Talk:Nair/Archive 16

Cite for Nairs being Nagavanshi Kshatriya? Comments on Nair military and snake worship footnoting

 * Nairs are known as the Nagavanshi Kshatriya clan of Ananta and Vasuki descent.

I've tried searching for this under all variant spellings on gBooks, finding nothing. Can anyone find us a good cite? I am not thrilled that multiple citations of Shudra status in the Brahmanical system have been removed despite copious footnoting (and I've run across plenty more in other searches), and yet we're including this claim in the lede and infobox with zero citation. All must assuredly agree this is not a fair way to approach neutralising the article.

That aside, I've been adding cites on the Nair military history; I would submit we should re-title the section "Military history" vice "Nair brigade", as the scope of the section is becoming much larger than that, and we can probably find good cites for Nair military history back to the 15th century and fighting the Portuguese. Also been adding cites on snake worship, though I can't find anything as explicit as the "nearly 90%", so does anyone object to removing that and replacing it with fully-cited quotes on general prelavence of snake temples? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Retitling & serpent stuff: do it. The Nair Brigade article itself needs an overhaul but let's have something right somewhere about this caste before tackling too much other stuff . I am wilting! You've done well with the cites this last hour or so.


 * I could not find the Ananta/Vasuki stuff either. I suspect that it comes from the ancient texts, so it may exist in a commentary on them. However, since the ancient texts are plain wrong there is no harm in removing this cruft. It can always be expanded on under the "Mythology" subsection I created, which is going to start with a critique of those texts anyway. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Done, and continuing to expand MilHist. I can't access Commons right now, but if anyone wants to add any pics from this site that's be awesome. They're unfortunately low-res, but we can always replace them if we find better scans. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There are four citations attached to the sentence "Nairs dominated the civil, administrative and military elite of the pre-British era in Kerala." I cannot see any of the sources which are cited and, more important, the sentence seems to me to be both very bland & suspiciously overcited (suggesting that it might be synthesis). As it is written, "pre-British era" means anything before the late 1700s, which is a long time and plainly was not true during the Chera dynasty. I just strikes me as being a bit POV-vy but, obviously, I cannot really prove this one way or another because I cannot check the citations provided. Furthermore, it looked out of place in the section even before my recent edits to it; it now looks only slightly less out of place, a non sequitor of sorts. I am not sure how to handle this. - Sitush (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

varna
does the varna "status" of south indian castes require such early mention in the lead as there is some level of ambiguity. 1) A Handbook for India: Madras By John Murray (Firm), Edward B. Eastwick

2) Religion and social conflict in South Asia By Bardwell L. Smith

3) Modernization and effeminization in India: Kerala cashew workers since 1930 By Anna Lindberg, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies

4) Will I Be Killed: For Writing the Following Contents By Ahamkaari Will I Be Killed: For Writing the Following Contents By Ahamkaari

while i will wait for comments about the reliability of these sources — if they are reliable — their existence draws a murky picture of the varna status of nairs. in this case, the nuances are best discussed in the article body and an accurate representative sentence be mentioned in the lead, if necessary. --CarTick (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply
So you are again here with this issue. This issue has been discussed a lot earlier and it was decided that the varna status was not clear and it would be best to leave it as it is. Nambuthiris of Kerala treated everyone (who is not a Nambuthiri) as Sudra. Even other Brahmins were treated as Sudra. Take a look at these sources also:


 * - But this land of Nambudri Brahmins and Nair (Nagara) Kshatriyas sent out a religious invasion under Sankara which subjugated the whole of India. The history of Kerala goes hack to the days of the Mahabharatha and the Ramayana.


 * I can only see a snippet view. It mentions Naga. It is published by Gyan, a notoriously unreliable publishing house whose works have been questioned both as reliable sources and as unattributed mirrors of WP content. This book appears to be a reprint of something much older. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Tyagi's Martial races is probably one of the most quoted Gyan books on en-WP, and is known to be a collection of huge copyvios - remove on sight. I have just found a new one (to me) that can be added to the list - Caste System in India: a historical perspective contains unacknowledged huge chunks (as in many consecutive pages) from earlier books, including Iyer's The Mysore Tribes & Castes (p. 153, in this specific example). The author of the newer book thanks his/her  university teachers etc for their reviews/encouragement/input/bleurgh. It makes me despair of the entire academic system, and I'll have to be very careful now if those teachers' names appear in other books (although, of course, their names mayu just have been tagged on to this one to give it a sense of veracity). - Sitush (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - The Nairs are included in the Kshatriya class (soldiers) and the castes below Nairs are considered to lower caste such as the Ezhava and untouchables.


 * This is a novel, a work of fiction. It says so on the cover! - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - In the southern parts of the peninsula, the Nairs (a species of country nobility rather than a distinct tribe) are considered to belong to the warrior caste. Whether they are the dispersed remnants of the old Kshatriyas, is not yet sufficiently ascertained.


 * The very quote you provide says that the author is uncertain regarding kshatriya status - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - None of these people, except possibly the Nairs of Kerala and the Rajus of Andhra, have been viewed by some as Kshatriya


 * The very quote you provide says that the author is uncertain regarding kshatriya status - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - Nairs of Malabar enjoyed social power similar to that claimed by Kshatriyas of the North.


 * "Similar to" is not good enough. They either are or are not. The article already covers "similar to". - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - The Nairs of Kerala, Mudaliars of Tamilnad, Reddys of Andhra are low castes only in the sense of sacred thread, but for all practical purposes they are equal to the Kshatriya.


 * "For all practical purposes" is not the same as "are"/"were". The article already covers this issue. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - Mention is made also of an expedition into Malabar to assist the Kshatriya rulers, the Nairs, against an insurrection of the natives.


 * Article published in 1855. Forget it. Too old. Thurston etc are dubious & they are 50 years later. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - The Bhataraka was probably his father-in-law, and the Kshatriyas (the Nairs) against whom the aboriginal Malabarians had revolted.


 * Article published in 1880. Forget it. Too old. Thurston etc are dubious & they are 30 years later. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - Nair or Menon caste are considered equivalent to Kshatriya or the warrior caste.


 * "Considered equivalent" is not the same as saying that they "were". - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - The war-like Nairs once lorded over the famous state, Kerala. They were of Kshatriya blood, possessed of all the attributes suggested by the name.


 * Translation of an earlier autobiography. I would need to ascertain the date of the original Malayam book & also the impartiality + credentials (or otherwise) of the writer. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - The Kshatriya or soldier caste is practically identical with the Rajputs of North Central India, and the Nairs of the south. Outside the three " twice- born castes, the whole of the mass of the Indian people were classed as Sudras.


 * Same thing again - it is saying that there is an equivalence, not that they were kshatriya. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - The warrior caste, the Nairs, who claimed to be the equivalent of the Kshatriyas in other parts of India now came into being. Racially they were half Aryan.


 * This says that Nairs claimed to be the equivalent. Article already covers this. - Sitush (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - One of the theories propagated about the origin of Paramaras gives notable clues about the relation that sustained Nambutiri (Brahmans) and Nayar (Kshatriya) in Kerala. According to the theory


 * Snippet view only here - no context. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - After the decline of Perumal rule in Kerala, the Nayar Kshatriya rulers became powerful.


 * Is a short book on dances really a good source for a claim to kshatriya status? In any event, it is vague. "Nayar Kshatriya rulers" might just mean an extremely small number (the royal families of Cochin etc, for example) or it might mean every Nair. It is impossible to determine from this source, whereas the article is moving towards a much fuller, much more precise documentation of the situation. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - This is because for a long period, the Nambuthiri (Brahmin) and the Nair (Kshatriya) communities would begin their education with Sanskrit and would continue their studies in Sanskrit.


 * Snippet view only here. The book appears to be about the development of language and there is no real context to determine how much discussion of the Nair status occurs. It could be a throw-away line or it could be something more substantial. It would need to be the latter. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - in the presence of a Namboodiri (Brahmin) an Ezhava ( an untouchable ) had to stand 36 feet away and in the presence of a Nair (Kshatriya) he


 * Snippet view only. Ditto. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - Inheritance


 * This book quite clearly differentiates between Nair and Kshatriya (see the table for inherited status) - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - "A Nayar or Kshatriya bridegroom holds a drawn sword in his right hand. This procession is considered to be the most spectacular of the entire function."


 * Yes, a Nair or kshatriya ... - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nayar (Malayalam-speaking caste claiming Kshatriya status)


 * "Claiming" is not the same as being. The article already discusses this. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Only the Nair (Kshatriya) community and it's subcastes practised matriarchy in Kerala.


 * Snippet view only. Looks to be a newspaper or magazine, so it may be a book review? - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - Of the Kshatriyas we find but a few who lay claim to the honours of that caste ; and here I may observe, that it is general throughout India for the different castes of fighting Shudras, whose peculiar dharma or religions duty it is to engage in war and plunder, to call themselves Kshatriyas, although, according to Hindoo history, all that race was annihilated by divine wrath. The Nair of Malabar, who is notoriously of servile caste, will describe himself and his ancestors as belonging to the royal or fighting division; wears the Janeo or thread of the twice born, and demeans himself accordingly.


 * 1855 work, and I am not prepared to rely on it for that reason. The issue has been covered in much more recent times and by people with peer-reviewed authority. - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - Within South India, It was only in Kerala that there emerged warrior lineages approximate to the Kshatriya model. Nayar ' Kshatriya-hood ' was thus based on special ecological conditions within the south Indian macro-region.


 * "Approximate to" is not the same as "are" or "were". - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - One of the theories propagated about the origin of Paramaras gives notable clues about the relation that sustained Nambutiri (Brahmins) and Nayar (Kshatriya) in Kerala.


 * Snippet view only here. No context. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - The Chera Kings the first known rulers of Kerala, were by origin of Nayar


 * Snippet view only. Written by what seems to be a Nair. The quoted bit makes no sense me me. What does "by origin of Nayar" mean? I had already requested a copy of page 22 of this work due to an apparent inconsistency, and this quote is not helping matters at all. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - "Chera, Chola and Pandya, who were descendants of the fire, the sun and the moon respectively.


 * Chera, Chola etc - forget it. No-one knows enough about them, except by use of Sangam etc. And Sangam etc are considered by modern scholars to be unreliable sources for historical points. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - The Nayar caste took the place of the Kshatriyas


 * "Took the place", yes. If you read the entire paragraph it says that kshatriyas did not exist but Nayars were their equivalent, although the local Brahmins considered them to be shudra. It doesn't advance the article one iota. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * - The historical household unit among the Nayar of the Kshatriya caste in South-West India.


 * - Nair (Kerala Kshatriya caste)


 * - The annual arattu - Taking the image of god for a final purifying bath in a procession headed by his majesty with his Nair (Kshatriya) officers with drawn swords must have been an awe-inspiring sight


 * / - for after mentioning an expedition of his into Malabar to aid the Kshatriya (Nair) rulers, against the rebellious natives of the province.


 * - All this was done by Nair Kshatriyas under orders of Adiyodi. This chamber is called the Aryan Smoke Chamber.


 * - But the bulk of those who carried on the Kshatriya profession (ie warfare) were drawn from the Nair caste.


 * - Nayar is the caste corresponding to the Kshatriyas, second in importance to the Brahmans. At present, Nair or Nayar is a title added to nearly all the names of the race, and it is, like Mister or Esquire, assumed as a birthright by any.


 * - Gen. Candeth was very proud of his ancestry. "I am a Nair from Kerala. I am a Kshatriya", he had told this reporter at the time of the interview.


 * - The Kshatriya, or military class is said by the Brahmins to be extinct. But the Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan in all probability belong to this class.


 * - Specifically, the Jews adapted the religious behaviours and symbol complexes of two significant Hindu reference groups: the dominant Nayar caste (particularly the local royal family) and, from a distance, the Nambudiris, the highest brahmin caste of Kerala.


 * - The Reddys of Andhra, the Vellalas of Tamil Nadu, and the Nayars of Malabar never accepted the four-fold division. Also, they enjoyed as communities social power similar to that claimed by the Kshatriyas.


 * - his very boyhood, because divine Brahmanic qualities filled his veins, though the people of his caste in Kerala are noted for their Kshatriya spirit.


 * - Warriors of Kerala in historical times were the Nairs, who, by occupation combined the functions of Kshatriyas with those of the Vaisyas.


 * - For many reasons, the Kshatriyas and the Nayars are not different castes.


 * - The ethnology of the Nayars is as interesting as their sociology. They claim to be Kshatriyas by caste.


 * - The Nayars are treated as Kshatriyas.


 * - Perhaps most of the Kshatriyas are Samantans belonging to high caste Nayars.


 * - In Malabar warrior lineages did emerge and ruled over larger territorial units; these were the Nayars, who, if not as Shudras, were regarded as Kshatriyas.


 * - The Nayars form the bulk of the Hindu population of Malabar, and they are considered as de-casted Kshatriyas.


 * - The Nayars, members of the Kshatriya or warrior caste, ruled all those regions for many centuries under various kings and priests.


 * - The Nayars, however, are primarily a military caste. Though they have become greatly mixed in recent times, and they are said to be regarded as Kshatriyas.


 * - It further relates that the original Newars were drawn from the Nayars and were Brahma-Kshatriya.


 * - For instance, apart from the Nayars of Kerala the Kshatriya or warrior order is virtually nonexistent in the South.


 * - The Nayars traditionally performed Kshatriya and Vaishya functions.


 * - Groups such as the Nayars, whose activities as rulers and professional warriors would normally equate them with the Kshatriya.......


 * - The Nayars (traditional warriors) followed Marumakkathayam.


 * - The Nayars are Malayalam speaking people, and may be described as the Kshatriyas or fighting clans of Southern India.


 * - JC Locke, in his The First Englishmen in India describes the Nairs as the polyandrous warrior race of Malabar. They correspond to the Kshatriyas of the rest of India.


 * - Social status of the Nairs (Kshatriyas) in Malabar society at that time...


 * - Nairs (Kshatriyas).


 * - Kshatriyas and Samantans were originally Nairs


 * - The Nairs were given a dominant position in the caste hierarchy and were functionally equated with the Kshatriyas.


 * - and Kshatriya Nairs of Kerala.


 * - Among them, until recently, only the eldest son was allowed to take a wife from his own caste (the others had to marry Nairs who are Kshatriyas and their......).


 * - Kshatriya: Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan belong to this class.


 * - Se trouvait flatté du rapprochement, puisque les Nairs, en dépit de leurs pratiques irrégulières, sont rangés comme Ksatriyas parmi les castes nobles.


 * - The Nairs (or Nayars), a twice-born caste that constitutes some 15 per cent of the Hindu population in the state, was once a warrior community practising.....


 * - Stranieri sono anche i rappresentanti della casta ksatriya, pochissimi di numero anche al tempo in cui il Papi scrive; i Nayar, di casta simile alla loro ma.....


 * - Kerala ritual, which he calls the "sorcery," "martial," and "priestly" complexes, corresponding to three caste divisions (Sudra, Ksatriya/ Nayar, and Brahmin).


 * - dasarkan kasta adalah kasta Ksatria Nayar yang bersifat matrilineal di Kerala (Gough,1961).


 * - Kalarippayattu is traditionally associated with the Nayar caste, which corresponds, in Kerala, to the Ksatriya military caste of the classical Indian tradition.


 * - Among the Nambutiri, the predominant Brahman caste on the Malabar coast, any unfaithful wife, whether upper or lower class, was poisoned to death (Lach, 1968: 361). Among the Kshatriya (warrior) class, the Nayar caste was predominant on the Malabar coast. Nayar males were "not permitted to marry, rear families........


 * - In the arid hill country which is now known as Rajastan, powerful lords and their arms bearing retainers had been calling themselves Rajputs. These people's closest counterparts elsewhere were the users of the south Indian designations Nayar and Nayaka


 * - For example, Nairs are not considered by him as shudras. But there is a line of pollution, and Nairs are much above this line.


 * - Dames writes that the Nairs are " classed as Sudras, whereas their real analogy is with the Kshatriyas of ancient, and the Rajputs of modern days.


 * - The Nairs had enjoyed throughout Kerala, the status of Kshatriyas.


 * - The Rajpoots and Nairs in the Deccan are supposed to belong to the Kshatriya. If the class be extinct, as the Brahmins allege, this may be owing to the peaceful character of the people, their freedom from foreign invasion, and the commercial habits which characterise the Hindoo.


 * - Nairs took the place of Kshatriyas.


 * - Nairs, who as the warriors of the country, should by analogy be called Kshatriyas rather than Sudras — a curious revelation ascribed to Parasu Rama.


 * - Nairs who, being given the function of defence, became analogous to Kshatriyas.


 * - The Nairs are also the martial race, like the Kshatriya castes of northern India.


 * - Kshatriya, or military class, is said by the Brahmans to have become extinct; but the Rajpoots and the Nairs in all probability belong to this class.


 * - As few Kshatriyas came from the North, the Nair chieftains took the place of the Kshatriyas, and with their great grit and adaptability a remarkable military system was established in Kerala under the lead of the Nairs.


 * - Nairs, en dépit de leurs pratiques irrégulières, sont rangés comme Ksatriyas.


 * - Nayars were members of the warrior or Kshatriya caste, the second highest caste of Indian society. Nayar men trained as professional soldiers.


 * - Their enactment are neither documentary records of the ruler-warrior (ksatriya) caste (Nayars) nor the fantasies of poets writing in isolation.


 * - The Nayars, though Kshatriyas by profession in earlier days....


 * - It was needful that there should be a protector or Kshatriya caste ; so they promoted the ruling race to this distinction, and called them Nayars.


 * - Brahmans have mating relations with the female members of the matrilineal Kshatriya Nayars.


 * - Themselves tenants of chiefly Nayars (Samantan or Kshatriya Nayars).


 * - Others held 12 year kanam lease from those (Nambuthiris or Kshatriya Nayars) with a superior title to land.


 * - à celle des Ksatriya (Nayar).


 * - Varadpande points out an intriguing parallel with the present day Kutiyattam performers, the Cakyars, who claim their descent from the ancient sutas and are historically the children of the union of Brahman Nambudiris and Kshatriya Nairs of Kerala.


 * - The Nayar caste took the place of the Kshatriyas.


 * - It was the Prince of Kottarakara, from a Nayar ruling family in the south of Kerala, who produced.......


 * / - The two dominant castes—Namboodiris (Brahmins or the priestly caste) and Nairs (Kshatriyas or the aristocratic caste)—stood at the apex of the system of customary obligations and rights, and together they appropriated the largest share of the cultivator's product.


 * - He mentions how various peasant castes like the marathas, reddis, vellalas, nayars, and coorgs were able to claim kshatriya status in the Deccan and in south India.


 * - The Nayar are traditionally a warrior caste.


 * / - Dr. Gundert defines the Nayars as the Sudras of Kerala, raised to the rank of Kshatriyas by their intimate connection with the Brahmans.


 * - The military aristocracy of the Nayars, confined to the coast of Malabar, is founded on polyandry.


 * - Their persecution by the Maravar (warrior caste of the southeast) and the Nayar (warrior caste of the southwest) was itself proof that the Shanar were a conquered race of early Tamil royalty.
 * - In the Apartheid Andhrite Vijayanagar varna system, a semi-Aryan Nair warrior would shoot a Dravidian Sudra Negro at sight.


 * - They are considered generally as a Dravidian variety of the Aryan Kshatriyas.


 * - These were historically the monopoly of certain savarna (upper caste) Hindus with distinct ‘middle class’ orientation and cultural values, and who benefited from early access to western education. Among them are the Brahmins, Khatris, Kayasthas, the Bengali bhadralok, Nairs, etc. For simplicity’s sake, we may label them ‘Brahmin-plus’ communities as opposed to the Vaishya-plus Old Guard. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is probably the 10th time Cartick is targeting this article. If there is any personal vendetta against any particular caste, this is not the place to do it. Now what happened a few months ago will start again. Everyone's time will be wasted. Varna sttaus for every caste in Kerala is disputed because of the uniqueness in Nambuthiri classification. That is why it was not included in the lead. And why should it be included in the lead? No one in Kerala think it is important. 99% even don't know what is varna. Varna was never important in Kerala caste system. I strongly oppose any intent to change the article. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * one could argue that two sentences in the lead — 1)Nair (/ˈnɑː.jər/), also known as Nayar (Malayalam: നായര്‍ Nāyar [naːjər])[12] or Malayala Kshatriya and 2) Nairs are known as the nagavanshi Kshatriya clan of Ananta and Vasuki descendence. — imply indirectly that Nairs are Kshatriyas. This is misleading to readers as there is evidence from literature — the ones i have posted above — that regards nairs as Shudras. In lot of the references given by Shannon, he makes the case Nairs were Kshatriyas because they were soldiers or because they did what were expected of kshatriyas which is WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis and not acceptable in wikipedia. for example, your reference 38 says The Reddys of Andhra, the Vellalas of Tamil Nadu, and the Nayars of Malabar never accepted the four-fold division. Also, they enjoyed as communities social power similar to that claimed by the Kshatriyas. — it does not say Nairs were Kshatriyas; it only says they enjoyed social status similar to Kshatriyas. 99 says The military aristocracy of the Nayars, confined to the coast of Malabar, is founded on polyandry. — it doesnt say they are kshatriyas. there are indeed references that attest to your argument that nairs are kshatriyas, though i couldnt verify them independently myself. nevertheless, the point is that the characterization of Nairs as malayala kshatriyas in bold in the first sentence of the lead while a number of evidences say they are Shudras is either wrong or minimally WP:Undue for the lead.
 * In summary, references to both that nairs were kshatryas and shudras should be discussed in the body of the article and an appropriate neutral sentence should then be added to the lead. the word Kshatriya is mentioned atleast 7 times in the article and the article itself is classified as a kshatriya community in addition to a Template:Kshatriya Communities at the bottom. thus, not mentioning Shudras is violation of WP:Neutral point of view policy. --CarTick (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More than 100 references are posted above which states Nairs as Kshatriyas. And the name Malayala Kshatriya is used widely in Kerala and is given in Shabdataravali, the fist offcial lexicon of Malayalam language. If Nairs are not Kshatriya, then there will be no Kshatriyas in India, as can be seen here. "The Kshatriya or soldier caste is practically identical with the Rajputs of North Central India, and the Nairs of the south. Outside the three twice- born castes, the whole of the mass of the Indian people were classed as Sudras." I don't see any OR or Synthesis here. So I request you to cast aside your prejudices and take a neutral stand. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am confused. Cartick talks about WP:Neutral point of view policy. Is this applicable only to this article? A link posted by S1488 above states:"The Kshatriya, or military class is said by the Brahmins to be extinct. But the Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan in all probability belong to this class." Cartick says for Neutrality we should take Nairs as Sudra. But why this is not applicable to Rajputs, who are also mentioned here. Then there will be no Kshatriyas in India and Cartick will be happy. And we should check the neutrality of the article about Cartick's caste. Everyone knows that Nadars were treated as untouchable even by the Sudra castes of TN (like Maravars and Kallars). They were not even allowed to enter temples (1899 riots was a result). These facts find no mention in the Nadar article. So my question is whether WP:Neutral point of view applicable only here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbie.Smit (talk • contribs) 03:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the Brahmins believe that Vedic Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are extinct. So they regard all other castes as Sudra (which itself is a derogatory word. Sudra in Sanskrit means "cheap", "impure" or "unclean"). "he makes the case Nairs were Kshatriyas because they were soldiers or because they did what were expected of kshatriyas which is WP:Original research" - This statement is utter nonsense as I don't see anywhere in the references stating so. Look at refs - 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 26.etc Nair is the highest ranking caste in most regions of Kerala (Nambuthiris are concentrated in a few pockets). Calling them Sudra does not make any sense. Then regarding the 5 references to Kshatriya in the article. They doesn't deal with varna. They either deal with alternate naming or descent. First one is that they are also known as Malayala Kshatriya, which is true. As noted above this is the reference given in Shabdatharavali, the first lexicon of Malayalam language (and still considered as the ultimate reference for Malayalam language). Second is "Nairs are known as the nagavanshi Kshatriya clan of Ananta and Vasuki descendence" - No reference given for this. Third is "After the war, they encountered Paraśurāma, who vowed to exterminate the Nāgas since they were Kshatriya" - This is a well known myth which can be referenced from a large number of reliable sources. Fourth - "Mythology apart, Nairs are thought to be the descendants of Nagavanshi Kshatriyas, who migrated to Kerala from further North" - Ref given. Fifth - "Grama Padhati of Tulu Brahmins describes the Nairs of Kerala and the similarly matrilineal Bunts of Tulu Nadu as descendants of Kshatriyas who accompanied the Brahmins to Kerala and Tulu Nadu respectively from Ahichatra in northern Panchala." - Referenced and deals more with Bunts rather than Nairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.159.70 (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I am against individual attacks. But after seeing Cartick's edit history in this article, it is getting very difficult to assume good faith. I am forced to believe that he is having some sort of personal agenda. The points noted down by him: Inclusion in Kshatriya template and Malayala Kshatriya grouping. A large number of castes are included in the Kshatriya template, although as pointed above only Nairs and Rajputs have absolute authority to this claim. All these refs are taken from well known neutral sources. In many of them Nairs are given as an example of Kshatriya community. Take a look at Ref4 - It states that Nairs are the only Kshatriya community in South India. Ref 11 is even more up to the point. It states that the Kshatriya caste is identical with the Nair caste. Ref 22 is also similar to Ref 4. Ref 36 states that Nairs along with Rajputs are the only Kshatriyas left. Ref 62 also states the same. Ref 70 also states that Nairs are one of the only two castes of Kshatriyas in India. Ref 74 also states the same. How is it possible to exclude Nair from the Kshatriya template after all these facts? Your main weapon is the fact that a section of Brahmins believe that Vedic Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are extinct. Therefore they see all non-Brahmins as Sudras. But this is not applicable to just Nairs. This is applicable to all caste-Hindus who can be called "Sudras" by the Brahmins and all untouchable castes (including Cartick's own caste) who can be called "Ati-Sudras" (extreme polluted or Dalit). The term Sudra therefore, can be used only according to the definition in Manusmriti, rather than in diverging Brahmin classifications. According to Manusmiriti a Sudra is someone who works as a servant or as a slave to twice-born castes. Brahmins are the ones who do priestly duties. Kshatriyas are the ones who rules the land or serve in the army. Vaishyas are the ones who trade goods or indulges in farming. And Ati-Sudras or untouchables are the ones who are outside Hinduism. You yourself can decide which of these labels will be best suited for the Nairs after going through this: "In these kingdoms of Malabar there is another sect of people called Nairs, who are the gentry, and have no other duty than to carry on war". This varna classification is quite complex and that is why we decided to keep it away. Shannon1488 (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Bhagavd gita says Chathurvarnyam maya srushtam gunakarma vibhagasha Means that the varna is decided by ones guna(three gunas sathva rajas and thamasdepending on ones character and also ones action). Nairs definitely were the warriors and they come under kshatriyas. And sudra means a worried person. In sanskrit the word sudra originate from the word shuk' meaning sorrow. Manusmrithi says

Shoodro brahmanathaamethi brahmanashchaithi soodrathaam kshatriyaajjathamevanthu vidyaadvaishyathadaiva cha

Means "Soodra also is brahmin; brahmin is also soodra; Same can be thought of about kshatriyas and vaisyas"

Even manusmrithi says like this. So there is no need of any dispute over varna. Varna is a term denoting an individualistic quality. All the our varnas will be seen in every human. Nair clans were the warriors and they had more rajoguna compared to others. Their valor accounts for the kshatriya title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malayalakshatriya (talk • contribs) 08:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

random break
i am going to assume i am just talking to two persons as all except Shannon and CM, i believe, are single purpose accounts that exist solely for the purpose of defending this article to death or current account holders who just doesnt have the guts to talk openly, so just logged out to sneak in a comment or past banned accounts.

the problem is that you guys dont even read and try to understand what others write. i never said references dont exist that claim nairs are kshatriyas. i never said kshatriya claims should be removed from the article. all i said is that references to to shudra status ALSO exist and thus, should be included. according to WP:Neutral point of view, when multiple viewpoints about one topic exist in literature, all of them should be discussed in the article; omitting one is violation of that policy. In this case, two view points exist in literature: some claiming nairs are Kshatriyas and some claiming nairs are shudras; but the article mentions only viewpoint. get it now? if you guys have difficulty understanding what wp is or wp policies and how it applies to articles, please feel free to ask me or others. --CarTick (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is quite complex. You are saying that "Shudra status ALSO exist and thus, should be included". How it is possible? Brahmins (at least a section of them) believe that Vedic Kshatriyas and Vedic Vaishyas are extinct and thus all non-Brahmins are Sudras. (Ref 36, 62 & 74). Are you going to add the "Sudra" term to all the other castes? There are tens of thousands of such castes and are you going to say that all are Sudras? What you are trying to say is that only Nairs are Sudra. There is the problem. Rajputs, Marathas.etc state in their article that they are Kshatriya. You don't have any problem with that. I can give you hundreds of sources which claims these communities are Sudra, since Kshatriyas are extinct. But you are concerned only with Nair article. That is the problem. I have no problem if you add this sentence to the article: "The Kshatriya, or military class is said by the Brahmins to be extinct. But the Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan in all probability belong to this class, though the Brahmins assert that they are only Sudras". But one thing. As stated by us earlier Sudra / Ati-Sudra status should be added to every single caste article from India. My view is that varna is not important in this article and should be excluded. But if you want to add them, then add it to every other caste. Shannon1488 (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Shannon, whether other articles claim kshatriya status is irrelevant to our current discussion. please see WP:other stuff exists. wikipedia is a project in progress; some articles will be better than others and some could be downright wrong and therefore, we can not use "it does or doesnt exist in other articles" argument.
 * I personally dont think south indian caste articles need to be mentioning the varna. however, this article not only mentions the kashatriya status, it is CATEGORISED under Kshatriya castes. please dont single out one reference to make a point, but rather look at all the references — references given by me and you. in principle, i would agree with the sentence proposed by you with small changes. i would recommend removing the kshatriya category and template. If you wanna keep the category, you should also add Shudra category for balance which i find silly. i support removing both. The "Malayala Kshatriya" in the first sentence is, at best, dubious which should also go or sufficient context should be given which is not a good idea to do in the lead. --CarTick (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So you want everything your way. So I don't see any compromise coming within the next few days. I don't agree with any of your points. Shannon1488 (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * you dont or you dont WANT to agree with me? --CarTick (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all stop your bullying. For the Sudra reference, I also agree with Shannon in adding the Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society link. Only if everything else stays as such. There is no need for a Sudra category as almost every non-Brahmin caste in India is Sudra. And if you still continue your intimidation by using Wiki policies, then prepare for a lengthy edit war. You are not going to have everything your way every time. And your use of WP:other stuff exists. Stop acting. We all know that you are targeting this article because you are a Nadar.Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? Virtually every caste other than the Brahmins? I never knew that, perhaps because I am one of the majority of people who neither live in India nor have any connection to it & therefore cannot make this sorts of information leaps. Seems like a good reason to include the Sudra category, then. Wikipedia is timeless, so there is no rush. Might as well start here. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am just telling you one thing. The meaning of Sudra in Sanskrit is "unclean", "polluted", "lowly".etc. It is a highly offensive word no longer used in India. Using the word Sudra for any caste is like using the word "Nigger" in the article of an African tribe. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have disagreed with CarTick before now and he is aware of me primarily because I am mediating in a sourcing dispute on another article. Note the word "mediate". I have not yet determined which way to jump in that article or indeed this one. At the end of the day, I may not jump at all: it is perfectly ok to have two differing theories etc in an article. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

no, it is not. it is only your imagination. neither Kshatriya nor Shudra is widely known in south india. we are not making up things; we are only writing what reliable secondary sources say. please note, WP:Wikipedia is not censored. --CarTick (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this and this comes under Canvassing. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * are they also Nadars too? if wikipedia policies are intimidating may be you shouldnt be editing here. --CarTick (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the property of Nadar association. I'll continue editing here. If you have any problem, then sue me. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoever wants nair to be called as a sudra suffer from some inferiority complex i guess. So atleast try to calm yur mind for a better understanding Earlier i have posted references from manusmriti and bhagavad gita. It clearly gives what the term sudra indicates. So better stop here a vain argument. Nairs are always kshatriyas and will be —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malayalakshatriya (talk • contribs) 15:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just concentrate on the facts dear users. His inferiority complex is well known. As some one has previously posted, he has attacked this article more than 10 times. Why should the argument be stopped? Let him blabber as much as he want. We have points to counter each and every one of his arguments. So lets concentrate on those. Robbie.Smit (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that perhaps I should point out to Robbie.Smit the policies regarding the issue of sockpuppetting. For a new user, who has only contributed to this article (and has done that only twice), he appears to know a lot about the personalities involved and the article history. Obviously, this is just a friendly reminder but I am prepared to escalate it if things turn out to require it. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Demands by CarTick
My opinion:
 * (1) Dropping of the alternate name Malayala Kshatriya given in the lead.
 * (2) Dropping of all Kshatriya references
 * (3) Dropping of Nair in Kshatriya Template
 * (4) Dropping of Nair in Kshatriya Cat
 * (5) Inclusion of Sudra refs
 * (1) Not possible, since the reference is taken from Shabdataravali, considered to be the ultimate reference of Malayalam language for the last 100+ years.
 * (2), (3) and (4) Not possible, since many of the refs (4, 11, 22, 36, 62, 70 & 74) are giving Nair as an example of a Kshatriya community.
 * (5) Not needed, as there is a dispute whether Nair can be considered Sudra or not. 95% of the Indian population can either be considered Sudra or Dalit. Then why concentrate on the remaining 5% and also label them as Sudra? Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * ?? Ref 4 is a note about total Malayam speakers (which, by the way, I am considering removing as it is meaningless as far as I can see). - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the links 1 to 103 which Shn posted here Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * D'oh. Thank you for clarifying. Have you any idea why the Malayam speaker notes exist in the infobox of the article? I mean, not all Malayam speakers will be Nairs and so the figures seem to be utterly pointless. You'll note from the article history that I have been doing a bit of tidying up here for a while (perhaps another reason why you should not have made the assumption that I am in some way CarTick's cavalry). - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Took a look at the infobox. I think you are referring to this. What I can understand is that: Since there is no caste census, there is no accurate way to count the number of Nairs. So based on this and Census data on Malayalam language speakers, the editor interpolated the number of Nairs. Assumption seems to be quite inaccurate. As I know, anywhere around 75% to 90% of second generation Nair immigrants have no knowledge of Malayalam. Therefore these figures under count Nairs very heavily. For example in Maharashtra, it says 80,000 Nairs. NSS there usually quote a figure of half a million.
 * And sorry for the personal attack. I made the false assumptions after seeing Cartick's invitation on your talk page. I was quite frustrated today... unfortunately did something I had no intent of doing. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That was exactly what I was referring to. I cutting it. Nearly did it a couple of weeks ago but got distracted by something else. It is complete nonsense and your point about the lack of a census etc just makes it more so. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

real concerns not demands
Chandrakantha, you must be having difficulty understanding nuanced english communication — why would you otherwise mis-characterise my concerns? here are my real concerns.
 * 1) ADD reference to Shudras in the article body
 * 2) EITHER remove Kshatriya from the lead OR add both Kshatriya and Shudra
 * 3) EITHER remove Kshatriya from the category because of the ambiguity as to whether nairs are kshatriyas or Shudras as both viewpoints exist in reliable sources OR add both kshatriya and Shudra. i prefer not adding both, because, i believe, category should be only for undisputable facts, which is not the case here.--CarTick (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the definition of Kshatriya & Shudra, Nair are Kshatriyas, there is no doubt on this.86.218.62.158 (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Whose definition? - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And, by the way, CM appears to agree that the Nairs are at least also Shudra, as they are not Brahmans. - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Have a look on the definition of Kshatriya & Shudra on Hindu texts (Bhagavat Gita, etc.). From immemorial times, Nair are linked to the 2nd varna of the Hindu order (rulers & martial nobility).86.218.62.158 (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but you have not understood what CM said... He said that according to (at least some of them) Brahmins, there is no more Kshatriya caste who were destroyed by Parasurama and therefore considered Hindu rulers as Shudra. This is a minority opinion but was widely used by western scholars (from the British colonial period) for political reasons.86.218.62.158 (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * by this time, this debate should have been announced in Orkut and we will have numerous such IPs and new accounts appear and make similar passing remarks without having any clue about how wikipedia works. the references that support the Shudra claim are somehow irrelevant. it is best to ignore. --CarTick (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, we should always at least try to educate the tag-teamers. So, to the IP:
 * you need to provide a reliable source
 * that is verifiable
 * if it is not verifiable in the English language then you need to provide a translation (and it should be a reliable, independent translation really - not yours)
 * it is not up to other people to search for these things: if you are making the statement then you need to provide the evidence
 * you will get a lot of brownie points if you register and use a username - it is not a requirement, but it will make quite a difference to how a lot of people perceive you. Call it human nature.
 * Until you do all but the last of these things, I shall be ignoring your comments. The same applies to any other IP users who come here in, say, the next 12 hours, and have not made contributions to other talk pages. You may think this is harsh but tag teaming etc is simply not on. If you have come here because of a note on a messageboard or whatever then you may want to consider all of this before actually posting. Other people may listen to you, but I will not. - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * All the refs are given. If you don't want to consider them, it is another pb. There already had been a huge dispute on this subject one year ago. A user called sanam01 (who wanted to add Shudra for Nair) has been banned indefinitely.86.218.62.158 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not good enough. I won't get banned or even blocked for anything I do to this article, because I know what I am doing. Alas, it would appear that you do not despite your apparent knowledge of the history etc. I am not digging around for the refs. Provide them please, and in the manner which I describe above. You will get no more replies from me until you do. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see the discussion history, i'm just tired of talking about the same thing again & again. People have given their arguments, reasons many times. Please note that i'm not threatening you by talking about a banned user, i just wanted to keep you informed that there already had been a big dispute on the same matter.86.218.62.158 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

whatever had been discussed, it looks like the discussion hadnt resulted in anything meaningful. why else would they have decided to keep something as significant as shudra out and kshatriya in. may be, you could disclose what your previous avatar was and when was the last time you were banned? --CarTick (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because we have demonstrated that the rank of Nair is Kshatriya. & fyi, I have never been banned.86.218.62.158 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I should once again note down that the last time when some users had an argument with Cartick, their user page was vandalized and they received death threats (10:13, 8 November 2010 edit here and this. So if some users don't want to be identified, then I think it should be permitted. Either you take action against the people who did that, or you allow anonymity. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"Supereminent divisions of Nairs, known as the Kshatriyas" !!!!
Please have a look at this sentence.

"Supereminent divisions of Nairs, known as the Kshatriyas and Samantans were next in line and the Nairs were below them."

This seems really absurd. If "Nairs were below them", how can these castes be sub-divisions within Nair caste? Also I don't think "Kshatriya" is a sub-caste of Nairs. The reference 48 reads as:


 * The matrilineal Nayars of Kerala in southwest India constitute a populous caste, which contains within it a large number of subdivisions. In contrast to the ideal model, on which most standard descriptions appear to be based, these subdivisions fall into several analytically distinguishable categories. There is a core of a few large, stable subdivisions and a fringe of many small unstable subdivisions. The latter are created and eliminated by several processes, one of which, treated in detail, is connected to the famous, hypergamous marriage system of the Nayars. The statuses of tali-tiers and sambandham partners act as diacritical markers of a subdivision’s status. Modern changes in the subdivision system are briefly considered. A distinction between stable and unstable statuses in the caste system is introduced, and doubt is raised about Dumont's and Pocock's theories of caste.


 * SOME YEARS AGO, Pocock (1957) drew attention to a number of the sociological problems posed by a populous and widely distributed caste like the Patidar of Gujarat. In this respect, the Nayars of Kerala, whose estimated population in 1968 was around 2.9 million, or 14.5% of Kerala’s total population (Govt. of Kerala 1971: App. xviii), closely resemble the Patidars. The Patidars, however, differ from the Nayars in having but few named subdivisions (Pocock 1972:56). The Nayars’ marriage system has made them one of the most famous of all communities in anthropological circles.


 * This paper attempts to analyze the internal structure of the Nayar caste. It does not set out to analyze the Nayars’ marriage system per se, although it does try to show how the famed cross-caste hypergamy of the high-ranking Nayars—involving Brahmans, Kshatriyas, and Samantans—was linked to the subdivision system within the Nayar caste.

Have a special attention here:

"..cross-caste hypergamy of the high-ranking Nayars—involving Brahmans, Kshatriyas, and Samantans.."

What does this mean? Does this ever sound like "High-ranking Nairs were Kshatriyas" or something similar? Or is it the other way round? i.e., "The high-ranking Nairs were engaged in cross-caste hypergamy with (higher castes like) Brahmans, Kshatriyas, and Samantans." Which one make sense? --KondottySultan (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You were banned last month in the Malayalam wiki for adding caste hatred. Now you are here? Cartick will be overjoyed. Shannon1488 (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You told in a talk page in Malayalam WP that I was banned from English WP. Here, in English WP, you say that I was banned from Malayalam WP. You people are coming across as good stuff for laughter. Do you think the others don't have common sense? I was never banned from any Wikipedia projects since I started this account. See MY EDIT HISTORY IN MALAYALAM WIKIPEDIA.


 * By these kind of lies, you can cheat only those users who cannot read or understand Malayalam. --KondottySultan (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No one is a fool here. If you have any points, then talk about it here. BTW, I am not talking about your current account. Shannon1488 (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Then what on earth you talk about? I never had any other WP account except this. Evenif I had one, you can't tell because I am using a dynamic internet connection and my IP changes each time. Now, stop your technique of changing the subject, come to the point of this section. Do you have any justification for this sentence?


 * "Supereminent divisions of Nairs, known as the Kshatriyas and Samantans were next in line and the Nairs were below them." --KondottySultan (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Offcourse you are using a Dynamic IP and no one can ban you. But what was added to the article is directly from Fuller. Do you have any problem with Fuller? Shannon1488 (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No. It is not from Fuller. It is from YOU. The sentence was initially:

"The Kshatriyas were next in line, then the Samantans and the Nairs were below them."

You altered it as:

"Supereminent divisions of Nairs, known as the Kshatriyas and Samantans were next in line and the Nairs were below them."

You are pushing your POV that Nairs (or at least some of them) are Kshatriya. --KondottySultan (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Read Fuller. Get some sense. Shannon1488 (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have not looked into the full argument above but it has been apparent for some time that Shannon has not read Fuller through from start to finish, which is why Shannon misunderstands what is said both in the article and in the book. Fuller is not the easiest of people to read, I admit. Perhaps this also explains the misconception that Shannon holds, even more so if English is not Shannon's first language (I have no idea whether it is or not, but even to someone like me it is quite heavy going). - Sitush (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Earlier I was fighting three of you. Now it is four. Let me see what I can do. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not fighting anyone. I am merely pointing out policies, improving the article, contributing content from reliable sources in a manner that reflects what they say, etc. If you consider that to be fighting then perhaps it would be best if you found another outlet than Wikipedia because, like it or not, this is how Wikipedia is intended to work. There are plenty of alternative means of promoting whatever it is you are wanting to say. Wikipedia is not the only outlet. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are again getting me wrong. I just want all the facts to be represented. Anyway I am about to get banned from this topic very soon, so will make my points quickly. There are no Kshatriyas in the world as far as Nambuthiris are concerned. The so called "Kshatriyas" and "Samantans" which you find in Malabar and among Malabari immigrants to South Kerala, are Nairs who got elevated in caste system. As I have added many sources here, stating that all the Kshatriyas of Kerala are of Nayar origin. I just want to mention that. If you claim that they are not of Nair origin, then please tell me who they are. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources from SN Sadasivan
SN Sadasivan is a well known anti-Hindu fanatic. I don't know how people can add sources from his works, even though they find neutral works written by foreign authors unreliable. Shannon1488 (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * S. N. Sadasivan himself was a Hindu and a younger generation contemporary and follower of Hindu religious leader and social reformer Sree Narayana Guru. Then how come you brand him as "anti-Hindu fanatic"?? --KondottySultan (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because his books spew venom against each and every aspect of Hinduism. It is useless to argue against people like you. Shannon1488 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I request you to be sensible. This is not a forum for pushing your POV. This is a TALK PAGE. You get it? --KondottySultan (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the same advice for you. This is not the place to dump your POV and caste hatred. Get it? Shannon1488 (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * S N Sadasivam's wiki page throws more light on this book. It is full of unverifiable claims, like Tirupati being a mahayanist buddhist temple and the like. Also, in the very book, there is a statement that the cited statement is one of the Nambudiri myths. ''' morel M William 11:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please show me what caste hatred I have dumped here???!!! --KondottySultan (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Syrians were treated by Nairs as untouchable in most areas of Kerala. Read this. Shannon1488 (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. The link you provided does not have any account of Nairs' mentality. It simply says the Syrians may touch a Nair (and still remain non-polluted) while it is not allowed (by the rigid caste system) in many other parts of the country (which will make them polluted and forced to take bath). This is another reference for Syrians treated Nairs as untouchables, not vice versa. --KondottySultan (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The link says that in some areas Syrians are permitted to touch a Nair, but in some other areas, they can't touch them, because the Nair will get polluted. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See this also. Syrian can't enter the house of a Nair. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See this. Syrian Christians are "lower ranking" community, which got upwardly mobile due to the infusion of money. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here - "Nayars were bound to suffer a relative decline when a lower ranking community, such as the Syrians rose". Shannon1488 (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Copy of conversation thread
Copy of conversation initiated on my talk page, as this seems to be the more appropriate place for it:

"Please show at least a bit of sensibility I removed the Sadasivan quote from etymology because it called Nairs as dogs. (Since you don't know Malayalam, I doubt you will understand the real meaning). Sadasivan doesn't give any reference for this and it is not given in Jatinirnayam as he claims. But you reinserted those quotes. Don't stoop this low. Shannon1488 (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The book is a reliable source as far as I can see. It also says that the story is legend, not that it is true. Furthermore, you cannot rely on the primary source (Jatininayam) as this is considered to be original research. You are breaching policy, I am afraid. - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do whatever you want. You are not only insulting me, but 4 million others. If the works by Sadasivan are reliable to you then, I see no point in talking to you. Sadasivan claims the quote is given in Jatinirnayam. But there is nothing even remotely related to this there. I am disgusted by your behavior. Shannon1488 (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not insulting anyone. I didn't even add the bit you are referring to. We are merely reporting what has been said in a reliable source. This book was written 10-11 years ago. If it is so massively wrong then there must have been a rebuttal in another reliable source, surely? Find that source, would be my advice. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)"

ANI thread - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Shannon1488 (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sitush, please don't push us to the limit. Axxn (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Look, I have explained how to counter this. The solution is not to remove it. I vaguely recall having doubts about Sadavisan somewhere else but (a) I did not enter this information and (b) the solution is to comment (sourced) in the article that Sadavisan is hotly disputed by [name of source]. In the interval, I shall look deeper into the guy.


 * Alternatively, cut the comment from the book and paste it here until the issue is resolved. So not keep reverting it as this is plain disruptive. I have no POV on this entire subject; you lot have all demonstrated POV time and again here, and I seem to recall that a least some of you are members of the caste. - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you give me the source for what you added from a single source other than that of Sadasivan? This is like adding information about Jews based on Nazi propaganda. Axxn (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is your revenge isn't it? I told you no one will give you any citation. And you immediately added that the word Nair is derived from dog. Shannon1488 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My revenge for what? I didn't add anything. I reverted the removal of a cited source. I have said that I am prepared to check that source, as someone who did not add the thing in the first instance. Please stop attacking, and please stop canvassing other users on their talk pages. Ask them to look at the page, sure, but if you insert your own view into the request then it might be construed as canvassing. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The disputed content has now been expanded to include both that references to dogs were not traditionally considered to be derogatory and that Sadavisan himself explicitly doubted the credibility of the interpretation. Can we not, erm, let sleeping dogs lie? Whatever may have previously been construed as offensive certainly cannot be so now. It is in fact a pretty benign comment. Nowhere did it make any claim that Nairs are dogs, and now it even queries the claim that it does make. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I added the material from Sadasivan; he appeared to be a legit author with a legit publisher, and his writing appeared academic in nature. Note that a I specifically mentioned what I was adding in the Edit Summary (a nicety too often ignored in this debate), and I also provided at the top of the section the specific cite that all three etymologies are considered to be unlikely. Again, I think too many folks here do not understand the difference between "we are deciding once and for all The Truth" and "we are recording and compiling the observations and theories of academics writing on the topic." If folks are obsesses with the former, they will never be pleased until the article contains, and only contains, their personal and deeply-held beliefs on the subject. Personally, I have no emotional involvement whatsoever with the Nair, wouldn't know a Nair from a Namboodiri from an Untouchable if they walked up to me on the streets of Philadelphia. That's why my edits (and Sitush's) are NPOV, because we don't have an agenda, but are simply trying to find the most educational and reliable information we can on the subject. Unfortunately, some of you are seeing this as "negative" because you'd produced an article which deliberately left out anything you felt didn't abet the Nair's claim to awesomeness, so you see its inclusion as an attack. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If this piece of POV from Sadasivan finds such weightage in this article, then there is no reason why the other sources cited by Shannon shouldn't be here. And the sources were added by MatthewVinitas without consensus. Shannon, why don't you take the lead from him? ''' morel M William 20:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not POV because he proposes and criticises the point. You have demonstrated previously on another article an inability to appreciate how these matters work. You said at that time, after you returned from your recent block, that you would keep away from this stuff. My suspicion is that oyu are only here now because Shannon canvassed you. Please do not whip up an already delicate situation. Positive contributions are welcome, but sh*t stirring is not. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What are the sources that he supports these with? Jayachitranirnayam, as Shannon pointed out, doesn't seem to support them. This source should be discounted altogether as there is not enough consensus in the talk page. Another thing, consider switching to a more appropriate language. You can start with reading other posts in WP talkpages, like mine. Thanks.''' morel M William 21:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shannon cannot use Jayachitranirnayam to support any point because it is original research using a primary source. Sadavisan can. That is just the way Wikipedia works. I'm not saying that it is right, but it is how it is - and there are some good reasons for it. - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone asked for another cite regarding the etymology based on "dog". I have just started looking and found this. I wouldn't call it a "reliable source" because I only have snippet view & so no context etc. However, it does mention the possibility of that etymology, however dubious, and was written some years prior to Sadavisan's work. Sadavisan, whom I can see fully, also notes that etymology as dubious, and this is reflected in the article as it currently stands. So, not a great piece of support but maybe something better will turn up. - Sitush (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ...And now I've suddenly made a connection that might explain some of the recent angst here, bearing in mind the numerous attempts to keep the polyandry section out of the article. Apparently there is an old saying, "Nairkkum Nayakkum Achchanilla' and this translates as "Nairs and dogs do not know who their father is". Taken from p. 158 of this 1969 journal on folk-lore, published in India. Is this what all the upset is about? If it is then I am sorry for it but Wikipedia is not censored. - Sitush (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How many fathers do you have, Sitush? There is another folklore saying that you don't know all of your fathers. Shannon1488 (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you came back & edited the above contribution by adding the second sentence. Not that either of them are sayings that I've ever come across before. Perhaps they are both Indian folklore? I know next to nothing about that subject. Anyway, are you going to do as MatthewVanitas asks below? We need to move this situation along. - Sitush (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Shannon, again, there is no need to take academic cites personally. Sitush did not say "hey Shannon, here's you." He simply noted that a collection of folklore had this (presumably negative) saying about the Nair. There are entire books recorded of folkloric sayings about different Indian groups, mostly group A bashing group B. While it's far outside of WP's purview to weigh and judge such opinions, the fact that such opinions existed is of anthropological interest. Getting an internal view of historical hostilities through folklore is fascinating; one of my favourites was "If you want to get an idea of a tiger, look at a cat; if you want to get an idea of a thief, look at a Sunar." It's interesting not because "oh hey, we want to talk smack about Sunars on WP", it's interesting because it reflects a popular resentment expressed in the folklore. Again, you appear to be taking all this too personally, as though anything that does not uplift the Nair is a personal attack. This is why it's a bad idea to get involved in debates where you have a personal stake. I don't wade into articles about US World War II war crimes and insist "no way man, those guys were heroes, no way they did bad things!" and try to remove cited info from academics proving summary executions and torture against the Japanese. Similarly, if some editors will not drop their objections to the inclusion of clearly cited observations about the Nair, negative or positive, it will continue to impede progress. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected this article from editing by all bar admins for 12 hours, because emotions are running far too high and far too many people are squaring up for a fight rather than trying to calmly discuss it like the grownups that we're all supposed to be -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Pulasyam
I am new to this article, but I don't find any information about "Pulasyam" in this article. I think it is a must-have here because there is a Malayalam saying that "Ankam vettiyale Chekonavoo, Pulasyam aninjale Nair avoo" [A soldier is a soldier only if he fights war, a Nair is a Nair only if he wears a "Pulasyam".] --Chekon (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you provide a source for this, please (I know that Sadasivan mentions it, with a slightly different translation). Also, where would you expect to see it in the article? And what exactly is a Pulasyam? - Sitush (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A Pulasyam is a kind of Belt worn by ancient Nairs as a symbol of their obedience (towards Brahmins, etc). I don't know much more about it, but it is mentioned in many places such as "Vadakkan Pattukal", etc. Since I am new to Wikipedia, I don't know which references are acceptable here and which are not. If I come across any further information, I shall report the same here. --Chekon (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Wikipedia works on the basis of information that is verifiable by reliable sources. I'll nip over to your talk page and explain the basic principles further. - Sitush (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Request expert aid from WP:WikiProject India?
Shannon, are you going to, as the ANI folk suggested, request fresh eyes with India expertise from WP:WikiProject India? If you'd rather, I can go and request. Bearing in mind that, whichever of us files the request, is must be neutrally-phrased so as not to be WP:canvassing, so something like "we could use some experts to weigh in on some contested issues about varna, polyandry, and etymology at Nair" and not "evil, terrible jerks are attacking the article!!!". Please let me know if you'd prefer to be the one to add a request at WP:INDIA; if you'd rather not or don't reply, I'll add the request on Monday morning, US East Coast time. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No response, so I left a request there: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics. I feel my request does not call for one "side" or another, but simply mentions that this is highly contentious, a high visibility article, and could use some more eyes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems ok to me. Shannon was around earlier today & I did point out this section here. Not sure why there was no response but perhaps I missed him by a few minutes. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nairs were untouchables
I am really disappointed with the hostile nature of some Nair users showing here. Is there any reason for the removal of this sentence?

"Similarly, the Syrian Christians of Kerala had custom of washing themselves if they happened to touch a Nair, before the Synod of Diamper abolished the same in 1599."

Reverting my edit, Shannon has given the following edit summary:

"Syrians were considered untouchables by Nairs."

He has no evidence for this statement. In this talk page, he has given many links that show Syrians were in "low rank" compared to Nairs, but none of them has any reference of Nairs treating Syrians as untouchables. The social or political "ranking" is different from "touchablity". The sentence talks only about the mentality of Syrians towards touching a Nair. So how is it possible to remove by simply claiming a higher rank? If any particular American tribe believes Europeans to be untouchables, can someone discard that fact simply by saying "Europeans have higher rank"?

It is a solid fact that historically the Syrian Christians considered Nairs as untouchables. The statement was clearly supported by straight verifiable third-party reference. Whether the Syrians had higher rank or lower rank as compared to Nairs is totally a different thing. Our focus is whether this sentence has enough citation or not. It is really a bad practice of removing and reverting edits if they appear to reveal truths that you don't like, eventhough they are sufficiently supported by reliable references. --KondottySultan (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of work going on with the article at the moment, gradually improving the thing. Certainly two of those who are doing much of the work are from outside India and have no connections to any caste etc. You will notice that in the area where it discusses who could go within what distance of whom, there are some little flags saying "citation needed" etc. They are part of the improvement process & the blanks etc will get sorted out, with or without the help of the vociferous contributors who, it appears to me, doth protest too much on this talk page.


 * Having said this, and again speaking just for myself, I would not be inclined to include a long list of who could not touch whom, who could go within X feet of Y etc. It is an absolute magnet for people who pay no attention to Wikipedia's guidelines etc and is likely to become a focus for disruptive editing. The point has to be made, but not in a massive amount of detail. So, whether or not Syrian Christians will feature is open to discussion. For example, if there is something particularly unusual about their relationship to the Nair then it is more likely to feature than if they are just "another one for the list". - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think an "Under construction" label is a justification for the deliberate removal of a properly cited sentence. As you know, all articles in WP are in a way "under construction". If some of the contributors do not have a proper understanding on the caste system in India, how come it been a reason for the revertion of an edit made by someone have knowledge in these matters? I am not claiming to be a scholar, but as an Indian and Malayali, I have a clear understanding on the these matters. I am ready to add it again and again. But what use if each of such is immediately reverted? Then why WP is said to be that "anyone can edit"? If this sentence has any OR or POV, the revertion makes sense. But it has neither.

You said that we cannot give a list of people who thinks Nairs as polluting. But the fact is that there is no such list. Only Syrians and Brahmins considered Nairs as polluting. So it is not fair to omit one alone.

Why should Syrians be mentioned?

Apart from the above told reason, there are a no. of other reasons as well that make the Syrians' case special.

It is just normal that the castes in caste system hierarchy considered lower castes as polluting. So, if a Nambudiri considered a Nair as untouchable, it is quite normal and is implied even without telling explicitely. But the Syrians come nowhere in the caste system as they are not Hindus. Still they considered Nairs as polluting caste. The Syrians of Kerala may be the only Christian community who once practised untouchablity. So it is worth mentioning.

Nambudiri Brahmins were a small community compared to the no. of Nairs. They resided only in some pockets. So the untouchablity from them affected less than that from Syrians who were spread all over the country and occupied most the major towns. Syrians are a larger community than Nairs. Suppose you are talking about Portuguese language. Which is more worth mentioning? "people of Portugal speak Portuguese" or "people of Brazil speak Portuguese" which of these two sentences you will omit? --KondottySultan (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to speak for Sitush, but I imagine the concern is that if we have a "Group A had to stay 15ft away, group B 27ft, group C 34 ft", then it will be a list of minutiae and will attract vandals. That said, if you can track down a couple good refs outlining this disjunct wherein both the Syrians and Nair considered each other to be below themselves, that may be a productive sentence or two. Have you found some good refs yet? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding it "again and again" will earn you a block, no question about it. Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit if they abide by the policies and guidelines. I haven't bothered checking citations yet for what you & Shannon were discussing - it is a part of the work in progress. However, your comments in the message above do not massively inspire me. They have the appearance of being as POV/OR as anything that Shannon has written of late. Hopefully the source you provided previously is reliable, though. If it does not actually say that only Brahmins & Syrians considered Nairs as polluting then it will not do for your precise point, although this does not mean that the general fact cannot be introduced. If it is true that only Syrian Christians practiced untouchability then that is an interesting piece of information ... but it might be better covered in an article about Syrian Christians, and I note that you are not certain about it anyway.


 * I cannot stop you from adding the information back into the article. I would, however, suggest that you are sure of your ground before doing so & perhaps wait until some other people respond here. The article is dealing with some rather delicate issues that are upsetting people. While WP is not censored, adding something without being absolutely sure that it can stand serious criticism is not a great idea. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

in this edit.
 * Kondotty added "Similarly, the Syrian Christians of Kerala had custom of washing themselves if they happened to touch a Nair, before the Synod of Diamper abolished the same in 1599."




 * Shannon removed it here with the edit summary "Syrians were considered untouchables by Nairs." He provided a useful source on this talk page but unfortunately mis-stated it (a quite common occurrence, I am afraid) - he said "Syrians were treated by Nairs as untouchable in most areas of Kerala", which seems to be the exact opposite of what the source quotes from an 1860 entry in a woman's diary. He clarified the remark when challenged by Kondotty, "The link says that in some areas Syrians are permitted to touch a Nair, but in some other areas, they can't touch them, because the Nair will get polluted", which is much closer to what the source says.


 * Shannon also introduced Fuller, whose work is already cited in the article (and there will be more from him in due course). This is interesting because it explains how the untouchability system worked. I would have no problem at all with including some background such as this. In fact, I will do it. He provided a couple of other sources also.


 * As things stand, this looks like it may be an academic disagreement (or academics talking about different periods, since the Syrian practice was apparently scrapped in 1599), although I must say that Kondotty's source is extremely old and I would want to see something much more modern in its place.


 * Shannon was, in this instance, probably correct to edit the content but the situation could have been handled better. For example, by including his alternative sources & raising the issue for discussion here. However, Kondotty, the ball is firmly in your court now: you need to come up with something a little more persuasive than a book from 1839. If you can do this then I feel that it is of sufficient significance (& general interest) that both "sides" should be covered in the article. I will certainly be expanding for the Fuller background stuff about untouchability. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair "Brigade" vs. "Regiment"
In MilHist, in the para beginning In 1935, the Travancore Nair Regiment, I'm not totally solid on the use of the word "Regiment" (which I added based on the cites). Ramachandran just mentions the "Travancore" unit becoming the State Force, whilst Sad. uses the term "Travancore Nair Regiment", but nowhere else in the book uses that term nor "Nair Brigade". I'm leaning towards believing that Sad. means the same unit, but just used some other term for them. I do get a few hits for "Nair Regiment" on gBooks, but those also seem they may be using the term "Regiment" generally. Not sure of the British system, but in the US a brigade and a regiment are pretty similar in echelon (between a battalion and a division), the main difference being composition. Would it be unreasonable to assume that both these terms are referring to Nair Brigade and simply default to that more common term if we're pretty confident the same unit is being referenced? I want to avoid OR, of course, but this seems a pretty straightforward WP:COMMONNAME issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I will have a dig around. I know what they meant in the UK system c. 1914-1918 but not after that. Would a Mil History project have the answer? - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

To Sitush
Give the sources which calls Nairs as dog (other than Sadasivan). Robbie.Smit (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, you appear to be taking this a little personally. The ref does not "call Nairs as dogs", it says "there is a Brahmin legend that... however this is pretty obviously fictional." MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't act OK. I know Sadasivan's works. His only ambition in his life was to degrade Nairs. What the fuck you think is the meaning of that passage? I am just asking you, if the word Nair came from the word dog, then give me a secondary source supporting that, other than that from the mental case Sadasivan. Robbie.Smit (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one cursing, so I am indeed "OK". If you feel Sadasivan is inaccurate, instead of describing him as a "mental case", or comparing him to a "Nazi" as some above did, can you provide any academic critique discrediting him? Again, his quote does not say that "Nair" came from "dog", it says according to one Brahmin text... but this is almost certainly false. Again, you are failing to distinguish between "hey, these guys said once and it's sociologically interesting" and "here is the absolute Truth." MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So you agree that you don't have a source for his claims. If you want to take Sadasivan's claim as reliable, then just show me where in Kerala Jati Nornayam the "dog" verse is there. I have asked this many times since yesterday to people who people who know Sanskrit. They are not aware of any such thing even remotely resembling it there. Furthermore explain me how can a Tamil word come inside an entirely Sanskrit book? Robbie.Smit (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sadasivan claims in the same book that Lord Ayyappan was not a Hindu god, but an Ezhava hunter. He also states that Thirupati temple was a Budhist temple forcibly converted in to Hindu mandir. Why you are not adding these things? You want to insult only Nairs? Robbie.Smit (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't need primary sources, we need secondary sources. And again, you or any other editor paging through a Sanskrit book, linguistically analysing terms, or emailing your friends does not count as authoritative. So far as "not adding these things", see WP:Other stuff exists; "but that article over there..." is not a valid reason to raise objections at this article. So far as the Ezhava hunter, Buddhist temple, etc. issues in Sadasivan that you think are incorrect, do you have any reliable source critiquing Sad. for those issues, or is this just "I personally read Sad. and I don't like what he says"? And finally, and most importantly, the issue of whether the "dog" legend is accurate is completely not an issue, the issue is whether Sad. is correct that such a legend ever existed. We are not here to fight about "Nairs are dogs!" "No they're not!", we're here to figure out what notable etymological theories have ever been recorded. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * EDIT: just saw your Edit Summary: "call your mother a dog you racist a*hole" you wrote??? How is that even slightly appropriate? If you keep personally attacking and swearing, how do you expect not to be blocked? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that it is fine if you call us dogs, but it is something terrible if we return the favor? He did the right thing. When you deceive someone by offering him dog turd covered in chocolate, the bad taste will never go away. The next time even if you offer him Swiss chocolate, he will reject it. The same thing has happened here. You have deceived everyone here by pretending to be someone neutral. But you ended up adding all sort of third rate stuff which some one even partially civilized will dare to add. when you again pretend that you are someone who is here to implement the Wiki policies rather than to abuse someone, no one is going to believe you.Axxn (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say: nobody is calling anyone "dog". I am supporting a clear debate on the inclusion of a Sadasivan source. Sadasivan is quoting a Brahmin text, which he states is inaccurate but historically interesting. The Brahmins allegedly had this legend. So if you want to get upset about someone "calling" Nairs "dogs", go find a 15th century Brahmin and yell at him. Again, folks are taking this way too personally, and these attacks about "third rate stuff" are insulting. Have you not seen the detailed info I've added on "military history" and "diet"? And I have more still to add to "attire". And yet editors who've added nothing switch to attacking me over one cite and ignore the dozens of useful and non-controversial cites I've added to what were totally uncited sections. I am not abusing anyone, I'm trying to find informative sources, and suggest that others do likewise, and drop any agenda of "defaming" or "promoting" a caste rather than just looking for facts. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See my posts here. Note: I did not introduce the information originally; however, I do fully support MV's action in doing so. There are umpteen responses from both of us above which point out what MV has again pointed out in this section: it is a legend, it is dubious, if Sad. is so bad then provide the academic criticisms etc. Really, I wonder if people are reading the content here, in the article and in the sources or just skimming those items to find something to object to. Please calm down, read things properly and spend a few minutes thinking before touching your keyboards.


 * Things could go a lot smoother if people actually adopted a collaborative attitude but instead some have specifically said that they will not collaborate. In my mind (and it is just my view) that breaches probably 'the most fundamental part of Wikipedia and if someone actually says that they do not intend or desire to collaborate then they have no purpose in being here. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Heads-up everyone
Several editors have been trying very hard to improve the Nair article of late, and while it is perfectly valid to criticise what they are producing, Wikipedia policies require that you assume good faith, act in accordance with the project's civility guidelines, and do not issue any personal attacks or threats.

If you feel that material added to the article is incorrect, please find reliable sources to back up your arguments, and present and discuss them in a civil manner. And when editors point to the sources they have actually used, please discuss them calmly and civilly - the way to dispute sources is by finding alternative sources which contradict them, not by simply insulting the Wikipedia editor or the source's author. If you believe an author is biased or otherwise incorrect, you need to find an alternative source to contradict them.

Also, please note that nobody editing the article is insulting Nair people, or calling them dogs, or anything of the sort - even the disputed "dog" reference isn't actually calling any people "dogs".

A number of comments made in edit summaries and on the Talk page recently have been unacceptable - I have issued some warnings to some individuals, and this is just a general warning about conduct here.

If people continue to post uncivil personal attacks, make unfounded accusations against other editors, or use abusive edit summaries, accounts will be getting blocked - but I hope it does not come to that, and that you will instead make constructive contributions.

Please have a look over Wikipedia's reliable sourcing and verifiability policies, and try to keep your contributions in line with them.

Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * By claiming that the word Nair is derived from the word dog, you are equating Nairs to dogs. All you could find to support this bizarre claim is a rabidly anti-Nair piece of thrash written by a well known caste maniac. Sadasivan's sources are not taken as reliable by majority of the academics and most of them haven't even heard of him. If his sources are true, then why it is not even mentioned in two dozen or more other books which refers to the etymology of Nairs? As pointed out by many users above, Sadasivan has made even more outrageous claims, without the support of the sources from which he "interpreted" those claims. And the less we talk about the edits of Sitush, the better. Here he claims that the Ezhava are Brahmins (Again giving Sadasivan as Ref). Since when did Dalits got recognized as Brahmin? You are filling the entire wikipedia with misinformation and propaganda and you are banning anyone who try to point out the mistakes. Shannon1488 (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been pointed out quite clearly that the author in question stated that the claim was false - so not even he is calling Nairs "dogs". And the editors here certainly are not. Nobody is actually saying that the word "Nair" came from "dog", and even if they were, that would not be calling Nair people dogs. Nobody is stopping you from pointing out mistakes, we are just telling you that you must do so in a civil manner, you must assume good faith, and you must stop making accusations against the editors here. That is not negotiable, and people will not discuss the content with you unless you change your approach. You have been warned, and whether you remain free to edit here is now up to you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Shannon:


 * "Sadasivan's sources are not taken as reliable by majority of the academics and most of them haven't even heard of him."


 * What is this "majority"? Was there any survey conducted among the academics on this regard? From where you came to know that "most" of them haven't heard of Dr. S. N. Sadasivan who authered a number of books on subjects like public administration, etc?


 * If his sources are true, then why it is not even mentioned in two dozen or more other books which refers to the etymology of Nairs?


 * How many of these books were written by authors who are not Nairs? It is just natural that a book written by a Nair will try to obliterate anything that may affect the pride and dignity of the caste. We can't assume NPOV in such books.


 * "..he claims that the Ezhava are Brahmins. Since when did Dalits got recognized as Brahmin?"


 * This shows how terribly you are ignorant in the subject of the caste system in Kerala. Ezhavas are not Dalits. The term 'Dalit' is applicable only to the Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes of India. Many backward Hindu castes such as Ezhava, Araya, Viswakarma, etc are not considered as Dalits. --KondottySultan (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Are older sources unreliable?
I am really confused after seeing the comment by Sitush that certain references are too old to be relied. Generally, I have an understanding that older references are more reliable that new ones and if they are secondary sources from third party authers, become perfect piece to be used as citations. I seriously do not understand why a book written in the middle of nineteenth century (i.e., when the caste system with all its brutal aspects like untouchablity was on its zenith), can't be trusted.

Now, if you guys insist to have a recent reference, there are plenty of them available. Since I may have to wait until another weekend to find enough time to enumerate them, I request you guys to have a look on This.

Especially the section "Caste System and Mentality". I know the caste fanatics will come up with the same allegations they made on Sadasivan, but everything in this article is properly supported with references. Also we get a list of reliable sources which we can use in our article for citation. --KondottySultan (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, can I refer you to the civility warning that I issued above, and ask you not to insult people you disagree with by calling them "caste fanatics"? The whole aggression here needs to be toned down, and that means people on both "sides" of the disagreement need to stop treating each other so uncivilly. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * cue long reply, sorry Kondotty, evaluating a source is not always an easy task. What may be suitable in one situation could be very unsuitable in another. As a general rule, however, we will always prefer peer-reviewed writing over "popular" writing; the printed word over that of a website; recent sources over old sources. The more controversial a point may be, the more important it is to ensure that we do our utmost to work with the very best information possible: it bolsters the credibility of statements made.


 * Newer works, especially those published by academics, usually incorporate the thoughts of preceding works. This incorporation may be explicit or implicit and, as I think Isaac Newton said of his own genius, they to some extent would not exist at all unless they were "standing on the shoulders of giants", That is, to get to where we are now, it is necessary that people before us have done their stuff, otherwise we would still be learning how to light fires, make a wheel etc because experiences, knowledge and techniques would never be passed on.


 * There was much written about India in the 19th-century. Much of it was written by well-meaning but biassed people (eg: church missionaries, officers of the East India Company); much of it was either privately published, or published by the organisation for whom they worked, or published by print houses who would pretty much put any ink to any paper if there might be a popular market for it. Readers revelled in tales of derring-do, they revelled in the knowledge of the "weird" (to them) practices that took place in foreign lands, and they cared little for systematic research in certain areas. People used to write massive classified lists/dictionaries and the like but still manage to omit important points, or themselves use the work of other people without any acknowledgement or analysis of the validity of it. Back then, ethnography was a pretty raw subject and comparative religion was incredibly factionalised.


 * None of the above is to say that old sources are wrong. However, a lot of it was misinterpreted, was unrepresentative of a large sample group, was designed more with an eye to a profitable venture than research for its own sake, etc. Things have moved on a little since then and academics are more rigorous in their approach. Still not perfect, which is an impossibility, but definitely more rigorous.


 * You have introduced a potentially very significant and certainly very interesting point using a book from 1839. If that point is true (I am not doubting you, but rather the source) then precisely because of its significance and interest I would have expected someone to have revisited the issue in an academic work much more recently. People have a fascination with these sort of details. They do not get written nearly 200 years ago and then left to rot on a library shelf, but rather are mulled over, picked upon, researched further as new evidence elsewhere comes to light, used to buttress other theories ... and so on.


 * There are sometimes exceptions, judgement calls. Using these needs consensus and careful presentation. We are using Panikkar's 1918 book in this article, which I would also usually consider to be a little old. The reasons for doing so are that (a) he is still cited by modern writers; (b) his points are generally unlikely to be controversial; (c) on those issues which are controversial, his writing as an "insider" actually helps us to present a "worm's eye" view. There have been offended Nairs commenting here that X is wrong because of being anti-Nair etc, but if Panikkar also says what X says then that validity of the statement in the article becomes strengthened. We have made it explicit in the body of the text (not just in a footnote) that his book is old and that he was himself a Nair. We have only used him where a more modern alternative it not (to our knowledge) available.


 * To take an extreme example, people used to write that the earth was flat, that some people from S India were born of the Lunar dynasty, that they are in some way connected to a mythical dog etc. If we did not include newer sources, Wikipedia would still be promoting those ideas as being true even though they are clearly a nonsense. We could be doing the same by using your 1839 source, on a point which has the potential to cause considerable annoyance to one or both "sides". Let's get it right; let's nail it down to something written on the basis of the most recent and thorough and generally respectable research possible, by a respected authority, published by a respected house, Better still, we want more than one of them. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sitush,

Thank you for the response. But have you checked the link I gave in the previous comment? I expected an appraisal of the above link. Also when you check this Journal, try to read it completely (at least the section "Caste System and Mentality") rather than searching for certain words using Ctl+F. Remember it is not a random webpage, but an online version of a published journal. --KondottySultan (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read it. Top to bottom, at considerable risk to my eyesight. I found it somewhat confusing. On the one hand it says that the SCs even married Nairs and on the other it says that they took ritual baths if they came into contact with Nairs. That must have made for a strange marriage, at least to my 21st century western eyes. I have no idea about the organisation which publishes the journal (it seems possibly to be a little "left field") but the apparent internal contradiction is not inspiring. Perhaps I misunderstood it. I need to read it again, once I have got my eyes adjusted: small font walls of text hurt me, and if I use zoom then it is messy to read. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, if you are not looking for reasons to discard all available evidences for a group of Christians practiced untouchability, I don't think the excuses you put forward are of any significance.


 * Firstly, about the 1860 book. It is not Hough's viewpoint or observation that Syrian Christians considered Nairs are untouchables. His book was just producing the full-text of Synod of Diamper decrees. If you examine the book in detail, you can see that it comes in the Appendix part. These are the original decrees of Synod of Diamper. It does not change overtime, and still being analyzed and quoted. It has a degree of authenticity and not like the beliefs and myths like earth's flatness and lunar dynasty.


 * Regarding the font problem, why don’t you just copy+paste the entire text to MS Word or Notepad for better reading??


 * The authenticity of the journal or the corresponding organization does not affect the reliability of the article. If you can't still trust the article leave the article, and focus on the list of references from authentic books. Can they be taken for citation?

Also look at this (and search for word "Nair"):

http://lightoflife.com/LOL_CUSTOMS_JEWS_CHRISTIANS_BRAHMINS_PART1.htm


 * Your Confusion

Syrians just did what the Nambudiris did. We already know that Nambudiris considered Nairs as polluting. Still Nambudiris had "Sambandham" with Nair women. 'Apfans' (ie, a Nambudiri male who is not the elder son of his father) could have marital relations only with Nair women. Still Nambudiris considered Nairs as untouchables. With Syrians also, same was the case. Syrians practiced polygamy till Synod of Diamper. A Syrian's first wife would be from his own caste, while the subsequent wives were from Nair women. The Nair community served as a supplier of brides for both Nambudiris and Syrians, because of the reverse sex ratio of Nairs due to their military service and frequent wars. Syrians, like Nambudiris, married Nair women (as step-wives) and still considered the caste in general as polluting. I don’t know much about how it is possible, but I guess they might be having any kind of special purification ceremony. I hope your confusion is now eliminated. --KondottySultan (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you are wrong. The authority of a publisher/organisation counts for a lot. The page you linked to in the old book (1839, I thought, not 1866) did not read like a commentary, although it did mention the decree. If you are now saying that we should use the decree then the short answer is no. It is likely to be a primary source and to use it would constitute original research. I am not even looking at a website called lightoflife.com - even the name of it sounds POV. Nor am I trawling through all of the references in the website article that I have looked at. If the article is ok then there is no need to do that; if it is not then perhaps there is some use looking at the relevant references.


 * As far as my confusion is concerned, yes, your points make sense. They would, however, require citing if used in the WP article, and I suspect that they would have to be used because the website article is contradictory and just using that would make the WP article contradictory also. And then we're heading for a much bigger subsection than perhaps is worthwhile in an article which is about the Nairs not the Syrian Christians. However, you may be missing my point: if someone writes an article that contains a contradiction & does not explain that away then my opinion of the source goes down immediately. I have not actually rejected the source yet - I want to re-read it but, oddly enough, have other things to do in my life also.


 * I have ample experience of sourcing and that includes mediating in disputes about sourcing. This does not mean that I am always right, although to the best of my knowledge I have yet to come out on the "wrong" side of a challenge in these matters. Just give me some time, please. Others may chip in with their views also: no decision here is entirely down to one person. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Desa vazhi and kalari
According to Panikkar, the desa vazhi was roughly equivalent to a lord of the manor & had the right to "keep" a kalari (military training school). He was to train the young men at that school. Can anyone reconcile this with one of the traditional roles of the Kaniyar Panikkar caste, who were the kalari teachers of the Nairs. Could it be that the desa vazhi was the overseer (a sort of headmaster, or even the proprietor), and the Kaniyars were the actual teachers? I am confused! - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Verify cite on "indigenous/archaic/pre-Vedic"?
The following cite was in the lede, but wasn't substantiated by main-body content, and I can't access the ref. Can anyone take a squint at the ref so we can verify the following:


 * The Nair community is regarded as an archaic indigenous community which existed before Vedic civilization. Ref:

There's a summary here, but it doesn't seem to be the full book. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked for this on 25 May. No response, other than subsequent "we will not co-operate with you" comments in later sections. I note that the source was written by a Nair, and the content seems to contradict Panikkar (also a Nair, but plainly not one who was seeking to glorify his caste). - Sitush (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding more photos/images? (help needed especially from foreign-language speakers)
The page could really use some more images; I've found some from a 1909 work which has pictures of a few Nair people, houses, temple, etc. I could use help finding a few more though. If anyone speaks a South Indian language, could you maybe also go to GoogleImages and see if you get any interesting hits for out-of-copyright images of Nairs? The attire section could us some historical images, as can the Military History section.

For more modern items, if anyone is living in Kerala now, some pics of modern festivals, attire, etc. would be great. Not to be a foodie geek, but if anyone goes to any festivals and can get a photo of a table full of Nair food, that'd be awesome for the Cuisine section. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can anyone help find images of the mythical figure Kutti Chattan? And/or, provide his local-language name spelling so I can search for it under that term. If there are any public-domain depictions of him, that'd be ideal to add for the "Supernatural" section. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Working on the presumption of non-cooperation from "local" regulars here, previously stated by them, User:Sodabottle might be able to help with transliterations. I am gradually learning the alternatives but it is a long haul and I am stumped on this one. Languages are not my forte in any event. - Sitush (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Left him a message. Though, I really would hope that the other folks who aren't neccessarily pleased with my footnoting would still be neutral enough to agree that adding good historical images can't help but improve the article, and would be able to help out there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(reposting my reply to MV in my talk page) It is usually written as "kutti chathan" or "kutti chathaan". the tamil transliteration is ”குட்டிச்சாத்தான்” and the malayalam one is "കുട്ടിച്ചാത്തൻ". They are usually (but not always) written as a single word (kuttichathaan). Image searches usually yield stills from the popular 1984 movie My Dear Kuttichathan. There is a Kuthichathan festival /dance form involving kuttichathaan in kerala and the relevant article in Malayalam wikipedia is this (kuttichathan theyyam). It has a couple of commons images which can be useful. If you need other related images, drop a note in the ML wiki's village pump - they have a robust open source culture there and provide lots of images to commons. they might be able to help--Sodabottle (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh we have a page for the ritual/festival - Theyyam. The one involving kuttichathan is called "kuttichathan theyyam". There are two images for this in commons and. The photographer is User:Anoopan a very experienced malayalam wikipedian, so he might be able to help with any other related images too.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

classification
this sentence from the first paragraph in the lead They are today considered one of the Hindu forward castes.[4][5] needs to clarified. considered by whom? government? and may be even why? inconsistencies like Veluthedathu Nair and Vilakkithala Nairs grouped under other backward classes list (see page 7) needs to be discussed about. --CarTick (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was the one who provided refs 4/5 for that text. It previously said "classified", but the two refs I found just said things like "and other forward castes, such as the Nairs". It's pretty patchy, but I was trying to apply some benefit of the doubt and attempt to substantiate an otherwise unsupported claim. If you prefer to draw a harder line, I won't take it personally. Are there official .in gov't "Forward Caste" lists that would be authoritative? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * this is a general question i have with all castes — how to phrase this classification? is a FC/BC/SC or is considered a FC/BC/SC or is classified by Government of India and State government as a FC/BC/SC or any other better way. I see GOI maintains an OBC list, i am not sure if there is such a list for FC. --CarTick (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is, Nair caste is not classified as a whole into either forward or backward caste. The official categorization of Government considers some sub-castes of Nair, such as Illath, Swaroopath, Kiriyath, etc as forward while other sub-castes such as Veluthedath, Vilakkithala, Andra Nair, Kalari Kurup, Kalari Panikkar, etc as backward castes and gives reservation. I think it will be misleading unless the article describes this scenario clearly. BTW, Nair Service Society, the organisation of the forward section of Nairs is now claiming to be backward and demands reservation. Please read this news article.

-- Chekon (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, Chekon. Can you find any government website etc that shows any of these different classifications? I am positive that you are right because I've seen this mess elsewhere, but if we're going to sort out the problem then we need to be able to point to a source. We probably won;t go too deeply into the nature of the various classifications because there is an article for that, but we'll need a sentence or two along the lines of "Some sections of the Nair community are today classified as a forward caste by the government of [state or India];[source] however, others are classified as backward class.[source] These classifications are for the purpose of determining which groups of people in certain areas are subject to positive discrimination policies for the purposes of education and employment." - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * GOI official list of backward communities are easily available.


 * Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Link 6


 * Unfortunately, there is no official list of "Forward castes" kept by GOI. A caste which doesn't come in any of the backward lists is considered as forward. (In fact, there is no "forward" caste officially, but "open merit" or "general category".) I think the caste's classification (as forward or backward) need not to be stated at the beginning, it is better to mention somewhere later when talking about the social status, etc. → Chekon (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent stuff. And, yes, I tend to agree with you about placement of the statement. I have in the past moved these things into the body of the article. Will take a look through your links. If anyone has a suggested wording then feel free to, erm, suggest. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Terms like "reported as", "noted", etc
This might be in a WP policy somewhere, but if we have items that are decently footnoted, where we're not necessarily implying "this is the opinion of one individual scholar/explorer/bureaucrat", should we then avoid saying "The Fooians were noted as wearing ornamented sandals" and just say "The Fooians traditionally wore ornamented sandals"? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is an undisputed fact then there is no issue with what you suggest. If, however, there may be some doubt then I prefer to make that doubt apparent. I cannot imagine that guidelines would say otherwise. Common sense, I think, is the order of the day.


 * I suspect that in the Attire section the real problem is whether X was the everyday dress, a ceremonial/feast day dress etc, whether it was worn by the majority and at what period it applied. Depends how pedantic you want to be. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Usable images from Malayalam Encyclopedia
I think this article can include images from the "Nair" article in Malayalam encyclopedia (Government of Kerala). These images are copyright free (available under GNU Free Documentation License) and can be used in Wikipedia. This article contains a no. of rare old images. → Chekon (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm really going to have to go dig into these! Good looking out! From what you've seen so far, is there anything we can use for the "traditional practices" section? I imagine photo documentation might be difficult, but is there any photo evidence showing an extended/hypergamous/etc family? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is one photo of a Nair "Koottukudumbam" (Joint family). Is this what you are looking for?→ Chekon (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you ever know that you're my hero, / and everything I would like to be? / I can fly higher than an eagle, / for you are the wind beneath my wings... Outstanding! Way to find a pic for an otherwise hard-to-illustrate section!  I'll see what I can do about getting it uploaded properly, and I'll have to dig into that source more. Is it necessary to know a regional language to be able to get full benefit of that site? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2011

Kalarippayat and Nairs
⁯I don't understand the significance of photo of Kalarippayat in this article. Kalarippayat is a general martial art of Kerala and it was practised historically not only by Nairs, but other castes such as Ezhavas, Nadars, Syrian Christians, Muslim Moplas, etc. Many historians believe that Chekavars, the well-known Kalarippayat warriors were Ezhavas. So, a statement like "Kalarippayat was practised by Nairs" is like putting a photo of an Aeroplane in the article Germany and saying, "Aeroplanes are used in Germany".⁮ → Chekon (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You raise a good point; have you checked the refs to see whether they express any particularly unique/distinctive ties between Nairs and Kalarippayat? If the Nairs are no more involved in K. than the average Keralan group, and K. is no more linked to Nairs than any other Keralan group, I could see removal. If there is some way that Nairs strongly identify with K. in a way that others don't, or played a significant role in its popularisation, I could see a small inclusion. Kind of like how (to build on your Germany comparison) an article about Alaskans may mention float-planes since that vehicle is a disproportionately popular form of transport for Alaskans living in isolated areas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * They were known for it, as far as I've been able to find out over the last few months. Although there is a discrepancy regarding the Kaniyar Panickers, which I queried here a few days ago. It is a valid image for this article, especially for the majority of the world who will not have a clue what it is. I think that pretty much all the world, perhaps excluding some tribes in the Amazonian rainforest, know what a plane is. That is a chalk and cheese comparison, I am afraid. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

The "Nair Regulation" of 1919, 1925
Not sure if getting deeper into these would make too-long a section of an already long article, but I suggest that I or others can look into making a few new articles to link to regarding the "Nair/Nayar Regulation" acts, which occurred in 1919 and 1925. A brief Google Survey shows some interesting political ties and controversies, so I'll try to glance at that in a bit. Just wanted to float the idea in case it causes anyone's little ears to perk up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * One separate article, covering all the Acts, would be my way of doing it. You're going to get a lot about the NSS in there, but the NSS article itself is shocking. YMMV. - Sitush (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Any reason not to direct palm brandy to Arrack?
The article mentions "palm brandy"; as I understand it, palm toddy can just be a basically-fermented beverage, whereas a "brandy" would be a distilled beverage. The article Arrack doesn't specifically cover Indian distilled palm drinks, though it covers a similar distilled toddy of Sri Lanka. What say, should "palm brandy" redirect to arrack (which is a general term referring to a lot of distilled drinks in the Islamic-influenced world and adjoining areas), or to palm toddy, though the term really refers (by logic) to a specific variant of distilled toddy? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Dangit, this appears to be more complicated than I thought:

which exudes, in 12 hours, some 30 to 60 ounces of a translucent sweetish sap with an agreeable taste, which is either_ drunk greedily in its raw state under the name of "toddy," which is a pleasant and wholesome beverage, or the sap is evaporated down to dryness, when it yields a brownish yellow substance called Jaggeri, or Goor, which is crude or unrefined sugar. This same result may be also obtained by macerating the flowers in water and then separating by boiling. Sometimes the sap is allowed to ferment and then distilled to separate a sort of brandy, more commonly known as "arrack," which is not, however, to be confounded, as it has been, with "palm wine," or palm brandy (as some authors have unfortunately done), which is the product of the Maldive or Butyrac nut.

Huh, do we need a new article just for this? I can do that as needed. What thinks? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't rely on Hough for anything. It would need some extra sourcing for pretty much everything he says. I would even be wary of using him as a historical source without some more recent support. Equally, is the palm brandy referred to in this article a statement from a reliable source? Could that writer have got things confused? - Sitush (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It was a footnoting error, the quote is actually from the American Druggist, so a bit more useful source on pharmaceuticals. I can dig into the source of the "palm brandy" in Cochin or wherever. In whatever case, it does appear that there may be an article to be made on "palm brandy", if, as above, more sources indicate it's a nut product vice distilled-sap toddy. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought he was being unusually clever and detailed! He normally seems to wield a 2 mile-wide brush while wearing a blindfold. There is definitely an article there, if the sources are up to it. American Druggist, eh? Bet that's a cracking good read ;)- Sitush (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

images
too many images and it is best to substitute them with Template:Infobox caste. they may be more suitable at List of Nairs though. --CarTick (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you mean the composite image at the top of the page then, yes, it needs to go. Not because it is "too many" but because it gives undue weight to those people who are featured cf all the others who are not. As you say, it isn't even particularly relevant. This rationale applies to all the main caste articles. - Sitush (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The "composite caste image" seems to be quite popular in these sort of article. Might it be best to go to WP:WikiProject India and get some sort of consensus prior to dealing with what appears to be a fait accompli "format"? And do you have any suggestions as to what would tend to be the best sort of lead image? I think pages tend to look a little bare without a lead image. Maybe 1900ish anthropological photos or 1800ish engraving showing traditional dress/environment, or is that going to open us to accusations of the "British gaze"? MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually do not care unduly what WP India say about this particular issue. It is a straight breach of Wikipedia policy since it gives undue weight to those featured. That will always trump whatever a project may think, unless they can get the policy changed. The composition is also totally irrelevant: the subjects are not referred to in the article. If we cannot find some suitably inane, all-encompassing alternative then there is nothing wrong with leaving it blank. That is not a breach of anything. There will be more than sufficient photos elsewhere, thanks to your efforts. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

David Eggenberger source
I am struggling with what is currently cite #89, from David Eggenberger in connection with the Third Anglo-Mysorean War. Perhaps I am being stupid, but I cannot find a mention of this war on the cited page. Can anyone confirm, please? - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am being stupid. I've just noticed that the GBooks link takes me to p. 39, not p. 392. I can't even see p. 392 here. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Chandu Menon
Can anyone find a citation support, "Other Nair writers such as Chandu Menon also argue that polyandry never existed among Nairs and consider it a gross insult."

The WP article on Menon is totally unreferenced and has been for a long time. Unless some sort of referencing starts to appear there then I will be tempted to PROD it, which would be a shame as I suspect that he is quite notable both as an author & as a social reformer. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Punnapra-Vayalar: The uprising of Ezhavas!!!
I was literally ROTFL after seeing how Punnapra-Vayalar uprising mentioned in this article. This article gives an impression that it was a struggle between Ezhavas and Nairs!! And discovered this 'heavy' truth from the same old guy, the notorious SadaSivan!! This doesn't show the ignorance of the editors, but their bias. I am being forced to suspect these usernames actually belongs to some Ezhavas who wish not only to defame another caste, but also to glorify their own. --  G O V I N D   S H A R M A  02:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At present half the article is directly copy-pasted from Sadasivan's little known book. Are you going to add ROTFL to all the other sections? 122.177.143.217 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm hearing busy little fingers typing comments, and not seeing any of them doing a single productive thing to improve the article. So the "ROTFL" probably goes out for all of you who aren't having a single whit of influence on an article seen by 15,000 readers a month. Congrats. Further, at present 7 of 105 footnotes are to Sadasivan, which is substantially under "half". Further still, the article does not in the slightest imply that the P-V uprising was Ezhava vs. Nair, it states that one of the significant historical acts of the Nair-based military unit was the suppression of the P-V uprising. And again, we have discredited editors hiding behind IPs rather than logging in so that their general lack of constructive input may be more clear. At this point I just have to take comfort in the fact that the hard work being put in by neutral editors is making a difference in the article, and that the array of hecklers has thus far been incapable of bringing any legitimate complaints, or finding citations that don't say the literal opposite of what they're complaining about. Ah, such is the fate of a neutral editors in the wild world of caste-cruft... MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Western/Christian POV
The following was inserted into the article by User:Govindsharma at this diff:

"I see the article has changed a lot from its version existed some months back, and I am afraid this change caused more bad than good. Current version of article is pushing a "Westerner/Christian" POV. For example, the article accuses only Brahmins for caste system even though the Christians were equally liable for it. Another example is the stress given to serpent groves over other groves such as Siva grove, Gandharva grove, etc. The attempt made here was to cherry pick those traditions of rural Hinduism which may seem strange in western/Christian perspective. Even the historical division as "Portuguese era", "British era" shows this colonial (sorry for using this term) attitude. Throughout the article, emphasise given to "what EUROPEANS thought about it" or "how THEY perceived it". The article whitewashes the Syrian Christians by diminishing the untouchability they practised on Nairs and lower castes. Yet to read the article fully. Will post more comments once I finish reading. --Govindsharma (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)"

I cut it from there to post here. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearcut example of meat puppetry from a Syrian Christian (most probably Kondotty), who was upset that his edits showing Syrian "superiority" were removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.65.6 (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So you people say that these accusations are meant to show the supremacy of Brahmins and to flatter us? If that was the case I would be the first one thank you for giving such a consideration for Brahmin caste in an article on a non-Brahmin caste. But, I don't think so. I believe it is the other way round. Nambudiris and other Brahmins are narrated in this article in the same way European colonialists  mentioned in Indian history books. Brahmins are depicted as somebody who came from outside until which everything was hunky dory and caused all the problems. If you believe this would demonstrate their superior status, then I must say all the history books in India were written, not to blame the Europeans, but to praise them.--Govindsharma (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why you think that the Brahmins are getting a bad press here. This is a factual article, as all articles on Wikipedia are intended to be. However, if you think that it needs improvement then please could you provide some constructive suggestions, with supporting sources (not your opinion, but rather evidence from sources that comply with Wikipedia policies etc). - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC


 * You ranked Nair as Sudra based on the simply reason that Kerala Brahmins (a very little minority) considered them as Shudras... Your argument for this is: They (brahmins) defined the caste system.... This is typically a Western/Christian POV based on the POV of the Colonial era: at this time, the British favoured the Brahmins for some dubious political reasons and supported some of their POV and especially this one: nowadays there are only 2 castes, Brahmins & Shudras. Based on that, British ranked most of the ancient ruling castes as Shudras just because Brahmins considered them as such and it was in their interest to support this Brahmin POV. Some scholars talked about Nairs as Shudras not because of their profession but because the local Brahmins considered them as Shudra. This is typically a western/christian POV which do not (or don't want to) understand the complexity of the Indian society.Rajkris (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is simply not true that the Nambudiri Brahmins considered Nairs as Sudra. If fact, the Nambudiris considered Nairs as "Sudra Rajas" (i.e., Kings of Sudras) If you look at ancient works such as "Kerala Mahatmyam" or "Keralolpathi" composed by Nambudiris, you won't see the word 'Sudra' as denoting Nairs but only 'Sudra Raja' or 'Nayaka' (leader). This was either mistaken or deliberately misinterpreted by the Westerners and they wrote in their books that Nairs are Sudras. On Indian side, as observed by Sri Chattambi Swamikal in the book 'Pracheena Malayalam', this Sudra notation, is seen only in some recent official records of Travancore kingdom (which was apparently under the influence of European powers and their missionary interests). Here the Europeans applied their tactics of 'Divide and Rule'. Nairs and Brahmins were two most powerful and influencial groups among the Hindu castes here, so they did everything to create and develop enemity among these groups. --Govindsharma (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is in total mess and is nothing but a collection of POV. The editorship has moved from 'glorifiers' to 'hate mongers' now. Whatever is given in the article is totally unreliable, distorted and malignant information to tarnish a community. Some serious investigation is to be made to get the exact intention of these editors. Most of the citations given in this article are from writers (mostly westerners) who had written many things out of context or to augment vested interest or were completely ignorant about the social realities of Kerala. Again, certain Indian writers who were (in)famous for their biased approach are also quoted here. Tomorrow, I can also write a book on something and add a citation from this page. Hence, there should be some norm and reason for referring/citing a particular situation. Otherwise it just amounts to a distorted POV of the individual editors. I have read more than a dozen books on Kerala history and nairs and nothing conveys me the information given in this page. Reliable sources are not at all referred here. For e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica, Malabar manual, etc are not at all referred instead Gough, sadasivan, pullapally are quoted. Even the historic researchers like Zacharia thundiyil, Sreedhara Menon and Kunjan pillais finding are ignored here. This is totally one sided with vicious intent. Similarly the polyandry is projected and highlighted beyond anyone has ever heard of before. Why is it highlighted only in this page. The article is trying to draw a similarity between Nairs and Ezhavas which is totally rubbish. The ezhavas originated from Srilanka while the Nairs were native Naga rulers/warriors (not dravidian or aryan). The similarity in their rituals is only because the Ezhavas started emulating the Nairs and both were out of the Vedic Hindu fold. There is absolutely no citation for this in anywhere other than this page. There are many 'not so heard' incidents like Nairs being fighting for the Portuguese being highlighted while the battle of colachel where the first time an European power was defeated by a native army is very purposefully ignored. The Nairs who were in the forefront of freedom struggle, temple entry, social justice are very tactfully ignored. Even the information on related ethnic groups like Bunts which is important is removed. Mamankam, kalari payattu, role of Nair leaders in freedom struggle, political and social nurturing of kerala are all very conveniently ignored. This article needs a complete revamp and till then the article should be rated as C or even below.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.16.20 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To all three of you above (the IP. Govindsharma and Raj?kris), find the sources please. And, no, Logan does not cut the mustard as a source, nor do ancient texts. If what is stated is not true then all you need to do is find modern reliable sources that say so. By the sounds of what you say, it should not be that difficult. However, please note that there have been over 100 supposed sources provided that the Nairs were kshatriya and all of those examined proved either not to be reliable or not to say what the proposer thought that they said. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia Britannica is a WP:tertiary source, so its inclusion is not preferable. If there are items you feel need to be included (note the 1741 Battle of Colchal against the Dutch is already mentioned, by men, but could use more detail), then step up and add them along with reliable footnotes. No editor is superhuman, so we can only find and add so much, so it is incumbent upon those who feel the article is lacking to contribute to address those lackings. Further, folks complain generally about sourcing, but nobody is actually pulling up specific names (and articles noting their being discredited), specific passages which conflict with more reliable sources, etc. Note that Sitush often addresses contested refs line by line before removing them, yet an entire body of other editors cannot produce any similar critique. If three of you have the same complaint, producing a few footnotes, or analysing a problematic paragraphy, does not seem an undue labour. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you should have some patience. Almost all the caste-related articles swing between pro-Glorifying and pro-Hate mongering sections from time to time. For almost a year, the pro-Glorifying CABAL led by Suresh Varma, supported by his servants Raghavan Nambiar, Anand Nair, Shannon and Chandrakantha Mannadiar had total control over this page. It is only natural that the pro-tarnishing CABAL of Cartick, Sitush and MattewVanitas replace them, once the leader and his top lieutenant (Varma and Nambiar) was removed from the picture. I think the natural justice will be, since the Varma & Co. controlled the page for one year, let Sitush & Co. control it for another year. Then we can get some neutral editors to modify the article. I agree with your current rating of the article. I'd give it a D grading, while giving a C+ to the earlier version. 202.83.178.126 (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * dear IP, why dont you do all of us a favor and reveal who you are in this list. I have to say — the IP being from AUS — i have a hunch! --CarTick (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with you, AUS IP. This article has become a haven of hate mongers who tries to defame the Nair community. They are warned to remember what happened to an Ezhava blogger who posted slanderous content on Nair community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.137.179.172 (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's really unfair to compare me and others to the host of pro-Nair POV editors, and particularly to call us a "cabal"; I never met Sitush until this page. Further, it's inaccurate to just say "well, A and B sides are both terrible", when the pro-Nair side pushed a very extreme POV, had very poor (or no) footnoting, insulted other editors, attacked points under WP:I don't like it regardless of verifiability, etc. Though Sitush, Cartick, myself, and others may not be perfect, we are endeavoring to use Reliable Sources, clearly footnote, and are adding both "negative" and "positive" material, as well as being very willing to accept any properly cited material other editors bring forward. The pro-Nair folks fought tooth-and-nail against anything "negative", even dismissing the issue of Nair polyandry which has been an object of research for a large number of reputable academics. You are not going to easily find editors more "neutral" than we. If you feel yourself to be more neutral, why not help build the page? This page has a tragic history of high "noise to signal" ratio, in terms of dozens of "contributors" who agonise over the talk page, and never bring a single footnote, suggested addition, etc. And the few that have brought citations (as noted above) brought citations that blatantly did not say what the contributor wanted them to say (and even admitted such in their very own summary of the cite). Note the "hundred" Nair=Kshatriya cites above which say no such thing, but instead indicate that Nair fulfilled a Kshatria-like role as a military element at times, though clearly not classical Kshatriya in the Brahminical system.

This section has raised some very fair points about Western bias, which is difficult to avoid as most Reliable Sources lean heavily on the Western tradition and Western sources. However, the correct manner to address Western bias is not to endlessly kvetch, remove academically-verifiable material, and insert in "this is the real story" footnoted to some GeoCities personal website. The reasonable response would be to find works by reputable academics which offer a fresh perspective based on legitimate research of Indian sources and a critical look at Western claims. This article is considerably better than it once was (and, by the way, there is no "D" rating, you're confusing Wikipedia page classifications with school grades), with much better footnoting, and the way to make it better is to contribute to it, not complain. By all means, find some good academic citations which inform the controversy; I for one would be thrilled to see some of the academic debate summarised in the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to be funny? Who was pushing extreme POV? Although I think Suresh Varma was glorifying his caste (according to Sitush he is not a Nair!! ROFLMAO), I think he never offended anyone or went beyond a certain limit. But you guys have really disgraced the entire Wikipedia with your edits here. I don't know what is the importance of "Nair" polyandry. As I know, 90% of the people in Kerala practiced polyandry, either fraternal or non-fraternal. Nairs were never more than 15% of the population, and how does this "Nair" polyandry comes in to the equation, especially since it was practiced by the Nairs from a small area only. And your claim on reliable sources is really laughable. I have looked at the 100+ refs referred by you. Many of them equivocally states that Nairs belong to Kshatriya "varna". I haven't made a single edit to the Nair article (other than the talk page) and intend to remain so, especially after seeing the blocking of almost all of the editors who opposed your POV. Sometimes having an admin on your side is all you need to win a war here. The use of third rate language by you and your friends such as "Nairs and dogs don't know who their father is" and vulgar references to even the underwear used by the women, rather shows your moral bankruptcy. If you are so confident about your edits, then may I ask you why no one (other than your trio) yet came out to support you guys? For you, each and everyone who says something against your edit is a Nair. You have even branded the two Tamils (RajKris and ManoRathan) as being Nair. And I'm sure this will happen to me also, even though I am not even a Hindu. Get well soon mister. 202.83.178.126 (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I came to this article quite coincidentally and I was quite surprised to find it altered to such a mess. If that particular admin you are referring to is biased, then please complain to someone else. Right now this article is a POS. Sujith.Kumaar (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think "this article is a POS", then please feel free to do something constructive about it - discuss what, specifically, is wrong with it on the Talk page, and provide some sources to back up what you believe it should say -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)15:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, judging by the comments here, it's quite clear who 202.83.178.126 is, and they are evading a block by editing logged out - so I've blocked the IP for block evasion. As has been explained many times, nobody has called anyone "dogs don't know who their father is", and there was absolutely nothing vulgar said about underwear - if you think the very mention of underwear is itself vulgar, then you are way wide of the open and uncensored philosophy of Wikipedia, which does not censor sourced information to cater for individual sensitivities. Now, as for the historical facts about Nair people, if you dispute the sourced content of the article, all you have to do is present better sources that verify an alternative view - you must not approach it by calling those you disagree with "hatemongers", or "sons of whores", or any of the other choice phrases some of you have come up with. All that will achieve is to get you blocked. And if anyone thinks my admin actions in respect of this dispute are incorrect, then you are welcome to seek alternative opinions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is exactly what they were talking about. If you are going to block everyone who speaks against you, then get ready to block 2-3 users everyday. That is because not a single Indian will find this article anything more than a tool to defame a particular cast. Sujith.Kumaar (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with blocking people who disagree, it's about blocking people who repeatedly refuse to follow Wikipedia policies. One of the cornerstones of the project is No Personal Attacks, which means that calling others "sons of whores" or similar things is simply not acceptable, and will get you blocked if you do it. Also, repeatedly removing sourced content without discussion, or repeatedly adding unsourced content without discussion, counts as edit warring, and is again not acceptable.


 * It really is simple - if you believe some sourced content is wrong, explain why and provide sources which refute it. And if you want to add new material, find sources to support it. What is so hard to understand about that? Let me make a suggestion - choose one specific thing in the article that you believe is being used as a "tool to defame a particular caste", and explain why, and we can discuss it - that has to be better than this current battlefield approach, hasn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Why you are attacking me? I just wrote my opinion in this subject. There is no need to attack everyone who comes here. A question, which is repeated many times here: You guys are calling Nairs "dogs" and all such things (No matter in whatever ways you might want to interpret it, I am quite fluent in English, and this is what I understand from your edits), and if anyone says anything against you in a similar language, then you immediately ban him. And adding "sourced" info. The sources provided by that single guy was much better than all the sources provided by your people. I don't know anything about Sadasivan, I haven't even heard about him. But after reading a few pages from his book through Google books, I am 100% sure that his works are not worthy to mention in any wikipedia article. All I could find from the pages which I read was a deep cast hatred against Nairs, Brahmins.etc and a sharp sense of inferiority complex. Not a single bit of accurate information I found there. And it seems that his "story" is the basis for your version of Nair article. Shame shame..... There is a saying that if you lie 100 times, then it becomes truth. Similarly if you lie that their sources are not accurate and your sources were accurate... then may be... after sometime.... Sujith.Kumaar (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As with any community, Wikipedia has policies, guidelines and - for want of a better term - rules of conduct. If you do not like them then you are free to seek your information elsewhere or even to seek a change in those policies etc. There are processes available by which change can be sought, both at the highest community level and here at article level.


 * This talk page is one such forum to seek consensus regarding how the article is presented. However, personal abuse, unsubstantiated accusations, threats, a failure to read what is written and a failure to provide any evidential support for proposed changes is always going to hit problems. If anyone wants to pursue those methods of conduct then they will first have to get the wider Wikipedia community to agree to a change in their policies. Good luck with that. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you sincerely believe that "not a single Indian" would support this version, or even that the balance of educated, neutral Indians would not support, might I suggest you express your concerns at WP:WikiProject India? There are a large number of Indian editors there with extensive Wikipedia and research experience. Similarly, if you would like more neutral people (though again, Sitush and myself are not in the slightest Indian and have no involvement with any caste disputes), you could always bring your concerns to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where completely uninvolved editors specialising in addressing bias may be found. However, I am quite confident that uninvolved editors arriving at this page would agree that the current version is substantially better than the earlier version, is comprehensively and painstakingly footnoted, and that the vast majority of opposition to the current version is unable to bring any actual evidence to bear to raise any serious doubts about this version. The very fact that none of the complainants has yet to find any support outside of the complainant community is rather telling. If the ratio of complainants to pro-current-version editors is high, it is likely because few neutral editors are interested in this topic, so for years this article has been at the mercy of people with an emotional involvement in the subject. Now that several uninvolved editors have come to undertake an extensive cleanup, it has upset those who cannot emotionally detach from the content and apply standard Wikipedia policies of NPOV, sourcing, etc. By all means, seek redress if you feel this page is being edited unfairly, but do not be surprised if outside parties looking in generally support the developing version. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)