wants to add a Sudra category, which is not possible, as Nair is not a true Sudra caste. Shannon1488 (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shannon, you are mis-characterising what i have said. please read my three concerns in the previous post including about the category. --CarTick (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Shannon, CarTick explicitly says above that given the choice he'd prefer to remove both the Kshatriya and Shudra cats. And the Shudra inclusion apparently isn't "agreed" because that term currently does not appear anywhere in the article. If we can achieve consensus on that term, then all of us should be watching this article to revert any IPs removing the term. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Leave Shannon. I have already told you Kshatriya Cat can't be removed. Nairs along with Rajputs are given as examples of Kshatriyas by numerous sociologists, because Nair is a typical example of a Kshatriya community. If you remove Nairs from the Cat, then there won't be any real Kshatriya castes left. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Chandrakantha, your arguments are more emotional than rational and you dont make any sense. shannon sounds like a more reasonable person to work with, atleast more than you. --CarTick (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with whatever CM posted above. I have already agreed to include the term Sudra in the article. But the Kshatriya Cat and Template should stay. You are the one who is not agreeing. Shannon1488 (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

this not a great option. but that is fine with me. but if the article has to satisfy WP:NPOV policy, both kshatriya and shudra cats should be include once we make a mention of shudra in the body. --CarTick (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view states: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." As far as I am concerned Nairs are clearly Kshatriya and there is only a small minority opinion to classify them as Sudra. So I don't agree with the inclusion of Sudra Cat. Shannon1488 (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * no way. it is the other way around. here is the [google books search (over 3000 results) of nairs and sudras. not all of them call nairs as shudras. but there is a large body of sources that call them so. there is no way it is a minority opinion. --[[User:CarTick|CarTick]] (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To MatthewVanitas
It is really cheap to make unilateral changes to an article, when a group of people are actually discussing the issue. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar ([[User talk:Chandrakantha.Mannadiar|ta


 * MatthewVanitas made changes in the article which Chandrakantha modified; Chandrakantha is trying to whitewash. I am not satisfied with the current wording because i believe it is not accurately reflecting the reality. it needs to be discussed what we are going to add to the title. --CarTick (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Y'all have been discussing the issue at great length, and the fact remains that key data is being whitewashed from the article, The portion regarding "pollution" and distances was particularly egregious, as whoever wrote it quoted all the material listing who was "lower" than the Nair, and then explicitly left out the material noting that the Nair could pollute the group above them by contact. I am adding properly-cited material here; I can see leaving out the lede mention of Shudra until this issue is resolved (though claims of Kshatriya status should likewise be left out of the lede), but removing the mention of Nair pollution, which is explicitly mentioned in many refs, seems highly POV. Would you object to my restoring the portion noting that Nair cannot touch Brahmins, but may approach them? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"Likewise a Nair could approach but not touch a Namburi." - It is already there. What more you want? Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay, I see now you just removed the term "Shudra" while leaving the rest, but it was hard to see what you were doing with no Edit Summary provided. While we're sorting out the article, can people please use the Edit Summaries (as I did) to explicitly indicate what they're changing? And please use http://reftag.appspot.com to convert GoogleBooks bare links into proper citations (just takes one click). This article has a complicated and contentious history, so might as well keep the History clear as possible. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to add the term "pollutes" then it is OK with me. But right now I am in some sort of trouble. I've to attend my classes within the next 3 hrs and I haven't finished my work. If you could freeze this discussion for a few hours, it will be great. Else, I'll be in quite big trouble. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * we have to come up with a better wording about the varna status to be added in the lead. please make your suggestions here. --CarTick (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The current wording covers both Kshatriya and Sudra. It looks neutral. But again, is this really urgent? Can't you wait for a few hours? Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I have to go. Hope you will freeze this discussion until I am back. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * no, it is not neutral. "in all probability" they are kshatriyas = who said so?, "some section of brahmins" call them Sudras = that is wrong. several secondary sources call them so. --CarTick (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Arguing with you is futile. You expect everyone to make concessions and you yourself remain rock-solid on your views. Shannon1488 (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral and accurate language would be something more like "X, Y, and Z social groups believe them to be Kshatriya (footnote), while A, B, and C groups consider them Shudra". Far more important than any ethereal "truth" as to their status is the issue of what others have called them, and what they have called themselves. The measure is Verifiability, not truth. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess there are some references that call Nairs Kshatrya-like because of their martial tradition. however, they were accorded only Shudra status. i like you idea of having a kshatriya Shudra controversy section in the body. --CarTick (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Should I type each of my posts 4 times for you? "I guess there are some references that call Nairs Kshatrya-like because of their martial tradition." Earlier I had posted that this was wrong and had given you the refs.
 * Well.. I have a feeling that since every time we are the ones who make concessions, you are getting more and more emboldened. Shannon1488 (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying I'm fully with CarTick on everything, but as someone just now coming into this argument, I do think that the article at the point I entered it had significant failings in terms of mentioning the Shudra issue, and in mentioning all the proximity/pollution info which made the Nair appear higher-ranking than other groups, but specifically not including info indicating that the Nair were lower than the Brahmin. In that light, I feel less like CarTick is trying to sway the article left of centre, and more that the article is already right of centre and CarTick's general trend is to pull it left. Given that there are statements that the Nair are Kshatriya in some shape or form according to some people (note I say "statements", not "facts"), I definitely agree that claims to Kshatriya-hood should be included in context, but that also notice must be made that there are other groups in India do not at all view them as Kshatriya. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

New additions
I was following what was going here for the past few hours. I'd like to present my opinion about the two new changes in the article.
 * Varna status - I reserve my opinion for a later date
 * Pollution to Nambuthiri - The recent edit was completely one-sided. A Nambuthiri will be polluted by the touch of anyone who is not a Nambuthiri or a Samanta Kshatriya. #4.Eda Sudham is from their official site. A touch of non-Nambuthiri Brahmin (according to Nambuthiri, they are the only Brahmins left. Others are Sudras) pollutes a Nambuthiri and that pollution is known as Eda Sudham. On the other hand, the top most subcaste of Nair, known as Samanta Kshatriya (there are only a few families) does not pollute Nambuthiri with his touch (Samanta Kshatriyas are "born-again" people who are granted a status similar to Nambuthiri). The usage of pollution in this article is completely one-sided as the only caste which does not pollute the Nambuthiri with his touch is a sub-caste of Nair itself. Axxn (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you dig up a ref from a published book by an academic, rather than by an association which promotes a given caste? Don't get me wrong, it's interesting, but I'm not sure it meets WP:Reliable sources. I still wouldn't say it's "one sided" to note that Nairs (in most cases) can't touch Brahmins; if we can devote sentences to people lower than Nair, it seems evasive to leave out one small sentence covering a group higher than the Nair. If the Vedic hierarchy in this region of India is relatively straightforward, it should be made rather explicit in the article.


 * Not a personal dig on you, but my great concern in such articles is "caste-cruft", and one aspect thereof is that some editors are willing to include any and all info, regardless of sourcing or proper context, that makes Caste X look good, and then question and fight any addition which even slightly detracts from said caste no matter how reliable the source or how cohesive the writing. There's just often this caste-cruft double-standard where praising a caste to the skies is easy, but putting in any information which compromises their "awesomeness" is taken as personal insult by editors unwilling to take NPOV. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, what I can say? There is a saying "Jaundiced eyes saw everything as yellow". I made the point that no non-Nambuthiri can touch a Nambuthiri without pollution, including Nairs. And you resorted to attacking me. I have just one doubt. Since this revolves around Nambuthiris, why it is included in the Nair article? Should it be included only in the Nambuthiri article? And if you include it here, then why only this article? Axxn (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not attacking you, I'm pointing out why a lot of editors are edgy about anything that smacks of caste-promotion on Wiki, as it easily turns into a self-serving morass. In the same way as you may feel accused of keep the article over-sunny, editors like myself sometimes feel we're being accused of slandering some caste when in reality we're trying to keep caste articles from becoming "Facebook pages" for people who happen to have that last name and want to "polish" their image. I'm not accusing you of doing that, I'm saying that such is what has many of us edgy.


 * I only came to this article this evening, so have no objections to adding whatever to the Nambuthiri article. What I do object to is earlier editors picking-and-choosing citations to give a promotional view of the Nair vice an objective one. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To Sitush - Why did you removed the section about the Mannarasala serpent grove? The book was written by a neutral person (a Tamil Brahmin, who is a well known historian. And it is important as far as the Theories are concerned).
 * Plz see this also. Axxn (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If people cited properly then things like this would not happen. If people used and read edit summaries (as I did) then questions like this would be fewer. To answer more fully: the citation referred to page 3 of an unspecified volume; the book is over 40 years old and so the sentence needed reworking anyway (you cannot use the present tense for something that applied over 40 years ago); the article already has far too many references to serpent worship etc - there was no pressing need to have one more in a paragraph which is really discussing how the Nairs migrated across the regions. - Sitush (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Duarte Barbosa
The article contains a quote allegedly from Barbosa that starts "Plato may have borrowed the family law of his Republic from that of the Nairs ..." This is a translation, obviously. I do not have a copy of the edition referred to in the footnotes. but do know that nothing similar appears in translations of the Barbosa work which I have seen. Please can someone scan the relevant page of the cited source & email it to me for verification. If this cannot be done within a reasonable time then I will probably remove the quote because, as I say, it does not match any version which I have seen.

Of course, it may be a translator's note. This is fine, except the introduction to the quote would need to be changed. Either way, I would like to see the relevant page please. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * the actual introductory note given with this quote was as follows


 * 'from the manuscript written by Duarte Barbosa in 1510, it is conjectured'


 * succeeded by the quote: later some other user has edited into present phrase, it is to be replaced.
 * the quote in the article is available from the following


 * Premitive Civilizations or - Outlines of the History of Ownership In Archaic Communities, page 485, Volume 1, By Edith Jemima Simcox


 * Not only this author, many other authors have mentioned about Duarte Barbosa mentioning about nairs as credible and earlier account of reference.


 * 1. A survey of Indian History by A.Sreedhara Menon
 * 2. An illustrated handbook of Indian arms by Wilbraham Egerton Egerton
 * 3. Dhow Cultures and the Indian Ocean: Cosmopolitanism, Commerce, and Islam By Abdul Sheriff
 * 4. Chattampi Swamikal also has referred to Barbosa in one of his book 'Pracheena Malayalam'.
 * 5. Original translation of the Manuscript titled as 'A description of the coasts of East Africa and Malabar' Translated by Henry E.J. Stanley


 * As E.J.Symcox describes the primitiveness of civilizations in the book from which quote has been taken, it deems as most relevant in this article which specifically can point to the ancientness of the clan.


 * I have no issue with Barbosa. I am well aware that he wrote much about India etc during his travels. My issue isn't even with the introductory sentence to the quote. It is the quote itself, which quite clearly is not from Barbosa. Thanks for pointing out where you think it has come from. I'll double-check that & then amend things to suit. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And, lo & behold, it isn't a quote from Simcox either. The page you give does not use these words, although it does "sort of" talk of the subject. So where did the quote come from, then? - Sitush (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Quote is from the same book referred as above, quote is as follows-
 * "Plato may have borrowed the family law of his Republic from that of the Nairs, who also bear a considerable resemblance to his class of guardians; and the undoubted resemblance between Cretan or Spartan and Malayali usage makes it almost certain that Plato had in his mind a phase of Cretan custom developed in a direction approaching more or less closely to that of Malabar"


 * Premitive Civilizations or - Outlines of the History of Ownership In Archaic Communities, page 485, Volume 1, By Edith Jemima Simcox


 * First published in 1894
 * Given reference is from 2010 edition, page 485. Also reference to Barbosa's translation has been given as third reference of that page


 * "from the manuscript written by Duarte Barbosa, it is conjectured" this was the introductory note to the quote when quote was inserted in the article.  Someone else has changed the introductory note to the quote as "Duarte Barbosa wrote in 1510 AD that" which is not correct and to be replaced as you have pointed out.


 * Ah, sorry. Both myself and the article are using the original book rather than some reprinted edition. I don't trust reprints from many subcontinental publishing houses as I've seen too many issues with them in the past (including entire pages left out etc). I will try again to find it in the original. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Got it. Excellent work on your part, by the way. Well done.


 * Unfortunately, as you note, the comment is just a conjecture. It is also a second-hand conjecture, being repeated (without any opinion for or against it) in 1894 on the basis of a translator's thoughts from many years previously. I've removed the entire thing: this is way too vague to be of use. If it is significant then it will have been covered in more modern works.


 * Are you aware if any of the other books you mention discuss this possible connection to Plato's Republic ? Mentioning that Barbosa wrote of the Nairs is not difficult to prove, but it is not really the point that I think past contributors were trying to make. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Section removal - Bunts of Tulu Nulu
I have just removed the entire section entitled Connection with the Bunts of Tulu Nulu (see this diff).

I initially just fixed obvious errors in a quote, then noted that 50% of the quote was not in fact in the source being quoted. Then noted that another citation only confirmed one sentence rather than a paragraph, that a further citation made no mention of the Bunts ... and so on. Since much of the content was in any case uncited, and quite a bit of it appeared to be original research and synthesis, my conclusion was that this must go for now. I think that it may originally have had some minor purpose and has grown as a consequence of some wild POV-pushing & (probably) more than a few re-writes.

If someone wants to recreate it then that is fine but please do so in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Malayala Kshatriya
the word in bold in the first sentence of the lead has two references: one i can not access and the one i can access has the following sentence. "It might perhaps be deduced from the inscription No. IV., that Ushavadata succeeded his father-in-law; for after mentioning an expedition of his into Malabar to aid Kshatriya (Nairs) ruler;...." That sentence was converted by WP:Original research of the editors from here into Malayala Kshatriya. Google books search of "Malayala Kshatriya" brings out 7 results; none of them says that Nairs are Malayala Kshatriyas. In fact, this book says "In the same way, in Kerala, Malayala Kshatriya chiefs took Nayar wives,..." google scholar search come with one result which is an article based on wikipedia. Thus, the bold sentence with scanty or no evidence in the opening sentence needs to be removed. please feel free to present your evidences and discuss here first if you want to put the word back. --CarTick (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll agree here: the burden of proof is on the includer, not the deleter. Consensus is not necessarily required to remove the phrase, but is required to re-insert the phrase. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree and is reverting the edits. Reference is already given many times - Shabdataravali is regarded as the final reference of Malayalam language. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * this is your opinion and this is not how consensus building works. you have to show the exact quote from Shabarataravali and then demonstrate why it is considered to be an authoritative and reliable source. your opinion can do didly here. --CarTick (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Talking about concensus, we have already agreed to 50% of what you have demanded. If you want 100%, then I fear even after that you will make new demands. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * that shows your lack of understanding of what wikipedia is. i dont demand anything because i want it and neither is wikipedia some kind of business where people make a 50-50 compromise. who is that "we" you are referring to always? there is no "we" and "you" in wiki-editing. --CarTick (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Temporary Request
I request all editors except Sitush to refrain from editing the article. Cartick and MatthewVanitas have repeatedly shown disrespect to fellow editors by making one sided edits, even while the discussion was going on. Since Sitush is regarded as neutral by everyone here, let him make the edits if necessary. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To Sitush
Are you going to listen anything we are arguing here? We have posted a large number of references and none of them has been even considered. Our simple questions are not being answered yet. If your view points are the same as that of Cartick, then please make yourself clear here. We have wasted a lot our time trying to put forward our arguments. And it seems none of our posts have even been read by you people. If you agree with Cartick, then there is no use of an argument here. Why we should waste our time? But I am quite sure that you will repent later for supporting a caste fanatic who attacked another community because of jealousy. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am merely following what I perceive to be the policy. In the case of a content dispute it is always wiser to remove the disputed content and discuss the matter. By doing this we are at least not presenting incorrect/contentious/dubious/one-sided/whatever information to the general reader. It is pretty much a matter of common sense.


 * As to whether CarTick is correct on this point, well, right now I could not possibly tell you. I have asked for some specific refs because there is no way I am trawling through 100-odd of them to resolve yet another (to me) rather silly issue of pride. I do understand that it means a lot to people who are more involved. Might I yet again suggest that someone who is more familiar with those refs perhaps picks out 10 or so which they consider to be the strongest in favour of their viewpoint? CarTick or someone else could do the same for the "other side".


 * I have no viewpoints on Indian matters. I think that I have already said this here. I have certainly said here that I have not always agreed with CarTick in the past and we have had our differences as a consequence. However, I think that there may be some mutual respect with regard to the fact that we do as a rule treat each other courteously, which it seems to me is quite a rare thing in this particular area of the project. If you are courteous to people then you are more likely to meet with a similar reaction, which means that when differences of opinion do occur there is no tendency to dig one's heels in. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * i believe, starting with 10 references is a good way to begin. I have 10 references supporting Nairs are Shudras in this sub page of mine User:CarTick/Sandbox2. i am looking forward to seeing Shannon presenting 10 strong evidences (from the 100 above) supporting his claim. --CarTick (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll try to select 10 best refs. You decide the rest. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Good, both of you. That is the way to make some progress in this matter. I've got other things to do, of course, including a sources review elsewhere and responding to the comments of an article - Tom Johnson (bareknuckle boxer) - that I pretty much wrote single-handedly and is now in the Good Article review process. There is no rush to select the best: the world is probably not going to stop turning tomorrow, and hopefully Wikipedia's own little world will not either. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sitush, that is great. BTW Shannon, apart from the Kshatriya/Shudra controversy, if you want the term "Malayala Kshatriya" included in the article, we need references that use the EXACT term to address Nairs. --CarTick (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Here you go: User:Shannon1488/Sandbox. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This edit was really an unwanted one. I think after this and the removal of Malayala Kshatriya term, the article is at almost 100% where Cartick wanted it. I don't see any real chance that the views of users like me is going to reflect in this article. I am quitting from this debate. Let Cartick have the article according to his views. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I consider any decision to quit to be an undesirable outcome. However, it is ultimately up to you what you do. I'd suggest maybe taking a breather for a day or two and then coming back. Maybe even take a breather from the entire project for that time.


 * I will go through your sources nonetheless. All I can say about the edit that you refer to is that it is cited & therefore in principle is ok. I haven't actually checked whether the citation is reliable etc but will do (no offence intended to the inserter, MV). - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The diff given implies that I added the "Penny Cyclopaedia" ref to support Shudra status; however, note my edits instead used a 2003 publication from a California state university, which is far more credible: . I do not know why my RS was removed and patchy Victorian books inserted, so I'll track down my original ref and fix that if I may. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm. I don't like to cast aspersions but that sounds like someone who realises what I'm like regarding sources and was attempting to subvert your contribution. If that is indeed the case then I will not be my usual happy self. An 1839 self-educational rag, deliberately toned down to suit its market, is clearly not an RS. I will AGF for now but think that I may have to keep a closer eye on things. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The revision has been done by MatthewVanitas and it seems perfectly ok to me. It is a good citation and a neutrally phrased statement. Bearing in mind both that Wikipedia is not censored (so if it causes offence then that is "just tough") and that it does not exist to favour or promote one viewpoint over another, I think that any naysayers will probably have to live with it. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And this was the edit which originally removed the MV insertion. Why did you do this, CM? - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sitush how could you tell "it seems perfectly ok to me" whereas there are so many refs stating that Nair are Kshatriyas ????... Really incredible!!!... Then you assert that you have a neutral POV on this matter.... CM writing was more accurate, i will tell you why & put it back with appropriate refs.Rajkris (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The tests as to whether or not it are ok is well-known to you: reliable, verifiable etc. Please do not start POV-pushing here. The article states two differing academic positions. Nothing wrong with that. - Sitush (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

the article is at almost 100% where Cartick wanted it -- the issue is that "where he wanted it" is not at some far end of the spectrum. The two sides are not "definitely Kshatriya" or "definitely Shudra". The point some have been pushing is that the word "Shudra" should appear nowhere in the article, and the word Kshatriya prominent. CarTick's argument has been that since both terms are used in academic/reliable sources, both terms should be used, and any usage of either must be clearly cited (the the removal of Malayalam Kshatriya as not supported by RSs). I fail to see how noting the complexity of the issue makes one side "lose" the argument. Nobody is trying to purge ''properly cited and contextualised" info noting that the Nair served a military/aristocratic role in many cases, were sometimes described as "Kshatriya" or noted as being a uniquely Dravidian parallel evolution to a similar role. I think the article is moving towards the "middle" of NPOV, and I fail to see how this is a negative trend. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

NAIR: KSHATRIYA/SHUDRA STATUS
Definition of Kshatriya from Encyclopeadia Britannica: "The legend that the Kshatriya were destroyed by Parasurama, the sixth avatar of Vishnu, as a punishment for their tyranny is thought by some scholars to reflect a long struggle for supremacy between priests and rulers." (This detail is very important).

Nair were originally the rulers & martial nobility: and please see the other refs given.

Though nairs were Kshatriya (rulers, warriors) by occupation, they were considered as Shudra by some of Brahmins (especially Keralla Brahmins), see refs given, i will use one of them.Rajkris (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Some content from the Britannica was removed by me because it was a copyvio, but I do not think it related to what you are saying here & in any case as long as you do not copyvio or close paraphrase then you are ok. I actually do not personally rate the Britannica as a source, but it does pass all the tests. It used to be very good but nowadays spreads itself a little thinly, I feel. - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As a generality, other encyclopedias are not great refs, as like Wiki they are an amalgamation of sources, vice clear and explicit texts from individual scholars with reputations to uphold. Not opposing it here necessarily, just noting that it's not the preferred option if others are available. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. They are tertiary sources and should be the absolute last resort. I've noticed that Indian contributors seem to love the things for some reason. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I have been too rude. I agree it is a very complex matter. The problem is on the definition of Kshatriya; to sum up quickly (i really don't have time for details, too much busy in my professionnal life):


 * 1 Very specific definition of Kshatriya from orthodox Brahmins(included those from Kerala): all Kshatriyas have been killed by Parasurama and therefore there is no more Kshatriyas...


 * 2 General definition of Kshatriyas (given by Britannica and others): Hindu rulers and martial nobility


 * Some of the authors took the POV of Kerala Brahmins and considered Nair as Shudras, others scholars have taken the general definition of Kshatriya and therefore considered Nayar as Kshatriyas.


 * I have been studying India and especially Indian caste system for many years and what i can tell you is it is something very complex. I know that nowadays many castes claim Kshatriya status without any proper prooves (and i'm in war against them) but this is not the case of Nairs, they were Kshatriyas by occupation eventhough they were considered by Local Brahmins as Shudras. I will complete MV sentence and give the appropriate refs.Rajkris (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have completed MV sentence and added the refs, i will add one or 2 more if i have time. I have removed the notion of 'cultivator' because Nairs were not considered as Shudra by local Brahmins because of their profession. Nairs were rulers & warriors of Malabar coasts from at least 1000 years.Rajkris (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * One more thing, fyi, when in the url of an Britannica article, it is mentionned 'EBChecked', it means that the article has been checked & approved by Britannica board. This is the case for the Kshatriya & Nair articles.Rajkris (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I realise that things have moved on in the article itself since you wrote above, but thought that I had better comment nonetheless.


 * I have no idea how you intend to prove the "very specific definition of kshatriyas from orthodox Brahmins", but would emphasise that (as I think you are actually aware) the caste system in Kerala was very different to the rest of India. This is evidenced by numerous modern writers, two of which are currently cited in the article & are published by university presses. You would need to prove that the assertion of a different system in Kerala is incorrect before you could then make the assertion that the Keralian kshatriyas even existed in any great numbers, as they did elsewhere in India.


 * The Britannica article is referring to kshatriya and the Brahmanical system throughout India, which is unfortunate but a not uncommon problem with tertiary sources: they end up providing overviews rather than specifics, otherwise their size would be the same or greater than the secondary sources upon which they rely. Another example of this is the Britannica entry for Kerala, which manages to cover the entire subject of that state in 2500 words - a remarkable, if misguided, achievement.


 * I accept entirely that authors may hold POVs. Of course they do, but it is not particularly relevant to Wikipedia. Provided that they are reliable sources and provided that the article does not give undue weight to one POV over another, there is no problem. Modern works by confirmed academics which are published by respected publishing houses will be de facto reliable in the Wikipedian sense. Older works are usuallyless reliable if something newer exists because there is a presumption that the newer researchers are "standing on the shoulders of giants" and have taken account of the previous studies. Newer researchers also have better methodology and tools, and often have the benefit of discoveries such as new texts or archaeological evidence etc. This is Wikipedia, with all its faults etc; if you do not accept how it works then go contribute somewhere else would be my suggestion, unless you want to raise the entire issue of how it operates at RfC (and, frankly, you won't get anywhere if you do).


 * Your last point, regarding your studies etc is quite simply original research. I am not denying that you have done this and I am certainly not denying that you indulge in "wars", but it means precisely nothing here, sorry.


 * I will begin soon to work through the selections provided by CarTick and Shannon. I note, by the way, that even Shannon appears to have been slightly concerned with your recent actions, hence the removal of an unfortunate comment you placed on your own talk page. You may wish to take heed of this & I would be pleased if the subsequent email that Shannon sent you was of the "calm down" variety. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as the 2 POV (Kshatriya & Shudra) are mentionned according to academic sources, it is ok for me.Rajkris (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have struck some of my last comment in this section (timed at 12:53, 24 May). My sincere apologies to Rajkris, whom for some reason I got confused with CM. There has been that much to-ing and fro-ing that my brain malfunctioned. My bad, especially since Rajkris and myself have only recently bumped into each other with absolute agreement regarding a huge reversion on another article (and without talking to each other!). - Sitush (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Kerala State Gazetteer
Can anyone get hold of pages 20-24 of Adoor K.K. Ramachandran Nair's Kerala State Gazetteer. Volume 2, Part 1 and email it to me, please? Page 22 is the most important one, but I would rather read around it a little. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

North-South divide
I've just read the excellent Fuller source provided by Robbie.Smit, "The internal structure of the Nayar caste". There is far more to be had from this than just some petty point-scoring about kshatriya and it again reinforces my belief that people should read around something that they Google etc rather than just grab a bullet point.

Anyway, Fuller mentions that there were significant differences between the Nairs in the northern and southern regions of what is now Kerala, and that information on the northern Nairs is scanty. This could go some way to explaining some of the contentious points which have been raised here time and again, although I am aware that caste articles in general attract blinkered POV warriors etc even when the information is staring them in the face.

CarTick, you recently added "She admits her knowledge of Travancore region is scanty" in reference to Gough. I am not sure that this is the best phrasing in the world given what Fuller says, but I haven't yet got access Gough. Can you check, please, and perhaps remove the "her" from the sentence if that is appropriate. Leaving it in if it is not appropriate tends to make her appear to be somewhat unreliable (which I know from previous readings, is not the case). - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment. i hope there is more you could read than the couple of pages i could read in his book from the google book review. Fuller may be right in that Gough says she has scanty personal knowledge, which wouldnt necessarily mean that her knowledge itself is less. --CarTick (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Nair marriage itself is a little bit more complex than the current definititon in the article. it is one of the widely researched yet complex and less understood topic. this is from this article


 * OK. Have you got that article or are you just going off the precis? - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * precis? --CarTick (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Summary / extract. Eg: JSTOR usually show one page of the article for free. BTW, from that quote, it looks like there are two types of marriage and two types of ceremony. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * i have it. i will read the article and write a summary by the end of the day. however, i am worried that Melinda Moore's view of nair marriage will be the consensus view on this area. i will post the summary regardless and we will see where we can take the subject from there. Nair Taravad is an area that needs to be written about as well. without that context, their marriages wouldnt make much sense. --CarTick (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what view it is if it is reliable etc and not WP:FRINGE. Alternative views can always be brought in. I understand the concern about weight but I think that as long as the under construction banner exists and there are several people clearly actively involved with the article, it is not an issue. What we do need to be wary of is if either Moore or Fuller are using the other persons's work to buttress their position. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

do you want me to send you a copy? --CarTick (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be interested to see it but do not feel that you are obliged to do so. I could get it from someone else if I ask nicely. - Sitush (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * dont worry. i can send it to you. i guess you or i need to send an e-mail first before i can send the attachment. i doubt if wp-mail allows attachment. --CarTick (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * sent you the article. the article contains a lot of information about thalikettu, and sambandham rites. while you have merged the practices under the marriage section, the rites and ceremonies can be added in the relevant subsections. well, that is just one of the ways we can present this information. please feel free to start editing based on the article i sent to you. no restrictions whatsoever. --CarTick (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you have started using it. Good stuff. Keep on doing the same. I would like to find a bit more about the contrary position at some point, for the sake of balance. I'll dig for some Panikkar/Chandu stuff. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gough devides Kerala into three based on marriage practices. Is Fuller doing only two? --CarTick (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, three. It is just that I've only got so far with it at the moment. There are actually three mentioned already in the article, briefly. - Sitush (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

were all nairs in the military and formed the ruling class?
please see this reference. it classifies Nairs into several groups. i am not sure if the reference is reliable. if it is reliable, it raises the question whether all nairs were in the military and formed the ruling class? --CarTick (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Kiril Nairs who are cooks
 * 2) Shudra nairs who are farmers
 * 3) Charnadu Nairs who follow the same profession as te above
 * 4) Villiam Nairs, farmers and also carry palaks for kings and namburis
 * 5) Wattakatta Nairs, oilmakers and cultivators
 * 6) Attikourchi, cultivators
 * 7) Wallakatra, barbers and cultivators
 * 8) Wallatera, washermen
 * 9) Tanar Naimar, tailors
 * 10) Andora, pot-makers
 * 11) Taragon, weavers.


 * I wouldn't particularly like to rely on something published in 1860, but your general point is valid. AS aware as I am of the so-called "traditional" occupations of various castes, I struggle to believe that each and every member pursued that occupation. In fact, I'm not even entirely sure that the majority did because it seems obvious to me that the most prestigious of the possible occupations is always the one that they are associated with. I've seen similar lists in Thurston etc.


 * I really do not understand why these issues appear not to have been discussed academically in much more modern times. If you consider the heat that they create here it is difficult to see why at least some moderate warmth should not exist in the modern academic community. In fact, I am convinced that, somewhere, they have been discussed. We just have not found it yet. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * it is particularly difficult for an entire caste to be the rulers or military class or whatever it is unless every small village was a small kingdom and it required thousands of rulers. just exaggerating a bit, but i believe you get my point. i agree with you about the reliability of old materials though. i searched "nairs barbers" in google books for books published in 20th century, this is what i get. quite interesting. this book published in 2005 says that the barbers of Nambudhiris and Nairs were called Vilakkithala Nair. The potters and weavers and oil extractors were included among the nairs. just being published in 2005 doesnt make it reliable. --CarTick (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the Government classification of castes for reservation, the castes such as Vilakkithala Nair, Andora Nair, etc are not included in Nair caste. These castes are considered backward classes and fall under OBC (Other Backward Caste)category, and enjoy reservation. Menon, Pillai, Nayanar, etc are falling under the term Nair, and for Nair caste there is no reservation and considered as a forward caste. So, please do not get confused with names like Vilakkithala Nayar. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.164.10 (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not entirely true. There are subdivisions, and some subdivisions may be OBC while others are forward. Don;t forget OBC is really about protecting employment opportunities etc & so the fact that some are in it and some are not actually enhances the probability that not all Nairs do the same job. Although that is obviously true today anyway. Do not confuse the past with the present, please. - Sitush (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your statement proves that you don't know anything about the caste situation in Kerala. Castes like Vilakkithalavan and Veluthedan were counted separately in Travancore, Cochin and Malabar censuses. Sociologists might have thought otherwise, but never in the history of Kerala they were treated equal to Nair proper. Even during the 1968 Census, they were not counted as a part of Nair (although some other castes of disputed origin were included) They have their own caste organizations. They are not members of NSS, the Nair caste body. Even in matrimonial sites, they are listed separately. And moreover in orthodox regions of Kerala like Kollam and Trivandrum, riots can easily break out if intermarriage between Nair proper and Nair inferior occurs (Same was true for Illathu-Swaroopathil or Kiryathil-Swaroopathil intermarriages until 1920s, when Mannam united these three proper Nair castes to form a single united organization called the Nair Service Society). 122.177.147.250 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for you, we have a citation that says they were counted as Nair subdivisions in 1891 & 1901. Where is your citation for the opposite, please? You can rage as much as you like but without a citation nothing will change. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not a Nair and have never edited this page before. But seeing the recent version of the article, all I can say is that it is not balanced and is highly insulting to the Nair community. It would be a good idea to get someone from Kerala (non-Nairs) to give their views on this. Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "not balanced", "highly insulting"? Give specific quotes here to support those points. And I, for one, am non-Nair and non-Indian, and I find this "whitewashing" of caste history to be highly POV and inappropriate. Please clearly cite these phrases you find objectionable, as I'm just not seeing it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mister Matthew, I have already told you that I am not interested in what is going on here. I was just going through, perhaps happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and made a simple comment. But if you want to provoke me by replying rudely, then I swear, I am not like these non-confrontational Nair guys. I'll tear you apart. Like all other communities in Kerala, my community also suffered extreme humiliation from the Nairs. But bygones are bygones. Many of my best friends are Nairs. And I appreciate them for their friendly behavior and helpfulness. This is essentially a Nair vs Nadar fight, and I'd rather sit back and enjoy the show. I don't think Sitush is a Nadar, after seeing this - link, which is evident from his edits as well. Nadars from SIUC / CSI groups are well known for their slum behavior, and both of you (you and cartik) are not an exception.
 * I am just making this post because you are acting like a Hollywood film star. You are acting that are not aware of what is insulting going on here. Can you go to the street and tell face-to-face to anyone what you wrote here. I am not sure how many of your teeth will remain intact if you do so. link - This is one of your edits. A few quotes:


 * Under Nair polyandry the only idea of blood-relationship conceivable would be through females, as the uncertainty of fatherhood would prevent the acknowledgment of kinship through males - Here you are saying all the Nairs are bastards.
 * Nairs practiced a form of marriage in which several unrelated men can have a wife in common - Something which is highly disputed and most probably a work of fiction.
 * Upon reaching puberty, she would begin to have relationships with men outside her marriage - Here you are saying that all Nair women were prostitutes.
 * I am again assuring you that I don't have any problem with these, but you should stop acting like I said something which is totally irrelevant.
 * Once again, you Nadar guys are calling Nairs as bastards and Nair women as prostitutes. But what about your own women? Nadar women were treated nothing more than mistresses, not only by the Nairs, but also by the fishermen and Muslims. And there was no force involved, unlike the middle-eastern harems in which women were forcibly abducted. My grandparents have told me that Nadar women considered it economically and socially beneficial to have physical relationship with men belonging to powerful communities like the Labbais. I have just reminded you that whatever you write about Nairs can backfire on you. So stop shouting at me and concentrate on your work, i.e adding degrading stuff to this article. Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You're edging on violent words here, suggest we stick to academic debate. So you're essentially agreeing that the stated polyandrous issues are factually accurate? If such documented facts are "insulting", well that's in the eye of the beholder, and again we're not going to censor Wiki in order to please one group or another. So far as "unbalanced", what positive and distinct aspects of Nair culture do you feel are being ignored in favour of more controversial content? We're already clearly documenting that the Nair were a warrior class, administered landholdings, were ranked above many other classes, etc. All we can do it try to be inclusive of the many facets of Nair history.


 * So far as your speculation on other editors' backgrounds (which is itself inappopriate), I'll save you some time and clarify that I'm not Nair, or Nadar, or Indian of any sort. I got involved in Indian simply because there was a need for outsiders who are not emotionally invested in caste struggles and glorification. I wouldn't know a Nair from a Nadar if he walked up to me on the street, so it's not like I have some great vendetta against one caste or another. When I see a caste controversy, or any of several clues which indicate that the caste story is not being told even-handedly, I simply search academic resources for keywords "shudra, kshatriya, dalit" and the name of the caste. If it turns out that a complicated caste history is being varnished to make a caste look more prestigious, I enter to balance out the article. That being the case, how is writing clearly-cited facts about Nairs going to "backfire" on me? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And I am from Manchester, of an English stock that traces its roots back at least 600 years. I would also draw attention to the fact that there have been plenty of illegitimate children in, for example, the British royal family. No-one I know of seems to have an issue (excuse the pun) with mentioning this. Honestly, some people here need to develop the ability to separate emotions from actions. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * i am neither nadar nor nair, i am from India though. is best to ignore these vandals. he is pretending like a non-Nair. let us not legitimise them by responding. he didnt speak one sentence that was in any way useful for what we r doing. --CarTick (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

polyandry
Nairs are very well known for practising polyandry in the past. i had once attempted to add some information about this and couldnt get anything in except the link Polyandry in India. A simple [google book search] and google scholar search brings out multiple number of results. due to the abundance of sources that discuss about nair polyandry, i would suggest we add a paragraph about it in the article body (atleast a few sentences) and mention in the lead as well. --CarTick (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK... now start this once again. A few months ago you tried this cheap stuff. Now you got your backers here, so you can try again. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * and that is your argument not to include? --CarTick (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your mental balance is not good right now because of extreme anti-Nair hatred and caste fanaticism. You need to undergo a mental checkup. That is the reason. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be one of those "personal attacks" there. I'm inclined to agree with CT, as plenty of Google sources specifically discuss, in a reputable academic context, Nair polyandry, and also Nair relations with Kerala Brahmins. Again, clearly scholars have seen fit to research these matters, so what reason can there be against including it here? If you want to claim that there's nothing Notable about Nair polyandry, then why have so many professional academics covered it? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree, both with the personal attack point and the content issue. I've seen polyandry discussed on other caste articles and see no reason for it to not exist in this article if the sources are provided. I am getting very close to reporting someone for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Please, calm down and remember that Wikipedia is not censored and this article does not belong to the Nairs but rather is about them. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * added a bit about polyandry. sorry about my edit summary. anyway, there is a lot of information in the literature and some are contradictory and confusing. i believe the topic is so vast and notable it is even worth a separate article like Polyandry among Nairs. at that point, a comprehensive summary — if necessary — can be added. please feel free to correct me if i have made any mistakes. --CarTick (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. By nullifying the consensus (reached after the Admin Innervation in Oct 13, 2010) you are showing your true colors. We asked you first whether you are going to listen to any of our viewpoints. We asked this because many of us work for a living unlike Dalits like Cartick who live off the money which government gives to him. I work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week and whatever contributions I made to Wikipedia was from my spare time. If I knew you would ignore all of our viewpoints, I'd have stopped this the first day itself. And don't forget to start the Polyandry among Nairs yourself. At least you can show Cartick that you are also capable of taking the lead in insulting the Nair community, rather than playing second fiddle. I congratulate you for your shrewdness. You never showed off your affection towards Cartick, and this made some of us believe that you may be neutral. And I congratulate Cartick for his hard work. Even earlier he tried on more than 10 occasions to destroy this article. After 18 months of hard work, it is paying off finally. Like Napoleon Bonaparte said:"There is nothing called impossible in my dictionary". But I don't have much to say about Matthew Vannitas. He has neither the skill nor the talent to do something like this, if he is alone. I couldn't find any positive qualities in him. This is my final day in Wikipedia and I am never going to visit again until all three of you die. Since other users like Shannon has already quit because of your bullying and harassment, I think now your triad is free to add whatever you wish to add on this article and other articles which are related to Nairs. And finally, one small request to you. If you are banning me, give me 5 mins. I want one final post in the ANI thread which I've started. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (sigh) Wikipedia is not censored. We've been through this before, far more recently than last October. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not too happy about the Victorian source in the polyandry subsection. Surely there is something newer, something better? - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * which one? 45 to 47? i can certainly look for something better. guess you meant 45. it was published in Science, one of the best journals in modern day. see this link for verification] that it was indeed science journal. it is a peer-reviewed journal and has a high impact factor. but, i am not sure if it had the same quality at that time. --CarTick (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * this book The Nayars today by Christopher John Fuller discusses Nair polyandry extensively and i am not able to access all pages. if you can help and provide more context, it will be awesome. Miriam Koktvedgaard Zeitzen's book which i was able to access this morning, i cant access anymore. it is weird how google books works. --CarTick (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, Fuller's book will be useful for writing the entire article. i am tempted to buy it; it is about 20 dollars in Amazon. --CarTick (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fuller is definitely RS - Cambridge University Press publication, 1977 etc is all good. There are used copies on Amazon for US$5 or so. I, too, may buy a copy but need to check the UK price as am not working at the moment due to heart problems. Good work, btw, on providing more recent sources for polyandry. I have not gone through them in detail yet but they are clearly RS & you have attempted to provide both sides of the debate. This is what a lot of Indian articles desperately need: if people spent less keyboard strokes arguing the toss about status etc and more of them actually researching & adding useful content then, hey, the number of Good Articles covering the subcontinent would likely grow significantly. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

oh. sorry to hear about that. hope it is a manageable problem. thanks for the compliment. i still wanna add some information about how the practice came into existence and why it disappeared, i am looking for an academic consensus on this. we will see. i guess the biggest problem is availability of resources and people being unable to understand and appreciate WP:NPOV policy in its right spirit. --CarTick (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The other marital/procreational trend I'm seeing in some gBooks is the practice of Nair women liaising with Brahmin men. I think an earlier poster on this page made some offhand reference to it; it appears to be of the general "it's advantageous to have friends/fathers in high places" thing, and smacks a bit of compensated dating. Again, clearly a delicate topic that needs to be approached professionally to avoid any sensationalism or judgement, but I recall quite a few RSs covered the practice. Does that cross-caste fathering also somewhat fall into the Polyandry section, or a subsection thereof? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It was allegedly very common, applying to all but the first-born son. In fact, this is one of the issues that overlaps also with the kshatriya discussions. I have not dug very deeply into it as I am still trying to fix the numerous existing issues in the article (the citations are often appalling), but I've seen references to it in the same manner that you have. It definitely needs adding in somewhere but you point is valid: do not just jump in there with info on this, rather do some rounded research beforehand. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Clarify: my last sentence is not aimed at anyone in particular. It is a general comment in case someone picks up on the research. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * i am almost done with this section with whatever references i have. i will add interesting tidbits as and when i see them. please feel free to edit, add and remove contents, most importantly copyedit my writings (my writing skill is not that great, just enough to survive). we can remove the under construction tag whenever you get a feeling that we have reached the point. --CarTick (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Shungoonny page number, please
Please can someone let me know the relevant page number(s) in this old book by Shungoonny where it refers to the Kula-Sangha-Vazhcha ruling system. I cannot spot it but it may be a transliteration issue. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * i tried searching all independent words using the search bar, which i am sure you must have done. nothing. --CarTick (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's see if someone else comes up with it, although I am inclined to bin the cite anyway as being an (a) old and (b) mostly tertiary source. I'd rather that people had an opportunity to correct the issue. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I deleted the entire sentence. It had three cites, none of which mentioned any of the words in the phrase, nor any obvious variant on the phrase "robust and efficient". The cites are all used elsewhere & so I suspect some weird pasting error, but I ain't searching the history for it. Especially since GWeb, GBooks and & GScholar searches also revealed nothing. It is a dead end as far as I am concerned. There have been plenty of people active here lately who could have picked up the cite request tag. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent addition of Fuller from JSTOR - copy from Sitush talk page
Robbie.Smith has just posted on my talk page that:

"Of the neutral sources, atleast 5 supports it (Logan, Gough, Fuller, Panikkar & Thurston) and only one opposes it. And you still changed it to "Some" commentators. This is the exact quote: "Thus, we can begin by looking at the Kshatriyas and Samantans, the two castes to which the kings and chiefs claimed to belong; however, most unbiased observers (Dumont [1961:27] is an exception) have concluded that the Kshatriya and Samantan subdivisions should be treated merely as supereminent Nayar subdivisions" Robbie.Smit (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)"

I am moving it here. My response is:
 * I changed it because you used the word "unbiassed", which is itself biassed. Thurston & Logan are totally pointless cites, Panikkar probably is & so that leaves two. This is "some", no more.
 * I had already requested a copy of the article prior to your message. I am prepared to AGF with you to some degree & hence did not remove the contribution entirely, but I also know that you have adopted an extreme POV position on this and so decided to tone it down pending reading the source myself. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that CarTick then removed it, which I feel is wrong unless he has the article available. OTOH, Robbie.Smit's edit summary in reverting that was also wrong: it is not vandalism & you can get into trouble for calling something vandalism when it is not. Be careful. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I see from your quote that you have breached a major policy. I am about to warn you for copyvio. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What is this? I didn't copied the entire verse. I had removed some words from it. It was only 50% matching. "However most unbiased observers have concluded that Kshatriyas of Kerala are merely super-eminent Nāyar subdivisions" instead of " however, most unbiased observers (Dumont [1961:27] is an exception) have concluded that the Kshatriya and Samantan subdivisions should be treated merely as supereminent Nayar subdivisions". Robbie.Smit (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is close paraphrasing. See your talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Some commentators have concluded that the Keralite kshatriyas were "super-eminent" subdivisions of the Nairs is quite confusing to me. does it mean there were other subdivisions and what about them? it lacks context without that information. --CarTick (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a confusing quote, and probably a confusing situation, although I already knew that there are/were umpteen subdivisions. I have the article & am gutting it, so hopefully things will become a little more clear some time not too far into the future. I've read right through it twice now, had a break (the other source review) & hope to crack on with this tomorrow. Robbie.Smit perhaps didn't appreciate just how useful this thing was in general because he was homing in on one particular issue. But he found it, and it is very useful - good work. There were a couple of other citation he added which were (IMO) not great for the purpose he intended but look promising overall. I just haven't got enough hours at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * the subcaste section looks good. good job. now i understand what you meant; robbie smit did a good job in revealing that valuable resource. it is interesting how he has misread the source and it seems to be quite opposite to what he wanted it to mean. --CarTick (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The subsection needs more sources. I think it is too reliant on one at the moment, but have a plan. The main section on caste needs sources & a rewrite. Robbie.Smit's misreading is a common issue, nothing personal to him. A lot of people grab a sentence or two without reading round it, especially if they're searching to prove a point rather than to develop something more generally. I would be surprised if I have never done that, but it was probably quite a long time ago. We learn by our mistakes, no big deal. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

hypergamy
i see the note you added about "shortage of women", which is interesting. but, what strikes me as even more interesting is that all the Brahmin kids, not being allowed to marry with brahmins but only with nairs and the kids becoming nairs, must have impacted the brahmin population. --CarTick (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the reverse consequence. Look at China with their (still partially enforced) "one child per family" rule in order to control population growth. It might be worth digging around a bit for something about this issue. There has to be a reason why Brahmins practised hypergamy here but not elsewhere (assuming that they did not - I haven't yet read the article you sent me but I see that you have). Logically, the reason for not doing it is as your point mentions. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

subcastes and their professions vs kshatriya/shudra
the summary in the lead about kshatriya/shurda can be contextualised with various subcastes and their professions. --CarTick (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead needs rewriting from scratch, but this cannot be done until the body of the article is sorted out. I really wouldn't bother adding much content to the lead right now. But feel free to take out any obvious problems. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * it could be done in the body to begin with; the kshatriya/shudra conundrum needs to be somewhere in the body anyway. on a separate note, it would be nice if we can find some reference that tells us clearly what was the differences and similarities between these different subgroups. the section seems to convey that the difference was probably occupation, but what was the similariy then? it may be subtle, but a bottomline would be good. also, what is the difference between a "subgroup" and a "subcaste"? --CarTick (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The subcaste/subdivision is already explained: longevity. geographical spread, numbers etc. These are largely sociological/anthropological/enthnographic semantics as far as I can see. Why can the similarity, as you call it, not just be when, where and to whom they were born? I am English, which is because of that. I think that you may be reading too much into this, but perhaps more will come out when I (or someone else) start properly tackling the truly dreadful Early History section.
 * Everything needs to be in the body. Leads are to summarise the body. Eg: your additions to the lead earlier today re: the "marriage" rituals are far too detailed and will be cut back eventually, if not by me then by someone else.
 * There is no conundrum regarding kshatriya/shudra. As things stand now and in the Wikipedian sense, they were not kshatriya. Some high-ranking caste members considered themselves to be, and this is already dealt with in the body. Although more citations would be useful. Whether the fact that they were not kshatriya means that they must have been shudra is, I think, an inevitable consequence but I'm not up to speed on what truly qualifies as a shudra. Now, if somewhere down the line we actually get a decent citation for someone other than themselves believing that they were kshtriya, then at that point there might be some explaining to do. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Panikkar
Don't go too mad using Panikkar. The writings of a caste member whom we know had an axe to grind and did his stuff nearly 100 years ago do not really make the grade. Handy for some points, but not to base entire sections on. IMO. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * agree with you. i thought that the "description" of a family structure would be less controversial and also he decribes them better than western writers. honestly, i did not understand clearly what tharavad, thalikettu and sambandham were until i read him finally; it was good for the basics. well, i still have some issues which i am not entirely clear. in any case, i will use melinda moore's article to provide some balance. her articles are way too complex, i have to read a few other articles to understand her. you are doing the same for Thalikettu section with Fuller's book, which is good. guess it will all work out well eventually. He has a nice article on religion which i thought i will write about, but if you are objecting, may be not. --CarTick (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, do it. It is old, unreliable sources and "fringe theory" ones of all ages that are problematic. Whether or not something is controversial here, it needs to be verifiable per the guidelines & policies. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Upper cloth controversy
this article started by me — which was later modified by POV warriors to fit their message — need some reworking and summary of it belongs to this article as well. --CarTick (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Better term than "Superstitious beliefs" ?
I think that "Superstitious beliefs" sounds a bit subjective, and a bit demeaning. Is that truly the standard word for this type of section, or can we maybe find something a bit more neutral? Or is it that "superstitious" just sounds more negative in my dialect of English, but is more neutral in Indian or British English? Just wanting to avoid any appearance of "picking on" the Nair by making their cultural beliefs sound silly of backward, as opposed to just interesting views of the paranormal. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry, if it sounds so; it is solely due to my genuinely poor proficiency in english language. in fact, the reference itself used that term. please feel free to change; i am open for anything neutral. as a matter of fact, these beliefs are not unique to nairs; it is very hard to find references for these kind of things though.  --CarTick (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

missing references
for cicisbeism (e.g. Gait in Census 1911, India: 239), Chandu Menon (G. O. M. 1891, Encl. C:10). this is all i could get; i cant access the bibliography section of the book. the book says "few writers" and then refer to only one reference, therefore it may not be a bad idea to remove the sentence. --CarTick (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

present and past
i am not complaining we are making the mistake but we should be careful not to confuse the readers with the past and present. most of what is in the article is about the past, which is the case with most of the indian castes. the present status of most of the indian castes is pretty boring from an academical standpoint; the unique practices (like polyandry) that some castes were known for have mostly disappeared. --CarTick (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Leave it for the readers to decide which is boring. The present status of Indian castes, if available with references, should find a place in a wiki article. The editor is not supposed to make his wiki article interesting with such story worthy material like polyandry. Each fact should have its place. ''' Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 07:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

recruitment
see this interesting conversation i had with a "new" user here. --CarTick (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Too much of personal vendetta
The list of references provided should deem it fit for this cartick to consider finding a better place or even, a better job. Rather than on the subject, which is very clear and well referenced and argued by Chandrakantha, this page should be framed and put up for display for future editors to refrain from assuming good faith in cartick's edits. What is he trying to say with his new section, recruitment? I wouldn't find it surprising when the stream of IPs do turn up, for personal motives of such editors should be made public and be dealt with appropriate coverage in all sources of media. One would find it wise enough to ignore his edits/ interruptions summarily. Rather than taking this as a personal attack, cartick, consider this as my earnest advice for your concern. Your interruption has resulted in this page ending up in total mess, making no sense. Such a high importance page for India bites the dust! I should ask, aren't there good volunteers in the India project page to take over this page? ''' Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 07:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just look at the so called conversation between the "recruit" and Cartick. It seems to me that Cartick himself recruited this guy. Also note that the "recruit" is most active in articles like A.Nesamony, a topic in which Cartick is also active.
 * And what happened here was that some users thought Sitush might be neutral and therefore put their points forward. Just like his unique modus operandi, Sitush ignored all of them and edited the article according to Cartick's wishes, well supported by Matthew Vanitas. Axxn (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, what, specifically has "bitten the dust"? What about the page is worse than it was last month? MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You won't understand. Because you have no knowledge about this subject. Axxn (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article has no proper structure and what it is, is just a set of info assembled in an odd fashion. It could have been better. As I said, it is best to summarily ignore cartick. And I don't think it is bad to recruit people to improve this article.''' Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 08:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There were some knowledgeable editors around here. The triad drove away all of them. Axxn (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The same is going on in Tamil Kshatriya page.''' Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 10:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That article was started by Suresh Varma. He is in quite a lot of personal trouble and I don't think he will be able to contribute to Wiki anytime in near future. Cartick nicely made use of the situation. Axxn (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Suresh might take his own time. There should be no problem for the cart user with his resuming his contributions later WP:CIRCUS. ''' Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 10:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please could I just point out WP:OWN. I have no idea what the references to Suresh Varma's "situation" refer to, but no-one "owns" a Wikipedia article. I would also warn people against "recruitment" as this may be construed as WP:CANVASS etc, even if it happens offsite.
 * Honestly, if people actually followed the policies and guidelines instead of just selectively quoting them, things would run a lot smoother. FWIW, you can insult me here as much as you like but if you remove etc a single item cited to Fuller, Gough etc then it is disruptive - these are well-known anthropologists publishing in respected academic journals. You have to divorce yourself from what you would like the article to say and concentrate on being neutral. If you cannot do this here then go look at another article where you can. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could I also just point out that Chandrakantha apologised to me by email, and you will see my reply on his/her talkpage. Also, that the article was started in 2004 by a (then) user with an IP. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Sourced Content by Sitush

 * From Fuller: "Thus, we can begin by looking at the Kshatriyas and Samantans, the two castes to which the kings and chiefs claimed to belong; however, most unbiased observers (Dumont [1961:27] is an exception) have concluded that the Kshatriya and Samantan subdivisions should be treated merely as supereminent Nayar subdivisions". This and many other sources prove that the Kshatriyas of Kerala were highest divisions of Nair.
 * Sitush is trying to remove the refs and insert POV. Robbie.Smit (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And now, the second one of the gang has removed my edits. Robbie.Smit (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop with this "gang" foolishness, it's bordering on personal attack. You're deliberately misquouting the reference (which you also didn't bother to take literally 10 seconds to turn from a bare URL into a proper footnote using http://reftag.appspot.com). The reference says: "Some Nayars 'ripened' into Samanthans and Kshatriyas". If you even read the rest of the page, it clearly indicates that this ripening was a form of upward social mobility. If anything, the reference implies that the Nair were not Kshatriya, since they only became (in some cases) Kshatriya and Samnthans later as they "ripened" (increased in social/political stature). Do you disagree with this reading of the citation? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All the Kshatriyas of Kerala were Nairs. That is a truth, seen from numerous sources. Can you cite, an example of any Kshatriya clan in Kerala which was not Nair? (Not even expecting a reply from you, because I am sure that you don't even know the meaning of the word Kshatriya). Robbie.Smit (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If it's "seen from numerous sources", how about you provide a source that you're not explicitly mis-quoting? Odd you would have to stretch a source so far if there are plenty of other good options. I'm not reuqired to prove any negatives, the onus on you is to provide evidence, not for others to disprove your uncited or mis-cited claims. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The source itself supports what Robbie says. Everyone knows that all the Kshatriyas of Kerala were Nair. Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No it does not. But you are welcome to find someone among the "everybody" who can be cited here to support your POV. And make no mistake, it is POV. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There are many, many, many wrong things that "everyone knows". If this information is so widespread and undeniable, you should be able to find indisputable, explicity, reputable academic citations for it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Srinivas additions by Robbie.Smit
Robbie.Smit has for some weeks insisted on adding original research regarding the status of the royal lineages, using Srinivas as his evidence. He has misread Srinivas, whose views (including about the varna system in the area) are already documented at Nair & now include a citation to the same exact source that he referred to. Should he be reverted one more time, and then revert back himself, then he'll be on a block. I have warned him about this. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * He has misread Fuller again, also. Fuller's views are also well-documented in the article and the quote he keeps using is taken out of context. Fuller's is a complicated article but needs to be read from the start and not cherry-picked, otherwise you'll get the wrong idea. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to argue anything to your gang of three. It is a waste of time. Your only aim seems to be to paint Nairs as Sudra, removing all the references we have put saying any sort of silly excuse. Let me see if someone neutral comes here. Don't threaten me with blocks. Because you operate in a gang of three, you can easily intimidate users like me and win edit wars. I hope admins will notice this. Robbie.Smit (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I deliberately added a table from Fuller's article the other day in order to avoid this warring. I checked with people about copyvio issues before adding it. The table shows the various categorisations of Nair, made at different times by different people. Nowhere does it mention Kshatriya or Samantan. It is a direct copy from Fuller, a respected anthropologist who is citing other anthropologists. There can be no dispute about this: it is as clear as day that none of these people categorises Nairs as K or S. - Sitush (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the Kshatriyas were not Nair, then from where they came? From the moon? Robbie.Smit (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. It is not my problem. My problem is that you are inserting original research. You cannot say something that is not supported by the citation you use, employing a (perhaps logical) leap in order to make a connection. Srinivas is explicit if you read around the chapter instead of just grabbing the quote. His views were incorporated into the article some time ago; I have today added the specific bit you mention in order to remove doubt. So, the sentence you referred to is now in the article, in context and in a section discussing caste ranks etc. What's the issue now, then? - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The citation in the above section states that Kshatriyas and Samantans were Nairs. And you people are trying to downplay it. Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Negative, you are the one specifically obscuring the statement that this status changed over time. You had "Kshatriyas and Samantans of Kerala were Nair"; citing the same reference I changed it to "Due to social mobility in Kerala's fluid environment, some Nair came to be considered as Kshatriyas and Samantans"(with full citation), which is again what the ref actually says. Although honestly it's kind of redundant since we cover that same issue later in the article. Are you just refusing to recognise the term "ripening" and agree that it means "changed from one thing into another"? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, they came to perceive themselves as Kshatriya etc. This is what the caste section discusses, and is precisely why it should not be in the lead. The issue is too complex to summarise in a meaningful, accurate manner in the lead. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Serpent groves
The article says that every Nair family "will have a serpent grove". I find this hard to believe and think that it may be a grammatical error, being intended to refer to the historic tharavadu communal units of extended family which no longer exist. So, "would have had a serpent grove". Can someone confirm this statement, and indeed supply the citations requested for many other assertions regarding serpent worship etc. If not then I'll delete it for now - it can always be added back if/when something does turn up. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's what the article says right now: "Nairs are known as the Nagavanshi Kshatriya clan of Ananta and Vasuki descent. The serpent is worshipped as guardian of the clan among Nair families. Every tharavadu and/or major family will have a serpent grove in the compound/estate of the family. In present days, almost 90% of the temples in Kerala have serpent deities worshipped inside.[citation needed]"


 * and


 * "According to Hindu mythology, Nairs are the descendants of Serpent Anantha and Vasuki. Nagas are described as the sons of Kadru and Surasa who were the wives of Kashyapa. Kadrujas migrated to the Southern part of the Indian subcontinent and Surasajas remained in the North.[citation needed]"


 * Should not be too hard to sort out, I suspect. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair: Ruling / Warrior status
This book is a good ref, i will add it: please read pages 303 to 312; for instance this: "Nayar chiefs and Nayar soldiers are first mentioned in three copperplate inscriptions, tentatively dated late seventh, mid-eighth, and early ninth centuries.... All these districts were famous Nayar chiefdoms in the later periods and persisted until the eighteenth century. The plates suggest that Nayar chiefs with private armies had emerged as vassals of the Perumals at least by the ninth century. By the mid-thirteenth century, at the latest, the greater Nayar chiefs had become independant small kings,..." page 303). Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a good, reliable source. I've not read it through properly yet but in principle there s/b no issue with using it here. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Another interesting ref from same book: "The Nayars as the ruling and military castes, formed the core of this aristocraty..."' page 298.Rajkris (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Now I knew that you would do this. There is no support in the book for them being kshatriya. If you use if for that purpose then it will be removed instantly. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I will add it to support Nair as rulers and warriors of Kerala; This book tells clearly that the Nairs were the ruling and military caste of Kerala for the last 1000 years at least. Now we must get clear concerning the status of Nair in the Hindu Varna: Kshatriya or Shudra. One question to you Sitush: what is being Kshatriya for you ?Rajkris (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Where does the book say that they were kshatriya? It does not, therefore you cannot use the word. It does not matter what I think. I knew exactly where you were going to go with this right at the outset because you have been POV-ing about it all over the place. Find a reliable source and we're good to go but, as you are well aware, modern academics (and this includes Gough) have denied that there was a genuine kshatriya class. It is all discussed in the article already, including a table that contains Gough's classification of the Nair rankings etc. Do not put words into her mouth, please. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not telling that i will use this book for Kshatriya... But What is genuine Kshatriya ?Rajkris (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No use in asking this. He doesn't know the meaning of the word Kshatriya. Axxn (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an article on Kshatriya. Perhaps you will find your answer there. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So you agree with the definition given there right? " It traditionally constituted the military and ruling elite of the Vedic-Hindu social system outlined by the Vedas and the Laws of Manu." Axxn (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

it may fit the definition but we, wikipedia editors trying to define it, is original research. text book case. --CarTick (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I did not say that I agreed with anything. I said that you perhaps will find an answer to your question there. You are putting words into my mouth. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the definition from Oxford English dictionnary: "Kshatriya: a member of the second of the four great Hindu caste. The traditionnal function of the Kshatriyas is to protect society by fighting in wartime and governingin peacetime. From Sanskrit Ksatriya, from Kshatra 'rule, authority'".Rajkris (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the definition the definition given by britannica:.


 * Now tell me what is the definition of Shudra ?Rajkris (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We have already covered Britannica and OED, and you know this. They do not apply. For Shudra, perhaps you will find the information you seek at the article for it. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Sitush, you don't even know the basic fact, i.e what is Kshatriya and what is Shudra. Then how you are going to decide whether Nair is Kshatriya or Shudra? Robbie.Smit (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * besides original research, there is another major issue, WP:Undue. while some of the Nayars (no body knows how many, but it seems like a minority) may have done things which wikipedia editors like Rajkris and Anand may want to classify under the Kshatriya varna, hightlighting this tiny minority's profession in the lead while omitting the occupation of the majority of the Nairs is WP:Undue. --CarTick (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow..Cartik, that is supercool. Tiny minority right.... So what was the occupation of the majority? "The Nayars were originally a military, land-owning aristocracy. The males were trained in arms from an early age, their limbs constantly anointed with oil until they became so light and nimble that they could wind" - Gbook Robbie.Smit (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can provide you more links for that. Axxn (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * cartik, Nayar were always known as a military and ruling caste!... Stop your POV... Here are some more refs:, .Rajkris (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not assume the extent of my knowledge. I have been helpful here and name-calling etc will earn you a block for personal attacks. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It cannot be denied that some Nairs were chieftains, rulers etc and that some Nairs fought. Going beyond that is original research unless evidence is provided. I have fought but it doesn't make my mother a fighter; I have run businesses, but that does not make my brothers business managers. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah... the diffreence between "some" and "vast majority" is what we are talking about here. Robbie.Smit (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not threaten me.Rajkris (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Who has threatened you? CarTick? - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You: "Please do not assume the extent of my knowledge. I have been helpful here and name-calling etc will earn you a block for personal attacks.", it was for me no ?... Rajkris (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Robbie.Smit - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sitush read the refs we have given (which tell that the Nair were by tradition rulers and warriors). Do not ignore them. Do you have refs which tell that only a minority were warriors & rulers ?... The heirs of a noble is noble... This is the basic principle of caste.Rajkris (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am happy to take any info provided by any reliable source and provided that it does not constitute undue weight. So far, I have seen nothing but remain open to suggestions. To say that the heir(s) of nobility are nobility is in fact OR, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link I was searching for the last 10 mins. The Nayars alone had in former times the right to bear arms and every Nayar youth left his family to join a local military and gymnastic school where he was for several years instructed in the use of sword, bow and lance. - Habitat, Economy and Society.
 * I am confused. This Ref says "every Nayar youth". According to Sitush, it should have been "some". Robbie.Smit (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not every one of them was a ruler etc; not every one of them fought. What is so difficult to understand? The quote supports my view. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Rajkris, do you simply not understand that we are not here to decide what the Nari are, we're here to describe what the Nair have historically been described as? That's why there's no "conflict" between covering both Kshatriya and Shudra labels. Further, since we aren't making decisions, but are listing past perceptions, it is totally and absolutely immaterial whether you or Sitush or I feel that "what the Nair did sounds a lot like what a Kshatriya is". Either you are unfamiliar with WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis, or you're being deliberately obtuse because they get in the way of your POV-pushing. So which is it? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Nair have historically been described as a ruling and a military caste. See all refs given.Rajkris (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) we are not going to call the military/ruling class of nairs as Kshatriyas because it would be original research for us to do so. 2) if we are going to mention the Nayar rulers in the lead, for balance, we should also mention the profession of all nair subgroups covered in the subgroup section. any takers for this idea? --CarTick (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources? - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * that is an issue. some of the linked articles already mention their profession; i am not commenting on the reliability of those sources, i dont even know if sources exist for those claims. --CarTick (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We have provided all the refs telling that originally Nairs were rulers & warriors.Rajkris (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You have provided a reference saying that some Nairs were at one time rulers and fought battles for something or another (ownership of cattle was the most common reason for fighting back then, but the book in question doesn't mention that). I've already said that as far as I am concerned, you or anyone else can enter a statement to that effect, cited to the book which Gough co-authored. I think that you need to give it some context, though, eg: they were initially vassals of some other group, the time period involved etc. I would expect to see it in the History section, which presently needs quite a lot of work. I am currently reading around in order to fix that.


 * I don't think anyone is disputing this. The dispute centres on the lack of proof for the conceptual leap which claims they were kshatriya, in the face of very considerable evidence to the contrary, including from one of the authors of the book that I feel is ok to use.


 * My reading around, by the way, includes taking a look at the book which Robbie.Smit mentioned - I did not need to even look at it to point out the problems regarding what he was trying to use it for, but that does not mean that it is a book without merit. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your blatant misinterpretation of the sources is not surprising, as you are also threatening other editors with fake warnings and wiki policies. You want to paint that "some" Nairs "once" fought battle for "someone". The traditional duty of the Nair caste was fighting (if you know anything about caste system, then every caste in India has some traditional occupation). In Kerala, Nairs were the only ones recruited as soldiers, no other caste members had the right to be in the army. Out of the 160+ kings, almost all of them, except for three Brahmins were Nairs. Also your statement - "ownership of cattle was the most common reason for fighting back then, but the book in question doesn't mention that" shows extreme bias. I'd like to ask from where you get this idea. You are getting more and more shameless in showing off your bias. If you read Travancore Manual, the details and reasons for the battles are given there. Well, I had lost hope in you earlier also, and I'd request other editors take up the matter in ANI if they don't want to turn this page to some third rate hate-speech and propaganda filled mesh. Shannon1488 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Travancore Manual is not a reliable source - it is old and based on even older works, among other things. My comment about cattle was meant as an aside but there are modern, reliable academic sources that refer to it, one of which was provided to me only this week ([Essays on Indian history and culture). I have no problem accepting that every caste had a traditional occupation (although I have not seen much evidence to support this), but it is not proven that every caste member followed that occupation. I have no idea whether every Nair had the right to be in the army but there were certainly other castes who were in the armies.


 * I would appreciate your sources for all of your comments, please, including that three kings out of over 160 were Nairs. The book recently introduced here, co-authored by Gough, does not seem to say that & nor has any other which I have read. Have I mis-read all of them? If so many Nairs were kings then presumably they were fighting each other most of the time? Please do not forget, I am only reading the books and articles given to me by others here.


 * Finally, out of interest, did the women fight; and what did those who fought do when they were incapable of doing so any more? I presume that women made up somewhere close to 50% of the Nair population, that some Nairs would have always been unsuitable as fighters, and that others became too old/ill/injured to fight. And what did people do when they were not fighting? Yes, there were prolonged territorial wars (such as those conducted over the pearl fisheries) but I have never seen anything to indicate that everyone was fighting all of the time. I presume that they must have been being taught in kalaris by the (lower) Kaniyar caste that ran those schools? By the way, the Kaniyars had more than one "traditional" occupation".


 * I am not at all sure why you think that I hate anyone. All I am doing is following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If they upset you then why not ask for them to be changed? This can be done, you know. Alternatively, provide some policy-compliant references & "facts" instead of indulging in POV vitriol. Honestly, if all of this is so well known then it will also be well documented. So far, I have seen not a lot and most of the useful items which I have seen provided by Robbie.Smit etc have unfortunately not only disproved the points being made but proved points that you & others seem not to like. That is not my problem, it is your problem: you cannot cherry-pick the content of your sources. - Sitush (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sitush, can you read this from page 143 to 145 and tell us what do you understand ?Rajkris (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't see them, sorry. It says that they're either unavailable or I have reached the viewing limit for the book. Can't be the viewing limit issue because I've never looked at it before. However, Sir Harry Johnston died in 1927 and the book may be this one from 1913. That makes it about the same time as Thurston, which is not a good sign. I'll read it, if you can confirm the page numbers (seems to start on p 142 in the thing I can see). FWIW, if a book is available at www.archive.org, hathitrust or similar then that should always be the one referred to, rather than GBooks. They are more widely available & they are the originals, rather than some knocked-off copy that often has missing pages etc. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is this one & I confirm for the pages. Please & tell us your opinion.Rajkris (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. I'm not sure what you are expecting me to say because you know my view of these old works, ie: they are unreliable. Johnston was not even a specialist, but rather a popular writer who also wrote books on S America, W Africa etc. He does not appear to cite any sources, which means that it is not an academic book (even Thurston manages to do that). He manages to compress everything about the Nairs into 2 or 3 pages, which is plain ridiculous as they are worthy of much more than that. He says that they were warriors but is vague about it; he says that they were not kshatriyas ("practically equivalent ... [but] were really a war-like aboriginal tribe"), although they had self-promoted themselves to that status, which merely confirms what we already know. His comment about them being aboriginal seems possibly to be contrary to other stuff in the WP article that says they moved into what is now Kerala from elsewhere. He does not explain how nearly 500,000 Nairs were able to live outside towns or on their own estates. He barely touches on sambandham & the other culturally significant matters for which the group is famed. He says that they were one of the two "superior classes", together with the Brahmins, which is plain nonsense: where, for example, are the Samantans in his worldview? What are you expecting me to say? It is impossible to rely on this for anything more than the briefest of references. He simply does not provide more than a brief, glossy overview that has nothing to support it other than his own reputation for exploratory derring-do in the backwoods of just about any part of the old British Empire. - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your response was as expected. You like References only which a particular set of users feed you.
 * He does not explain how nearly 500,000 Nairs were able to live outside towns or on their own estates - Slavery was outlawed in Kerala only during the 1830s, and most of the Nairs owned slaves. Even if they didn't owned any slaves, it doesn't mean that they can't survive on their own.
 * He barely touches on sambandham & the other culturally significant matters for which the group is famed- Sambandam and other things are used by a lot of people to defame the Nair community. But that doesn't mean that they deserve 50% of the space in the Nair article.
 * He says that they were one of the two superior classes - Is this so difficult to understand? There are only two groups of upper caste people in Kerala. Brahmins and Nairs. Samantans are a small subdivision of the Nairs and not many people treat them as a separate subcaste. William Logan in Malabar Manual has written in quite some detail about this and you can also refer the court case against Logan in this regard (Even the term Samantan was first used during the 1850s and last used during the 1920s in general Malayalam usage).
 * One more thing. I stopped editing caste articles almost a year ago. I am here just because I have heard that an organized set of people have successfully elbowed out their opposition through unfair means.  Axxn (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, there is no "organised set" of people here; you're referring to several of us as an "organised set" simply because we all three are applying WP standards, which is the only real commonality we have. We don't accuse everyone disagreeing with us as being some conspiracy, so please extend the same courtesy. Additionally, your use of the word "defame" is telling; so covering an extensively-documented practice is "defaming" simply because you don't like it being talked about? And your idea of restoring balance is to cherry-pick references to build up the best possible image of a group, including pretty clear synthesis/OR making logical leaps not supported by reliable references? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You expect courtesy after all this? Your only significant contribution so far to Wikipedia is adding the derogatory slang Sudra to almost all high caste articles. You people have turned this article to a piece of propaganda with hardly any factual accuracy. If someone from India reads this article (I mean someone neutral), he will find it difficult to control his laughter. If anyone is cherry-picking the references, it is you. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the fact that I've done massive work on WP ethnomusicology, Afghan tribal systems (Pashtun, Hazara, Aimaq), technical firearm articles, Shia Islam, etc (are none of these "significant"?), my addition of "Shudra" to "high caste" articles has been in every single case properly-cited. My intent has not been to "defame" anyone, but to balance out articles which are grievously biased in favour of "glorious history" and Kshatriya claims, when (especially in cases like Kurmi, Kunbi, etc) 20th century academic sources explicitly trace political attempts by these castes to re-define themselves in the modern era. These are pages about castes, not pages for castes, so it's certainly a glaring ommission to spend most of an article giving legends about divine descent, give no mention of Brahmin's clearly categorising them as Shudra, and then not mention 20th century attempts of newly-powerful agricultural castes to re-write their histories. That's why I dropped in to help at Nair, the article simply has way too many vaguely-sourced assertions of awesomeness, and tip-toed around or ignored any past practices that modern Nairs may be embarassed about regardless of how well-documented. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Anand, seeing your edits in other areas in wikipedia, you come across as a smart guy. hence, i am surprised that you dont see the difference between acadmic work by Fuller compared to the reference we are talking about in this thread. In the case of Fuller, he has dedicated the entire article/book for the Nair group, he has done extensive research and discussed everything in context. On the other hand, the book The Great Pioneer in India, Ceylon, Bhutan & Tibet's main focus is not Nair at all. so, the author, as Sitush points out, hasnt done any extensive research on this particular topic, but rather superficially collected information from reliable/unreliable sources that fit the central narrative of his book. see, there is a huge difference between the two. the main job of us, wikipedia editors, is to go through many different sources and then decide which sources and information are reliable. if the job is just to include everything that has ever been written about a topic, a cleverly designed bot might do just that. why are we here? --CarTick (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You cherry-pick one or two sources which support your view. Then you misinterpret that source to suit your view even more. This is what happened with Fuller. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Fuller article was brought to my attention by Robbie.Smit, as is noted here around the time that he did so. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah and he added something in the lead from that source also. You removed his addition and added something which was exactly the opposite of what Fuller said. Shannon1488 (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I used the same sentence but with the correct context. And since Robbie.Smit provided the source I am not sure how this fits into your worldview that an alleged gang of people are only using their own sources - RS is not one of those I think you would include in that alleged gang. You also haven't explained why such a naughty gang would have used a Nair writer for balance. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sambandham was covered by Panikkar, who apparently was himself a Nair. His views are included in the article. I'm not ecstatic about his writings purely because of the age factor, but he does tick most of the boxes: it is a critique, it is well written, it of reasonable length to demonstrate "depth" of coverage etc. And including an "insider's" view which matches those basic criteria allows us to provide balance. I believe that you can thank CarTick for doing most of the Panikkar stuff. Odd, that, if you are insistent that CarTick is anti-Nair, he has provided the Nair's own counterpoint to the discussion about sambandham. To me, that demonstrates neutrality.


 * Slavery is not something I mentioned. I said that he did not explain how 500,000 Nairs were able to live outside towns or on their own estates. It is nothing to do with slavery, but rather geography and demographics. That is a lot of people living in small communities dotted around a region. He doesn't name any of the towns, let alone any of the Nair-populated areas, which is odd. Presumably 150,000 or more of them (the adult males, my very rough maths) were in armies, since Johnston gives no dates for what he describes. That was quite some army/armies. Johnston explains none of this, but any critical thought process would be asking these sort of questions and supplying answers to them. His is a "boy's own" book, sorry. I don't know what anyone else thinks here but I, for one, would be reluctant to introduce information based on such a source.


 * If people actually helped to expand the article where it needs doing, eg: answer my question above about serpent groves etc, then there proportion devoted to sambandham etc would be less, would it not? - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are acting in a such biased manner and want us to provide you links for serpent groves? Right now the article is 99% inaccurate. Let it remain so. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, my bias is towards creating a good article. I think your figure of 99% is excessive but there certainly are large chunks which are inaccurate. They are the ones connected with Early History, Etymology, Nair Brigade etc, all of which have citation requests. Given that this is an active talk page, I propose that on 1 July 2011 we delete all items still containing a cite request from May 2011 or earlier - the requests should have been fulfilled by then and, if not, then the statements cannot stand. Of course, that will leave it with even more emphasis on what someone called defamatory material. Tough, because no-one can say that some of us did not try. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then go ahead and delete those sections. No one will provide you anything. You have again and again proved that your intentions are something else. This article can be saved only after you stop your editing. Shannon1488 (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm. Ypu speak for the entire world, do you? I'll wait, thanks, because I have a little more faith & am also doing some reading of my own using books recommended to me by Rajkris both here and at another article. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets say that I speak for those who have a good knowledge of Indian caste system, rather than those who don't have any practical knowledge about the subject. And I will me more than glad to hear Rajkris's response, after you turn down the sources provide by him also. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you propose to "save" this article, at whatever point Sitush falls off the planet? Might I surmise that to "save" this article you intend to remove large portions of fully-cited text (particularly those that you feel reflect negatively on the Nair, or which do not look "proper" to modern morals), and to introduce "everybody knows this" text which you feel require no citation, and also happen to illustrate how outstanding and special the Nair are, and require no citation? If your intent differs from this, I'd be very curious to hear it. In all seriousness, if you want to start working on a draft of a post-Sitush Nair article on your userspace, I for one would be interested in seeing how your interpretation of the Nair issue differs. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'd rather ignore you. You are the one who bombarded the article with the Sudra term even when the discussion was going on. You show no respect to fellow editors and you still expect others to respect you. You are the one who personally attacked Anandks007 (using double meaning words referring to his surname so he couldn't understand, which I immediately put to his attention), Riyaaz.Pookkoya and many other users active here and still complained that you are at the receiving end. Let Sitush delete whatever he doesn't like. I will wait untill someone neutral like Rajkris or Manorathan comes here. It will encourage others to speak out, knowing doing so is not a waste of time. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A), I did not "attack" anyone. B) What are you describing as "neutral"? How is it neutral to leave out polyandry, how is it neutral to insist on retaining text that cannot be substantiated with citations? How is it neutral to remove properly-cited text, ignoring the credibility of the source, while making no attempt to add citations disproving it? The other editors you mention have brought some good references to the table, but they have also had POV issues in applying wishful-thinking OR to quotes which in fact say quite different things. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Shannon summarized the situation very well. No one is asking your trio to leave out polyandry and such things. What we asked you is to give equal importance to other things as well (Things for which the Nairs are actually famous for). We were the ones who posted "properly-cited texts" and added good citations. But you specifically picked one or two of the points out of a hundred plus and modified it in such a manner that it lost the original meaning. Each and everyone outside your trio has agreed to the fact that you are the ones who are having POV issues and OR. And you stand out of the three in creating such a bad taste around here, as Shannon pointed out. It is useless to argue with you people who came here with predetermined aims. I will also wait untill someone neutral appears here. Robbie.Smit (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In the middle of all these, let us not forget Robbie.Smit's account was created specifically for this discussion and Riyaz Pookoya's account has hardly any edits outside this debate and Shannon has never edited on anything unrelated to Nair. --CarTick (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And you are being accused of being anti-Kshatriya by more than 25 people (here and at Tamil Kshatriya). Your only serious edits are in caste articles. That means there is not much difference in our patterns. Shannon1488 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cartick, I may be having very few edits in Wiki. But so far no one has accused me of bias. That is the difference between me and you. I don't have any intention to degrade or abuse anyone. I am proud of my ancestry and I can trace my lineage for many many centuries starting from Hadrami Arabs of Yemen who migrated to Kerala. You are probably a Christian Dalit convert who dumped his religion because you have no pride in your heritage. If you want to win a debate, argue about the facts presented in that debate. Accusing other editors of incompetency will do you no good. (By the way, two editors have already pointed out that you people doesn't even know the meaning of the word Kshatriya and Sudra, a very basic thing in caste hierarchy). No wonder your friend edited that the Shaikhs are Ahir converts. You want to say that all Muslim aristocrats are descendants of cowherds? Do you know how silly your claims are? Riyaz.Pookoya (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please list these people. I cannot get anywhere near your figure. And regardless of what CarTick does, my edits extend well beyond caste articles. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I for one am trying to give equal weight to other things; CarTick has done so also and has provided some balancing opinions from Panikkar etc; MV appears to be doing a little work round the Nair Brigade area. It is a difficult task in part due to the non-collaborative spirit of people here who say that they know a lot about the subject. I think that the project as a whole would love some help fixing all of the cite requests, for example. One outcome of this would be that the proportion of the article devoted to the recently expanded areas would fall. I can do it myself, but it is a long haul. If you check out Paravar then you will see what happens when I strip down an article about a caste and start over. Something similar is likely to happen here. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)