Talk:Nair/Archive 20

s

Time and again i request removal of adding up snake worship as being worshipped as mere dravidian custom
Snake worship is indegenous to kerala and especially among Nair's. I'ld like the focus to be on Nair's and not classifying it as a dravidian custom. I dont even find that mentioned in the reference.

Moreover i'd like to add some references in some time. I'd like to know if they would be classified as secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.204.31 (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Time and again, you are told why you will not get your way. Whether your references would be classed as secondary sources or whatever rather depends on what they are - you'll need to let us know. - Sitush (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Serpent worship is also prevalent in other parts of India. It's not a Dravidian custom. Most of the Naga Temples are in Kashmir. The origin of Nagavansh is from Kashmir. King Takshaka had had his Kingdom in Takshashila(Rawalpindi, Pakistan). Gandhara Kingdom, which was a Naga kingdom, was in northern Afghanistan. Ulupi was a Naga princess, Her father ruled the underwater kingdom of serpents in the Ganga river. Ananthapura was the Naga Kingdom of south. Shree Nagabhooshani Amman temple is one of the Shaktipeethas and is located in northern part of Sri Lanka. Nagas have no relation with Dravidians. '''Dravidians are very different people. They cannot be included in the Varna system.''' Means, their beliefs and traditions are entirely different from those communities which are following the Varna system from generations.

"Get your way"? How can you be so dismissive and arrogant? You are acting like the owner of this article and dismissing everything that does not fit your POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.254.189 (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * IP 182.*, I can only see the cited source in snippet view but page 85, as cited, does indeed appear to say that the worship was a Dravidian custom. You may be able to check for yourself using this link but if not then User:Sitush/Common might explain whatever issue it may be that you have in viewing the source. - Sitush (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's start over: Etymology
I apologise for not being around for a couple of days, during which time we appear to have yet again attracted a burst of enthusiastic comments about the article. And, as is common here, the organisation has become somewhat chaotic. Can we please go through the thing one section at a time and please be aware that, while I have been a major contributor to the thing, there is no point in attacking me: there are entire sections to which I have contributed nothing and anything that I have contributed is based on reliable sources, Yes, some are perhaps not the sources that some would like to accept as being reliable, but they have been discussed extensively here and also at noticeboards such as WP:RSN, WP:ANI and (I think) WP:DRN.

So, to the etymology issue. As far as I can recall the section was massively pruned due to issues which appeared at the time to be ridiculously contentious and which were resulting in a fairly large number of administrative actions being required. Basically, "if the thing is not there then it ceases to be a problem". Forget Panikkar, Sadasivan etc for the moment: does anyone have any alternate sources of merit for this specific issue? Or are we stuck with the same old names? - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you back Usr:Sitush, the Focus of discussion is


 * 1. Recommeded to reinstate – KM Panicker’s Nagar conclusion– published in a scientific peer reviewed journal+already widely cited in the article.


 * 2. Not recommended to reinstate– Sadasivan’s (Suna theory) because it is a fringe theory + potentially controversial to many users-so that we can avoid users from warring


 * 3. Not recommended but negotiable – Nayak- the vanity-motivated theory


 * 4. Recommended to add – Opinion on credibility of the theories to various nair etymologies by various historians to achieve NPOV.


 * Presently all the users who have participated in the discussion unanimously agree on point 1 - K.M Panicker Nagar-Nayar theory (published in scientific-peer-reviewed journal and cited 17 times in the article already). Kindly therefore provide point wise your view on the above 4 points with note - Acceptable/unacceptable/negotiable.


 * VS

Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Sitush is moving goal posts again. Should we find new sources? Hmm! Should we? Hmm! Hmm! That way we can discredit the building consensus right? Very clever.


 * 1. Recommeded to reinstate – KM Panicker’s Nagar conclusion– published in a scientific peer reviewed journal+already widely cited in the article - Acceptable


 * 2. Not recommended to reinstate– Sadasivan’s (Suna theory) because it is a fringe theory + potentially controversial to many users-so that we can avoid users from warring - unacceptable


 * 3. Not recommended but negotiable – Nayak- the vanity-motivated theory - negotiable


 * 4. Recommended to add – Opinion on credibility of the theories to various nair etymologies by various historians to achieve NPOV. - unacceptable. Maybe mention that there are other theories and simply give references rather than turn it into another scatterbrained section for pseudohistorians to claim availability and non-availability of sources.

Reason for KM Panikker as stated it's from a peer-reviewed article by an author who has already been quoted in the (scatterbrained) main article. Nayak is negotiable not because it is vanity motivated but because there are similar caste names in South India and its a plausible trend. Yes, it's just my theory but I really don't care about this.

I care more about the Orientalist slant of the whole article where biased Portuguese observations are sourced directly or indirectly through "modern" Marxist historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.76.105 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As per WP:HUMAN, your point-wise opinion on Nair etymology consensus discussion is acknowledged (however, we would be more than happy if you may want to consider registering a user account). Thanks.

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The present statement in etymology section - “most of them have been described as being of unsatisfactory credibility” is based on  the footnote of a translated travelogue!! (and not based on a scientific-peer-reviewed publication) and hence of inadequate credibility in both content and citation (as reliable scientific publication exists). Multiple users seem to agree on replacement of existing etymology section and inclusion of the more reliable scientific publication (in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland/JRAGBI by K.M Panicker). '''No user has provided any credible substantiation “why” this proposed JRAGBI publication should not be merited and “why” merit needs to be searched elsewhere. Further, no user has provided any opposing scientific-peer-reviewed research publication that discredits the content (Nagar-Nayar conclusion) of the JRAGBI article. However if any objections on the merit of the JRAGBI article exists, then please discuss them here precisely with substantiating reasons''' so that they may be clarified.

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are repeating yourself, you are hurting my eyes with all of the unnecessary bolding, and you are still failing to follow our basic etiquette regarding indentation of comments. I am well aware of the potential faults and I am well aware of Panikkar's position etc, all of which was once in the article. Is there any chance that you could address my query rather than indulging in repetition? - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You have raised only one unsubstantiated query namely “Forget Panicker….does anyone have an alternate sources of merit for this specific issue ?” !!!!. The invalidity of this query is self-evident  from my answer “ you have not provided any credible substantiation “why” this proposed JRAGBI Panikkar publication should not be merited and “why” merit needs to be searched elsewhere”.  Forget Panikkar !!! on what grounds ?.


 * On the contrary, you have evaded answering  the core-focus of etymology discussion both on your talk page as well as avoiding and interrupting consensus building on article talk page. I Kindly encourage User:Sitush  to address core-focus of discussion like User: Pprasadnair and User: vekramaditya have done.


 * VS


 * P.S-Filibustering this new consensus-building process by avoiding discussion of core –issue especially when multiple users have reached a consensus is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia. Users:Sitush is encouraged to mediate where possible—identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart as per wiki guidelines.Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed your insertion of the template because that process is for disputes involving two people, whereas this discussion - spread over several threads - has involved far more than that number. I am evading nothing, nor fillibustering. I asked a simple question: are there any more modern sources? This is because we do try to avoid using older sources. Yes, Panikkar is scattered around the article already but that is for a very specific reason and it has been explained to you: much of what he wrote regarding marriage practices etc were still evident when he was writing and he has a fairly unique perspective from our viewpoint because he was a Nair himself. That does not mean all that he wrote is suitable for inclusion and, right now, I am trying to find some more recent perspectives in the hope that we can avoid the need to use him. We know of Sadasivan, for example, but tracking stuff down is made complex because there are so many authors using the name Nair or Nayar. Nonetheless, I think it likely that the etymology has been discussed since Panikkar's time and thus raised the query. None of this means that Panikkar's opinion is incorrect: I simply do not have enough to form a judgment one way or the other. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Sitush, Removal of 3O is unacceptable as all other participating users have consensus- The present dispute revolves between you and me (2 editors) on evasion of point wise addressal of etymology discussion.
 * That you are trying to find some later-sources is tangential to our cause because wikipedia does not work on non-inclusion of a topic because "user X may find something on it in the future". Panikkar’s work is the “modern” source for etymology because no subsequent scientific-peer-reviewed article has researched the subject of etymology based on philology of Dravidian and Prakistic languages. If your stand is that, “I do not have enough to form a judgment one way or the other” !!! -then you must clarify to us whether you intend continue participation in the etymology discussion ? (How can a person who does not have a position on the core-issue contribute to its consensus ?). In your absence of “opinion” the conclusion is unanimously in favour of inclusion of K.M panicker. I sincerely hope that you see the logic in it.
 * VS


 * P.S-In the event that you decide to abstain from participating from etymology discussion due to lack of "opinion", then the dispute does not exist between us and you may remove 30. Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not reading it. Utterly fed up of the bolding, which in my opinion amounts to SHOUTING. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Summary- User:Sitush has made it unambiguously clear to us that he has  “no opinion” on the core issue and hence nothing towards consensus-building process on etymology .  Among the presently available scientific-peer –reviewed content/citations Panicker is  (at the moment) the  more reliable one  than the already cited travelogue-footnote citation of ML Dames and hence it needs to be replaced. When User:Sitush will find a more reliable article “ in the future” we can examine the credibility of that “hypothetical article” then. That hypothetical article need not be an impediment why the present reliable article should not be included.  What is the opinion of other users ? - Kindly individually state whether you agree/disagree to this point.


 * VS


 * P.S-Dear User:Sitush, Kindly read what Ad hominem  means and evaluate  your above comment based on that definition. Kindly also read  WP:OWN and evaluate how being possessive can be detrimental to wiki articles.  Although it appears that you are repeatedly removing my 3O template intended  to achieve NPOV, I donot wish to pursue it in to an edit-war (for that is against wiki ethics).Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Having no opinion means that I am undecided. I would like to see more information, for the reasons that I have given on umpteen past occasions. We are going round in circles here - take a look at WP:TE. However, in the absence of such information, I guess that I would tend towards exclusion of Panikkar, again for the reasons that I have previously given. You are trying to manipulate me into being some sort of irrelevance and it will not work. You suddenly appear to have gained a massive (if misguided) knowledge of policy despite your limited experience. I see no consensus in the above discussions, if you disregard the article banned contributor and and the IPs who keep moving around. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.


 * Viewpoint by (Vettakkorumakansnehi): The present statement in etymology section - “most of them have been described as being of unsatisfactory credibility” is based on the footnote of a translated travelogue!! (and not based on a scientific-peer-reviewed publication) and hence of inadequate credibility in both content and citation (as reliable scientific publication exists). There exists a more reliable scientific-peer-reviewed publication (in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland/JRAGBI by K.M Panicker). This proposed paper by KM panicker is already cited 17 times even in the present Nayar article under various other headings !!!. KM Panikkar’s work is the “modern” source for etymology because no subsequent scientific-peer-reviewed article has researched the subject of etymology based on philology of Dravidian and Prakistic languages. However, the argument given in opposition keeps  varying  from “forget panicker”,  “no opinion”, “trying to find some more recent perspectives” , “undecided”  etc etc . The talk-archives reveals that all re-negotiations for renewed consensus are constantly thwarted based on the assumption that “the article already is perfect”. This discussion is consequently leading to filibustering, ad hominem and moving goal posts. On the basis that wikipedia does not work on non-inclusion of a topic because "user X may find something on it in the future" or “may take indefinite time to make decision”, I recommend inclusion of this content/citation until  another more credible content/citation be found . If  a new content is proposed in the future  it can always be re-negotiated for inclusion through consensus building at that time. That hypothetical article need not be an impediment why the present reliable article should not be included.The present lack of consensus is only between me and User:Sitush and hence essentially a dispute between two editors. Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Viewpoint by (name here): ....


 * Third opinion by Bdb484: ....


 * This process is based on a fallacy. WP:3O is for disputes between two people. This dispute involves many more than that and is spread across several threads due to the usual chaos present on Indian article talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To discredit 3O you seem to state “This dispute involves many more”. To discredit consensus-building  you  state in your immediate preceeding post (19:04, 19 June 2012)- “if you disregard the article banned contributor and the IPs who keep moving around” (u are implying there is none other than the two of us in dispute) !!!. So which is right ?  Further, the present ML dames reference is non-scientific (but you are not worried) and yet you oppose inclusion of the scientific-KM panicker article in the hope of a “hypothetical article that you may find in the future”.  The history of talk pages is full of such examples. For instance-   Logan is not ok but ML Dames is ok !!! At 14:44, 19 June 2012  you say “None of this means that Panikkar's opinion is incorrect” a few minute later at 19:04, 19 June 2012 you say “I would tend towards exclusion of Panikkar, again for the reasons that I have previously given” !!! Please retrospect with a calm mind on the trend I am describing above….... Actually I am worried that these opposing interpretations of yours depending on what you are arguing  may be hampering our effort to reach NPOV.  To make matters worse at 14:33,On 10 June 2012, you shocked us all by saying  “To be honest, I would be astonished if after all this time, effort and discussions there is any need for major changes to existing content unless/until new research appears” !!!. We all appreciate your stewardship of the article in the past – it has helped the article. But  don’t you think  you are yourself now becoming an impediment for further improving the article ? Think about the Panikkar citation once more objectively – don’t you think it is better than the present ML Dames ?  How can a translated travelogue be better than a scientific-peer reviewed journal ? !!! – Think calmly and forget for a moment that you are in dispute and then get back.

VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * VS, I have mentioned WP:TE to you. Please read it. You have been spraying these same comments across numerous talk pages for days on end. Is it really necessary to repeat yourself quite so often? Could you actually consider some of my points instead of selectively quoting those that you think buttress your argument, and often taking them out of context? I am becoming fed up of explaining the issues surrounding the use of Panikkar for etymology, and I am totally confused when you repeatedly state that another thing is "negotiable": a source is either reliable for a point or it is not. This dispute would be better placed at somewhere such as WP:DRN, as User:JohnCD suggested on your own talk page. - Sitush (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I shall for a moment overlook WP:AOTE as a gesture of good will. That apart, you continue to avoid my question- How can a translated travelogue be better than a scientific-peer reviewed journal ? !!! Kindly retrospect on my above post (WP:BRINK ) with a calm mind. Yes WP:DRN is a good  option, however since I wish to assume  WP:AGF of you, I am trying to steer us towards NPOV. Anyways let us finish the pending WP:3O first, plus also give some time for the administrator of this page to help us reach an NPOV.If all that fails we can consider WP:DRN as you suggested. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First, VS, I moved your sig back up to the end of your last paragraph, per our standard practice (putting it down makes it very difficult to track who said what). Second, VS, Sitush is right that the rules say you can't use 3O here, because there are multiple parties in the dispute. That being said, If Bdb484 wishes to offer an opinion, it's fine for him to do so (just like any editor can). For simplicity, I will summarize Sitush's position, as far as I understand it. Simply, just because a source is reliable for one thing does not mean it is reliable for another. There is a lot of evidence that early 20th century "academic" writing on India (heck, a lot of writing across the world on history, anthropology, and the like), conducted both by the British and Indians themselves, quite often does not meet our current standards for reliable sources. In many cases, documents were published in what were then considered reputable journals, even widely spread, that relied to a large degree on personal opinion, anecdotes, and unreliable research (as when researchers asked a particular group for its own history and then trusted that report implicitly without any independent fact checking). As such, we have to be very careful when we look at such sources. Now, this doesn't mean that they are all necessarily unreliable. We have to consider the actual thing being verified (this is what Sitush keeps pointing out when he says that sources can be reliable for one thing, but not another, which is clearly explained in WP:RS). The reason Panikker is accepted as a reliable source on marriage customs (and the like) is because those customs were ongoing and visible at the time Panikker was writing. Thus, given that he was a trusted academic, we can trust that he accurately reported what he saw. Etymology, on the other hand, is a matter of the interpretation of linguistic history--not something that can be simply "reported". Given exactly what Panikker wrote, and the fact that numerous other sources (some reliable, some not) have competing stories, and given our understanding of the field, we cannot rely upon what Panikker said on etymology enough to include it in the article.
 * Sitush, you're welcome to add to this if you like. VS, Sitush has explained all of this already, and you seem to just ignore him, in particular ignoring the rules in WP:RS that state that you can't just say "We used this source for X, so that means we can of course use it for Y." In addition, VS, your style, while I wouldn't say is a violation of WP:TE, is getting a bit annoying and could trend in that direction. Please recall that articles on Indian castes are under a special set of rules that allow any uninvolved admin (which I am not, just to be clear) to act proactively to prevent disruption. This means you need to take extra care to communicate effectively. I recommend, first of all, dropping all of the bolding, stopping your excessive repetition, and actually listening when others explain something to you.
 * Ultimately, Sitush's underlying point is the most important: we need good, modern sources. It is always better for Wikipedia to say nothing on a matter rather than to rush to say something of which we are not confident. That is, there's no desperate need to get something into the Etymology section just so that it's filled--it's much better to wait until we can get a solid paragraph that is based on sound sources, not questionable ones. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you user: Qwyrxian for the explanation.I do partially agree with you when you say “Etymology on the other hand, is a matter of the interpretation of linguistic history--not something that can be simply "reported"” . However if you examine this specific manuscript in discussion you will realize  that the Nagar-Nayar theory was not simply “reported” but was analyzed and assured by Don de Z. Wickerma Singhe- the expert in philology of Dravidian and Prakristic languages.


 * Further, I do agree with you completely when you say “always better for Wikipedia to say nothing on a matter rather than to rush to say something”. However the present statement “most of them have been described as being of unsatisfactory credibility” is not “nothing”. It is a POV – “nothing” in the spirit which you describe would be removing etymology section altogether from the article. I am willing to accept that as a NPOV. The present etymology section is a WP:COATRACK for a POV. Dont you think so ?


 * VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I can agree with User:Qwyrxian that Panicker or neither Wickerma Singhe is a reliable source for an etymology section, but arent we being a bit inconsistent here, by the same argument, how is Pullappally a good source for 'Origin of Caste System' theories? Why isnt it better not to have that section? Legolas95 (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Pullapilly seems to be something of a hobbyhorse. I am sure that I have told you before that your best solution is to find someone who says differently from him. Failing that, he is a reliable source. And even if you did find someone else, that would most likely not cause Pullapilly to be removed: we would merely show all the various opinions. Your best hope would be to find some damning criticism of Pullapilly along the lines of academic fraud. Somehow, I don't think that will happen. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I just wanted to let y'all know that I've declined the request for a third opinion, due to the number of participants involved in the dispute. This is not to be needlessly bureaucratic; 3O is meant as a simple, quick way to break a deadlock between two editors. It's supposed to be a thing where a 3O Wikipedian takes a quick look at both sides (without doing hours of research into the merits of each case) and offers their own opinion in the hope of breaking the stalemate, and it's not equipped to handle the complexity inherent in disputes involving more than two editors. So, it's just not the right tool for this particular job. Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK for a POV of ML Dames !!!
“nothing” = removing etymology section altogether from the article. Present statement = WP:COATRACK for a POV of ML Dames !!! Request for deletion of section from article to page-admin based on “always better for Wikipedia to say nothing on a matter rather than to rush to say something” VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you're slightly misusing the Coatrack essay, but I do agree that the current section is not any better than nothing, in that, well, it basically says nothing, and only has one fairly old source. I'm going to boldly remove the whole section. Anyone else is welcome to reinstate it, and I won't revert, rather continuing discussion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. I did mention in relation to previous prunings that ""if the thing is not there then it ceases to be a problem". - Sitush (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Etymology is an integral part of an article for a community. Am afraid, your assumption will not work as "if the thing is not there then it ceases to be a problem."  Also, you yourself have made all the contradictory edits without consensus.   Vekramaditya


 * Thank you user User:Qwyrxian for the necessary changes. Dear Vikramaditya, although, i do understand your larger-concern that etymology needs to be an integral part for an article on community - it also has to be populated with statements representing all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. The removed statement was a only POV of ML Dames and fails to give a truthful impression - it is better not there. If we are able to reach a consensus with User:Sitush on what is NPOV for etymology, we can always repopulate that section- presently that consensus has failed. Cheer-up and be positive, this does not mean we will not achieve consensus on an NPOV-etymology in the future. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep citing WP:NPOV but I don't think that you fully understand it. It seems to me that your idea of NPOV is in fact your POV, however well intentioned. For example, all your "negotiable" arguments regarding etymology and all the stuff concerning Gough's "most plausible" will never survive an NPOV review. It might be worth your while re-reading the policy. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

WE MAY NEED TO KNOW THEIR REAL NAMES AND BACKGROUND OF THESE EDITORS TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS BEHIND THEIR DISPUTES. IT DEFINITELY SEEM TO BE MORE THAN ACADEMIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.165.78.203 (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE- is (Template:Citation needed (lead)) required for “involved in military conflict” ?
WP:LEADCITE states that there is not an exception to citation requirements specific to “leads” and be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Therefore what is the opinion of various users on inserting this template (Template:Citation needed (lead)) after “The Nair were historically involved in military conflict in the region”. I ask this because I doubt if the “wordings” of this statement conforms to verifiability and other policies and is non-controversial to users.

All users are encouraged to provide their individual opinion .....VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You have also asked me on my own talk page, where I wasted time replying before realising that you had posed the same question here. You really do need to get to grips with your scattergun approach. The short answer to your question is that the lead section summarises the article. Since everything in the lead should be based on content in the body, and since content in the body should be sourced, there is no need to duplicate citations in the summary. It is unlikely to happen, but if this article was ever nominated for featured status, the chances of any lead citations surviving are practically nil. I am certainly intending to remove the remaining citations from the lead if/when things settle down again. Regarding your specific concern - as per your tag in this edit - well, there are umpteen sourced statements in the body which support that summary, particularly in the European Period and Military History sections. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I checked the relevant sections in article-body which support that summary as per your suggestion…I do agree partly with you. However I am not convinced completely because….. the word….”conflict” might be controversial. ….(the normal tendency of a lay reader would be to percieve “conflict” as a negative word in his/her psychological dimension – hence the “wording” being potentially controversial- and suggestion of “Template:Citation needed (lead)…. )- Lets see what other users feel, may be i am wrong about prevalence of such cognitive bias for the word "conflict". If a controversy on such grounds exist then only “Template:Citation needed (lead)" is recommended by me.


 * What does this sentence “yes, it would be ok. Equally, you could just remove the unsourced content” mean now ? - not clear to me in the light of the above  "It is unlikely to happen".- kindly clarify. Does it mean no problem to add template or remove the sentence ? or does it mean don't do it....
 * VS
 * P.S- This was done as per the guidelines of “Appropriate notification” to an individual user and not because I wanted to be a scatter gun :-))...sorry if that was a waste of time...was not intended as so...Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A "citation needed" tag is not appropriate for lead content that merely summarizes sourced material from the body of the article. If the lead appears to represent something slightly differently to the sourced version in the text, the lead should be modified to accurately reflect what the sources used in the body say. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * VS, I have this and another 1100+ pages on my watchlist & so there is no need to duplicate your messages. Not for the first time, you have quoted my sentence out of context: you asked a generic question on my talk page and I responded to it in a generic way, before then addressing what I assumed to be the situation that gave rise to it. In the context of this article, the sentence should stay and the proposed tag should not be present. As Boing! says, we could always amend the wording of the lead. However, Boing! is also speaking in a generic sense and (so far) has deliberately kept out of content matters in order that he can use his administrative tools if required. (administrators, for example, can block people but usually only if they are not involved). I see nothing wrong with the word "conflict", by the way, but feel free to propose an alternate word. "Wars" may be a little extreme, as indeed may "battles" because the Nair mode of fighting - coming as they do from the hills (ahem) - was rather different to the organised, heavily armoured etc approach adopted by others. Nairs were more light-footed guerilla/commando types: get in quickly, do the job and get out even faster! - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Perfectly put by User:Boing! said Zebedee... we could consider modifying the lead (only if there is a consensus). In response to User:Sitush invitation I propose  “The Nairs were historically involved in military engagements in the region” - will avoid the cognitive bias…VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is true that the wording "military conflict" shall give an indirect meaning as rebellion. Military engagements and military governance or one of these will be suitable.   Vekramaditya  —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Governance is completely inappropriate because it makes them out to be the rulers (which was only true to a very limited extent). Why "conflict" = "rebellion" is beyond me: is it some cultural thing? It has no overtones in any part of the English-speaking world that I have visited. On the other hand, there were rebellions ... and one of them caused the Nairs to lose the right to carry arms during the period of British rule. A piece of cultural/linguistic serendipity, I guess, that makes "conflict" a really good word to use. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sitush, lets not overlook the common option - “The Nairs were historically involved in military engagements in the region” - I guess that makes "ENGAGEMENTS"  to be the overlaping choice between the two users doesn't it ?. it conveys the same meaning as conflict but without leading the reader in to a cognitive bias - seems better- Any problem with "military engagements" ? VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sitush, its not the word “conflict” as standalone that’s the problem but the contextual usage of  it  in the sentence that is misrepresentative. “Nairs were historically involved in military conflict” –that could be interpreted as  a colonial view- a POV and a cognitive bias. It can upset the sentiments of the community and of Indians.  We should be considerate and  sensitive to this aspect. Hence, I propose, 6 choices  as lead sentence for NPOV.


 * 1.	The Nairs were historically involved in military engagements in the region


 * 2.	The Nairs were historically involved in martial duties in the region


 * 3.	The Nairs historically performed  military duties  in the region


 * 4.	The Nairs were historically recruited for military duties in the region


 * 5.	The Nairs historically served  as local militia in the region


 * 6.	The Nairs historically were preferred as  local militia in the region


 * We donot have to retain “conflict” as a sacrosanct choice-of-word ,do we ?-especially when we have so many more alternate options as above . Sitush, feel free to take a pick of your choice and let us know….....VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, we are not writing for nationalist/anti-colonial/whatever-chip-on-their-shoulder Indians but for the much more populous English speaking world. We should assume the common usage/definition, just as we do with maps of India despite the official government line. You can forget all versions using "duties" because we know that they did not always do their duty and their loyalties were inconsistent; you can forget "militia" for the same reason and because that has a very specific meaning that is inaccurate. "Military engagements" sounds like governmental double-speak akin to a "glazing hygiene technician" being someone who cleans windows. We cannot use "wars" because a lot of the fighting was not "war" as we know it; we cannot use "fighting" because that is too vague; we cannot use "armed conflict" or some variation because many (and perhaps the majority) of Nairs were probably not armed for most of the (vague) period being referred to - they are thought to have relied much on stealth and martial arts. Honestly, I cannot believe that there is quibbling over such a simple sentence. Just stick an "s" on the end of "conflict" and have done with it. Whoever wrote that thing got it just about right, but I bet they did not even dream that this level of pedantry could be the outcome of it. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The 7th NPOV option - "The Nairs historically served in the native armed forces".
 * The 8th NPOV option - "The Nairs historically served in the local armed forces".
 * These (especially the 8th) has none of the disadvantages you mentioned above :-)). Can we use this for the amendment of lead ?
 * P.S- Nairs forces were armed

VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The Portuguese and the Brits were not natives, for example, and I have already explained the "armed" problem. Let's just move on, shall we? This talk page is becoming as ridiculous now as it was this time last year, albeit with a somewhat more logical set of arguments and (so far) no-one mentioning my mother or my non-existent sister. Actually, if your plan is to pick away at the entire of this article then might I suggest that we leave the lead section until last? As a summary, it has to reflect the article and if you are going to be proposing changes to the body then we could end up tripping back to change the lead every few hours (or, at our current rate of progress, weeks). Sort this wording out and then forget the lead for now. On the other hand, if it is not your intention to indulge in some type line-by-line dissection of the bulk of the article then feel free to continue suggesting improvements etc to the lead. The latter would be a relief to me because I am unsure that my wells of diplomacy are deep enough to handle weeks and weeks of nitpicking! - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Even the Portuguese and English factors had  “armed local nair force”s along with the native rulers. That is why the 8th NPOV - "The Nairs historically served in the local armed forces" seems suitable. Inability to see even this gives me an impression that you  are trying your best not to mitigate a cognition bias using semantics as a facade - what might otherwise be percieved as a colonial POV. Present lead misrepresents the body of the article due to this colonial POV. The word “conflict” as standalone is not the problem but the contextual usage of it in the sentence that is misrepresentative.Does the page-admin also have the same opinion as Sitush on all 8 options of NPOV ? - page-admins opinion requested.  VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there is no "page admin", not here nor at any other article. Secondly, the lead is not merely referring to the European colonial period - I noted this right at the outset of the thread. FWIW, I am a Brit who generally thinks that the Raj period was an absolute blight on the country. Given the number of times I am accused of the opposite, I clearly do a good job of keeping my own thoughts out of things. - Sitush (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, through all your discrediting semantics you seem to be wanting to convey  Nairs were unarmed and had “conflicts” (ahem) using bare arms in packs from hills (ahem) with no military organization  through out their history  !!!!. It definitely seems WP:OR !!! I don’t care if you are Brit or Indian-its all the same, I am not interested in your nationality but the factual accuracy of what is being portrayed in the article.  By  admin I meant User: Qwyrxian. Anyways, I have presented 8 NPOVs, all of them seem to be unacceptable to you. Let us see if other users share your opinion or mine. I think they also need their share of say in the matter.


 * VS
 * P.S: - Recommended reading for starters - Onnu Kurai aayiram/Patinayiram (Nair militia of the Perumal-era),Battle of Kolachel, Battle of Nedumkotta, Nair brigade.Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am giving up for the moment. There is clearly some sort of pretty big communications/language issue here and I am fed up of going round in circles with you. If you accepted that the cognitive bias point is fallacious in the context of the the intended audience, then all of this thread is irrelevant. For that matter, I rather think that the entire cognitive bias theory is disputed but I am resisting the temptation to see if we have an article on it. - Sitush (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am simply ignoring your above verbiage or argument for the sake of argument or whatever that might be. I think other users need their share of say on this topic - lets hear their say and i will take it from there. For other users who have not participated in this discussion –Nayar militia VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone from the US (thus speaking "American English") I personally don't like "engagements", because it's a euphemism designed to make people forget the fact that what we're talking about is one group of human beings killing another group of human beings based upon things like ideology or the arbitrary and capricious decisions of leaders. It's the sort of thing a General says when he goes on TV to defend violence. However, having said that, this article should largely reflect Indian English usage, so if the word "conflict" really is negative in Indian English, I don't care enough to force the use of the word. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, Sitush is correct that there is no page admin--administrator is just a role that some people on wikipedia play, and it relates to conduct issues (i.e., they can block users who break the rules, they can protect pages so that they can only be edited by registered editors, etc.). Admins do not decide the content of articles. In fact, since I participate in content discussions on this page, I am not allowed to use my administrator tools here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One more thing: Sitush is correct that we would do better to turn our attention to the body of the text. The lead is supposed to do nothing other than summarize the body, so we shouldn't really worry about the lead if there's going to be substantial changes to the body (which it seems like you may be moving towards, VS. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

1.	Thank you (user:QW) for concurring on the issue of word “conflict” and not enforcing it as “sacrosanct” for the lead. If it is negative -YES- the word gives a very negative and altogether different meaning when used in this specific sentence. The adamance to not change the word “conflict” (see some of the arguments presented to discredit other options – even “armed forces” is unacceptable !!!) is detrimental to this discussion. Even the very portratit in this article shows them as "armed" with bows,swords,spears etc !!!

2.	Invalid arguments for the sake of arguing - to discredit all of the proposed 8 NPOV alternates using the façade of semantics has caused all this filibustering. See For eg: -Nayar militia. Anthropologists and historians had never a problem to use the word “militia” in conjunction with Nair – because that was what they were predominantly recruited into locally (by both native rulers and European factors alike).

3.	As for “engagements” – it was only one of the 8 NPOVs offered –If u consider it euphemism, you can avoid it – BUT you still have 7 other NPOV. I would greatly appreciate if there is anything among the other 7 that you (user:QW)  in ur personal opinion might think can be used for replacement and conside NPOV  ? Do you think all the other 7 are non-usable as well ? Do you have a pick ?

4.	I am not intending any “SUBSTANTIAL changes to the body-text” in the future that may make present lead-sentences look misrepresentative (after the “conflict” amendment ofcourse) – I fear  that it may be such a "hypothetical assumption of motive" that may be giving rise to the recalcitrance these NPOVs elicit from Sitush. I pray (User:QW) that you assume no such motives. Hence I donot see any reason to make/use that as reason to stall consideration of present NPOVs towards inclusion.

5.	I shall wait for your pick from the other 7 NPOV options. I shall also wait for other users to express their objection/non-objection for “conflict” .VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When I wrote my post, I hadn't seen the other choices. But looking at them now, engagements is the only possible choice, and it's not a very good one. Sitush does an excellent job of pointing out why: they weren't in the militia, and "duties" is just ridiculous (it sounds like they did household chores).
 * I was trying to figure out why you think the term is so negative...so I tried searching Indian newspapers. Searching TOI, the term comes up 121,000; e.g., "Syria conflict becomes 'more alarming' ", "Sudan, South Sudan start first talks since conflict ". I get 15,600 at Indian Express, and I'll note that many of those aren't even in the military sense ("Parental conflict in childhood triggers adjustment problem in teens "). I get nearly 19,000 at The Hindu. I'm beginning to doubt your claim that "conflict" is a negative word. In any event, even if it is "negative"...well, isn't military warfare a negative thing? Our job is not to try to find a neutral way to describe actions of violence. We don't say that a murderer is "someone who willfully caused the death of another human being." Qwyrxian (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that what "murder" means? joke I think that my post here may have got missed due to the noise. However, I think that it is as valid for this thread as for the one to which it was a comment. VS, I am sure that you are well-intentioned but you are displaying a rather alarming partial understanding of our policies and guidelines. You appear to know far more of them than would be usual for someone with your experience, but at the same time you seem to be not really comprehending them. Of course, you could have been reading/contributing anonymously for years, but something will have to give here. If you continue to misunderstand policies and to misrepresent people then the assumptions of good faith will diminish because AGF is not a suicide pact. I quite understand that you will baulk at benign acceptance and that you will challenge - that is the nature of anyone with a high level of intelligence - but there is a point when you have to accept that in this particular environment, experience relating to policy matters etc is something that is generally only gained via practical application in the "live" environment. While there is nothing wrong with challenging, and it is wrong to suggest that "number of edits" or whatever is a clinching argument, the fact remains that AGF is a two-way street. Also, admins do not have some god-like status here and there are a lot of experienced editors who are not admins for various reasons, including personal choice. We do have dispute resolution processes and no-one is perfect, but in this instance I really would suggest that you consider leaving the semantics alone. However, if you wish to pursue it, I raised the cognitive bias matter at WT:INB some hours ago. I suspect that it will merely bemuse the folks there, but I've asked anyway and if things turn in your favour then, sure, I will reconsider. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * User :QW Searching for the context in which “conflict” was used in Indian news papers does not substantiate your argument. “Conflict” as a standalone word or how “conflict” was used in elsewhere or even how a person from UK or US understands the connotation of the word “conflict” in an Indian news paper is not the issue why the word gives a cognitive bias in the Nair article. I have explained this  – It is the use of “conflict” in the particular context of this sentence in the Nair article that is misrepresenting. “Nairs were historically involved in military conflict”  does not convey the same as “Nairs were historically enlisted in to local armed forces”  Does it convey the same meaning !!!. I am sure even in UK or US English it does not convey the same think. Think about it.


 * User:QW If you have come to the understanding that Nairs were not in the Militia !! it clearly means you may not have perused the link I provided about Nair militia nor have you read the publications that are already cited in the Nair article that already states the role of Nairs in local  militia more than once. Kindly do so to avoid confirmation bias. Further you state that you read all the NPOV options and found the arguments of Sitush acceptable, which essentially means that you find “Nairs were historically involved/enlisted in local armed armed forces” also unacceptable. Have you seen the argument of Sitush on “armed” and his objection to it as well ? . Even the article picture represents them as armed soldiers !!!. Sitush need not be right all the time – think about that possibility also. The objective of this discussion is to avoid misrepresentation of Nairs in the lead sentence. How do we appropriately represent Nairs and their role in military ? And not that Nairs were making conflict in the region. Most people who read that sentence except the two of you seem to get the impression that Nairs used to make conflict in the region – some kind problem makers – an alarming colonial POV representation of Nairs in the lead. You get the cognitive bias now ? The lead sentence should convey that Nairs were historically enlisted/recruited as soldiers into local military by both native rulers as well European factors. It is how it appears to the target audience of wikipedia that should be our concern. Think about it.


 * User Sitush, I am genuinely glad to note that you have taken the advice on “tone” given by  the OTRS volunteer response team.  However I am afraid that your advice on importance of  experience in “live environment” could  be implying the same thought. However, as part of WP:AGF, I am willing to overlook that for now. But I would like to remind all of us that Wikipedia does not acknowledge an “inappropriate right or status for a user”  because of any factor including “experience in live environment”. Your above post does not contribute anything to the content-dispute all I see there is a “hypothetical assumption” of how much User:VS has understood wikipedia guidelines and why that may be alarming. I would have left “semantics” alone had it not been misrepresenting the Nairs in this article. The semantics should clearly represent that Nairs connection with military is their role as soldiers not that Nairs were making “conflict” in the region. They convey completely different things be it in Indian, UK or US english. The latter would be a semantic reaffirming a colonial POV of Nairs. This is a sensitive issue and I see from talk page history that many have pointed out this cognitive bias in the past and yet you seem to ignore it and that is why I am concerned about semantics here. Do you want a sentence that gives a Raj-POV on the Nair article ? Think about it.


 * As i stated earlier let us give some days for other users to give their cognition on "conflict". User Vikramidtya has already said he does not find "conflict" appropriate. Both of us dominating this conversation may be putting off other Users from expressing themselves - so let us both back off for a few days to allow other users from expressing their opinion on "conflict" in the context of this sentence.


 * VS
 * P.S: I saw the post in WP:INB where "military conflict" was provided as a standalone word for comment. I have provided therewith the context. Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yet again, a lot of what you say really does go over my head. I am guessing that it is not cod psychology etc, but you are operating at a level that is far more complex than I feel is necessary. I am not stupid and could spend time researching your psycho-linguistic theories etc in order better to understand but I have no desire to get sucked into some sort of bottomless pit and I have seen this sort of stuff here before. In fact, one exponent of it has only just been given some time off! There is a phrase used quite frequently here - "time sink" - and it is a problem. As per the India maps thing to which I referred, the sensitivities of some people in India should not unduly influence the content of Wikipedia articles because WP is not censored. English Wikipedia exists for the English-speaking world and not just for the quite small minority of people in India who can communicate in English. Even the non-English literacy rates (and IT access etc) are somewhere between poor and dreadful outside Indian cities in any event, which probably makes your argument difficult to sustain even if this were, say, the Hindi Wikipedia. Yes, that is systemic bias, but unless you can prove your semantical point - and you have not, as far as I can work out - then swinging the bias in the opposite direction does not improve things, it merely skews in a different manner. "Conflict" should be pluralised, sure, but nothing more needs to be done. Please can we move on and actually develop some content, whether here or elsewhere? There are literally tens of thousands of truly dreadful India-related articles on Wikipedia and they deserve more of our time than does a single sentence that has never been contested in all of the numerous previous disputes on this talk page. In fact, I would encourage you to dig into some of those other articles because you are obviously more than capable of improving the things. If you feel otherwise then I think you need to find some appropriate dispute resolution process because I am not prepared to waste more time on this issue here. I think that this has gone on long enough. - Sitush (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The word "conflict" has synonyms battle, engagements, fight, etc. The negativity of the word still remains. Sorry to say that your explanation for the cognitive bias is not backed by me.  Your understanding about Nairs is from reading, and you are now communicating to real Nairs and supporters of Nairs.  So, if you have conflict with your understanding, you are away from reality.


 * user:sitush, The word conflict may be having meaning as battle but, your sentences are making us away from your point, sorry. Around 20% of whole world population is in India - that is equivalent to US and EU population together.  We do not communicate in english but when some information is available from any other languages, we make that happen.  This is not emotional expression - trying to tell you that do not be an entertainer yourself.  The way I feel is that you are unable to make consensus in the discussion, you need to change the way you present.  I personally agree with the wording military conflicts, still, you are a weak contributor for the wiki pages where user discussion is active.  You are good for those pages as you mentioned above.   Vekramaditya 05:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vekramaditya (talk • contribs)
 * Except that you haven't proven anything. The word conflict is used widely in Indian media. We don't make our own decisions about what people may feel. Your statement that now we're talking to "real Nairs" is exactly the sort of thing that we never ever take into account on Wikipedia. We follow the sources. If the sources say that Nairs were involved in military actions, then the word conflict is appropriate, since that is the word used even in Indian English. The fact that you personally don't like it (and that there is some alleged group that also doesn't like it, even though you've provided no evidence of that) is not relevant to making an editorial decision. So, unless you can show actual sources to show the term is wrong, it should stay. Furthermore, at this point, if you want to pursue it, I think you need to pursue dispute resolution--start an RfC, take the word to WP:NPOVN, or whatever. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Friend, I have seen what is proving and disproving - in the previous section 'etymology.' In the previous post I said I personally agree the wording military conflicts because it has the dictionary meaning as armed battle.  Negativity, you also has pointed once, so I did not say anything new.  Heading towards dispute resolution for this wording is worthless.  See, we don't make our own decisions about what people may feel, here people includes user:sitush also.  If we discuss here for getting a consensus and improvement, it is greatly appreciated. Vekramaditya  —Preceding undated comment added 08:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between proving-a-point and not wanting to accept the proof already given - it is called confirmation bias. That User:Sitush or User:QW does not want to see the obvious proof provided is not a reason why consensus-building should be abandoned, infact that is all the more reason why it should be done. We have already seen how "military conflict" has been provided out of context in WP:INB and when it was provided what was the reaction of User:AshLey. It completely beats my logic "why" we are discussing about IE !!. The word "conflict" has the same meaning in English in the US, UK and India,  User Inaan has also reiterated that at WP:INB and I have made this abundantly clear in my post dated 09:45, 22 June 2012 well.  Words donot exist as standalone and their contextual use in the sentence is what defines the message the sentence conveys - especially when the sentence is a lead then the semantic should be representative of the message. Issue is not IE but the message  -  it is a misrepresentation of the Indian caste from the POV of a colonist - and hence objectionable to all including Indians - That is not the same as IE. If the message was right (even if it was objectionable to a subset of readers) it would have been technically ok. But that is not the case here. The semantic of the sentence does not convey what it is intended. The present lead-sentence should represent the Nair connection with the military vis-a-vis their role as soldiers, instead it conveys that Nairs were making conflicts in the region - a cognitive bias. I find the avoiding of seeing the proofs given and then saying "there is no proof" absolutely absurd. When a user carefully evades proof presented  on why a certain discredit-logic used for thwarting 8 NPOVs is completely baseless - it simply means that you donot want to see it - not that it is not there. (1)The "armed" discrediting by Sitush is a logical-fallacy. (2)So with "militia" as well - anthropologists and historians have used it. A link provided to this was conveniently ignored. (3) Both User:QW and User Sitush evaded answering the question does "Nairs were historically involved military conflict" convey the same as "Nairs were historically enlisted in the military" (4) conversation gets misdirected to IE - What 1, 2,3, 4 demonstrates is abundantly clear to any reader.  I am sorry to say therefore that your statements about lack of proof are absolutely absurd. At what stage "i" intend to take it for dispute resolution depends on when "i" think the time has come for it. For me the opinion of User sitush, User QW , User Vikramaditya, or any other user or IP are equally important as long as they are based in sound logic. I donot see why the "opinion" of two users should be given more "weight" than that of the others especially when the argument presented by them defeats all logic. The amount of filibustering going on to avoid an inappropriate-representation of Nairs is absolutely shocking. The article takes eminence over a User - be it me, you or anyone for that matter. It is absolutely absurd to to say adding (s) to the sentence would make it appear something different. Therefore i propose the 9th NPOV suggestion "Nairs were historically enlisted as soldiers in the region". VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My recommendation that you take the issue through WP:DR was my shorthand way of saying, "You have presented claims, but provided no evidence other than your own personal opinion. Furthermore, your opinion is flat out contradicted by both common usage of the word in dictionaries and by its use in contemporary Indian media. You assert that there is something special about this circumstance, but give us nothing other than your word as a member of the community involved that its some how inappropriate. Furthermore, your alternative suggestions are either flat out wrong (like the use of the word "militia") or POV (use of the word "engagements"). Since three separate editors have said you are wrong, and no one is supporting your position, at this point, you continue to make your non-policy compliant, personal opinion arguments here isn't going to accomplish anything. Should you edit the article to follow one of your alternatives, we'll revert you. However, both Sitush and I have been known to be wrong before, and its certainly possible that a wider set of eyes on this matter might result in a consensus favoring your position. Thus, you may want to attempt to get those outside eyes, you'll want to follow some further step in the dispute resolution process." So, go ahead and do so. However, and I speak only for myself and not Sitush or others, I'm not going to keep humoring you by responding to your continued assertions of opinion w/o fact or policy--the burden is now on you to try to gain consensus for a change. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * “its use in contemporary Indian media” has no relevance here as we are not discussing about IE. That you are unable to see the evidence cannot be seen as a reason why the “evidence” does not exist – that is well in the open on the talk pages for every user to see in unambiguous terms. I am surprised that the goal points keep shifting suddenly what was “euphemism” now becomes a “POV”. Anyway I am willing to overlook that. ”Should you edit the article to follow one of your alternatives, we'll revert you” is unwarranted.  If I wanted to remove the word “conflict” and engage in edit-wars I would not be discussing this on the talk page !!! – the logic beats me. I am overlooking that too. According to me the time has not come “yet“ for WP:DR, and going by the responses in WP:INB, I can quite imagine what  direction that  course may take. That the logic-behind discrediting 9 NPOVs and how those are baseless (armed forces and Militia example) is all in the talk page. . You are not here to humour me but to improve the article, so although I may appreciate you humouring me  privately, it has no relevance to the topic under discussion. If you or any other user does not wish to respond to my request for comment, I will respect that because that is your decision. You have again evaded on commenting on my 9th NPOV and substantiating with reason why that is unacceptable. Either flat-out-wrong or POV !!!! why so ? Substantiate  on the specific context of 9th NPOV – if you don’t want to comment on it, then even that is also fine with me….. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I and Sitush have already explained what's wrong or POV about the above; I'm not going to repeat myself. Contemporary usage has everything to do with the issue. The reason I didn't comment on #9 is that the sentence currently in the article is better; why argue about a change when there's nothing wrong with the current version? I originally assumed good faith that there was a problem with conflict, but since a tiny amount of research showed that to be nothing other than your unsubstantiated personal opinion, further discussion doesn't seem productive (to me, anyone else, of course, is welcome to keep talking). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "The reason I didn't comment on #9 is that the sentence currently in the article is better" - doesn't appear to me a reason !!!. Why do you not think 9th NPOV wordings are not as good as the present one ? substantiate with reason. Further, it appears that you have conveniently once again avoided answering comparison on difference in purport of the present sentence Vs alternates. It is slowly becoming clear that there may be a irrational resistance to remove a colonial-POV-message in the lead-sentence. Still assuming good faith, i donot want to consider that it may have anything to do with nationalities. As stated earlier if "you" are not further interested in consensus you dont have to participate in it. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added an "s", which is something that I suggested as an appeasement right at the start of this tendentious saga. VS (eventually) seemed to agree. Let that be the end of the matter. Please. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * VS, I'm interested in following WP policies. I believe my and Sitush's analysis does that. I believe yours does not. If you think I'm/we're wrong, you'll need to try another venue. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no editor-consensus generated for the addition of (s), yet User:Sitush simply assumes that is the NPOV and directly makes the change in the article !!!. User Qw does not question it either!!! wheras to others users he directs ”Should you edit the article to follow one of your alternatives, we'll revert you” even when it was wnwarranted. This behavior of these two-editors in this specific context is completely unacceptable and gives an impression to other Users that there is a partisan behavior. Assuming good faith, i want to consider that this behavior is not along the lines that is described in WP:GANG. I therefore kindly request User:Sitush to immeeiately revert the addition of (s) and try consensus-building here before doing so. We donot want to generate an impression that certain Users can circumvent the process of consensus-building. Thanks in advance. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous, given both your message that I explicitly linked to and the clear statements in the article that there was more than one conflict. Much more of it and you will find yourself at WP:ANI. Despite your balmy words - consensus, NPOV etc - you are doing nothing but stirring things without cause. In fact, if you should post one more message on this subject - other than one informing the community that you have opened a dispute resolution debate of some sort - then ANI is likely to be exactly where I will take it. Although I might just ask someone to intervene on the basis of the discretionary sanctions that are in place for these articles. (I'll drop you a note about them now, but there is already a notice at the top of this page). - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You may want to check out this message also. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Admin note; I came across Vettakkorumakansnehi via a helpme template on his talkpage, and after reading over this I've banned him from the article and talkpage for 6 months. If anyone else really wants to discuss this, go ahead, but the OP is now banned from commenting here.  Personally, I'd suggest collapsing it. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 15:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove the section "Caste System"
Some body has been taking very keen intrest in defining a Nair as a shudra. This is prominantly done by people who don't understand what a shudra is.Let me explain.

1.According to Manu Smrithi, a Brahman is forbidden to give advice or even food to a Sudra, for the ghi (clarified butter) having been offered to the gods, must not be eaten by him. Further, the Brahman must not give 'spiritual counsel to him,' nor inform him of the legal expiation of his sin.The Veda is never to be read in the presence of a Sudra, and for him no sacrifice is to be performed. He has no business with solemn rites But Nairs on the otherhand went to temples two times a day. A nambuthiri would do prayer for Nair and also would provide "theertha and prasada" to a Nair.Touching a nambuthiri was forbident inside the temple but outside it was never an issue.

2.Nairs we mainly a martial group like Rajputs.NO other lower caste were allowed in Army.

3.Nairs had a prominant social status in the country.

I request the administrator to consider my request kindly. Its ok not to honour a nair but kindly don't dishonour him like this.Please remove the usage of shudra from your site as you can see that its never used against any community in any of wikipedia subjects.Its is deeply derrogatorry. Somebody who doesn't understand the history and sacrifices and contributions made by Nairs to Kerala is taking keen interest in dishounering them. Please take a nuetral stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nritop1983 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This issue has been discussed at length; please go to the top of the page where there is a box and button marked "search archives", and please search for the term "shudra" in order to read past discussions so you have the context for what has already been discussed.
 * Secondly, the information you have stated in "1., 2., 3." above is not constructive because it lacks any sourcing. All we have is your statement, with no proof that the statements are accurate. When making such statements, please provide a link to a professional article or book which substantiates those points. GoogleBooks is a good place to look, but sites like Facebook, caste associations, etc. are not valid as they are WP:Primary sources and not authoritative. Please provide links to support statements, and please place the links in brackets [ like this ] so that they display as a small link box and not a huge "http://www.something.com/12345/file/portion4583.....etc."
 * Thirdly, I don't think it's appropriate to "take offense" at terms like "shudra", particularly when used in a historical/academic context. To take offense at such terms is to validate caste assumptions of "inferiority"/"superiority" and not in keeping with an academic discussion. To claim it is a "dishonour" to mention historical references of caste A or B with "shudra" is an insult to those castes which pragmatically recognise their shudra past and have worked to become educated, constructive members of Indian society. Far better to look at history objectively, then to be seen as hold-outs who refuse to admit the fluidity and politically maneuvering of the ver-changing caste system, and who whitewash history rather than work to improve the present. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Kearal Society in the past was divided into two.Basically "Avarnar" and "Savarnar".Avarnar were basically lower cast people who were not allowed to enter the temple and savarnars who could enter a temple.The definition of Shudra fits avarnar.some sections of Nairs were under avarnars. The points i stated 1.2.3. are supported in many books including Gough. To answer your third point ,could you point me to any other article in Wikipedia where any other group have been mentioned as shudra other than Nairs. the mere fact that ihas been objected so many times..shows how objectionable this particular usage has been. So i request you again either Kindly point me to any other social group mentioned as shudra or have the kindness to remove that usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nritop1983 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look in Category: Shudra castes you will see that 28 caste articles on Wikipedia are marked as being Shudra. Additionally, we cannot remove the information here simply because you object or you find it somehow offensive--we can only remove it if it is incorrect, WP:UNDUE, or somehow otherwise violating Wikipedia's policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for pointing out 28 articles.I went through all of them ,i could find only two articles listing the term shudra in them.And also i was quite sad to find Nairs inside a group of Scheduled caste(28 listings).Though according to Gov.of India Nairs are considered as forward caste and not scheduled class. Again i put my request forward on basis of below citation from Kathleen Gough in her book "Matrilineal Kinship" (page 308,309). "so far i could discover they were as follows first, a caste called Kiriyathil Nayars in Calicut and Vellayma Nayars in Cochin.Most village headmen were drawn from this caste,... Second, a caste called Purathu Nayars (outdoor retainers).A special higher ranking subdivision of the caste called Paricha Menons (leaders of the Sheild) formed the Zamorins(kings) private army.. Third,a caste called Agathhu Charna Nayars(Indoor retainers)..they were often Clerks in palaces.. Fourth,Pallichan Nayars..these men were often palanquin beares and also soldiers. Fifth,a caste called Sudra Nayars and Iilathu Shudra Nayars....these members lived in villages owned by Brahman families or in estates of Brahmanical temples...."

I would like to remind you agian that the term Shudra is quite s drrogatory term in India.Even the scheduled caste and tribes don't want themselves to be called as such.There are more than a hundred shudra group in India and you will find none of them willing to call themselves as one.There fore they edit their page and remove the term.But you don't understand the shame in it and with no sympathy put a group of people (15 - 20percent of kerala population) into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nritop1983 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know the term "Shudra" is considered derogatory today - in fact, the whole history of caste-based discrimination clearly seems to be something India is trying very hard to move away from. But the thing is, we can't address it by denying history, pretending it never happened, and denying that any castes were ever historically classed as Shudra. If a caste was classed as Shudra and we have reliable sources to support that, then Wikipedia needs to say that was the case. It is no insult at all to members of that caste today - saying that a caste was historically classed as Shudra is not the same as saying those people are Shudra, and recording that the discrimination happened historically is not the same as taking part in that discrimination. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for the time and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nritop1983 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a possibility to atleast change the Shudra callout to "Savarna Shudra". Since when people outside Kerala read this article they would normally compare Nairs to Shudras in North India..and in litratures of many scholars it is specifically mentioned that such a comparisson would be incorrect. (unsigned by User:182.48.204.176)
 * Can you provide a reliable source for it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please provide caste citation and suggested text
For Nritop and the IPs who have posted, if you would like to see the text changed there's a very simple way to make this more likely: " template to distinguish it from your own words. For example, Nritop's citation looks very interesting, but I'm totally unclear as to what Nritop would like to see changed, other than simply the removal of the word "Shudra", which is however not contradicted by his citation.
 * Please provide a citation (quoting the most important parts to make sure folks agree on the interpretation) to a scholarly book. Ideally one available online, and with a link. Nritop's quote from Gough is a good example, though a direct link to GoogleBooks would be great along with it.
 * Please give an example of what you think that section should say. It may be easier to read if you put it in " "EXAMPLE"

For anyone wanting changes, it is incumbent on the requestor to provide evidence. One simply can't demand that others "do the research" and make the changes for you. If your changes are supported by scholarly texts, your argument is much stronger if you can succinctly present those; note that does not mean dumping a series of gBooks link on the page and saying "read all of these and see I'm right" (as has happened on many caste pages). Further, note that current content is properly cited, so if you have an objection it needs to be clearer than "Book 1 say A and Book 2 says B; I think B is right so let's use Book 2". You must have a clear argument as to why WP editors are misusing or misunderstanding Book 1, or why Book 1 is not a good source.

The people who wrote the current version of the article have provided proper citations and clear arguments for what they've included, so the same is needed to further upgrade the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that a totally different kind of caste system was observed in south India. This being mixed by the caste system of the north by the colonist had lead to a big confusion. Moreover the government of India describes Nair's as a forward Caste. Nair's dont enjoy any kind of reservation in any way. Why should they be considered a backward caste then? FYI Shudra's are backward castes.

Just leave the caste details and only cover the points well explained. Why not keep the article short and sweet ?

New concern from "Joe"
Clearly something is missing here.

to start with not enough research has been conducted on the history of india itself - not to talk about the specific history of nairs. part of this history is that which is passed on from a generation to the next, which while potentially not completely true is an honest representation of facts.

almost all of the written history of kerala and by association the nairs has been lost (from being in the sole and exclusive possession of the kingly scribes) owing to invasions and colonisations, what is remaining is in the possession of the trvancore royal family and can be examined if one has the patience and the willingness to face the truth.

clearly most of this article is based on opinion, albeit educated opinion and mostly western sources. i do not understand the logic of excluding Panikker's position. this in my mind abounds to racism in a way, potentially assuming that panikker is less accomplished because he is not western in origin.

in a recent geneological study by the ragiv gandhi institute of bio technology, the nair genetics point to a journey from around Iran through north and central india later arriving in kerala, the wide spread casts of similar nature, the bunts, the naidu's the nayaks, the naykar etc are all very close together and are spread out from the same genetic pool, in the first instance, while the whole question of the dravidian is some what unclear, assuming that the nairs are dravidians given current definitions of the word is at best a conjecture

again a simple comparison of the languages of the nairs, the naidus, the rayas and raos, the reddy's etc to tamil indicates the prevalence of sanskrit to a large extent in the those languages. even for a group like the naikar in tamil nadu, the tamil they speak is entirely different and has many more sanskrit words and grammatical constructions relative to pure tamil.

it is also clearly well known that the nairs were martial; for generations families have told their children to "fear not the spilling of blood for it is with blood that we have irrigated this land" and then a quip "more of theirs than ours"

i only request that the bias is removed and a more open attitude is practiced about the edits. that said i have not edited any of this matter any time

i am hoping some one could do some proper work on this

best joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.127.7.82 (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Joe, Wikipedia requires reliable sources. It's that simple. If you have reliable sources that aren't included that you think should be included, please present them. Panniker was rejected because...I don't recall, and it's late. Hopefully someone else can find it for you, but, if not, check the archives...I'll try to remember to look myself tomorrow. As for "a simple comparison"--that's original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. A reliable source must make the comparison first. Similarly, we cannot include what is "clearly known". If, in fact, it is clearly known, then someone reliable will have written about it. And, if they have, tell us about it--I'm sure there are lots of sources that we haven't found and included yet. On the Rajiv Gandhi source you presented...I would need to be able to see and read the whole thing to make any comments, but I can tell you that I've very rarely read a genetic study on Indian tribal groups that passed WP:RS, because they're usually based on a very small number of subjects and are often funded or published by sources that have a clear bias. Now, I'm not saying that's the case here, but I am saying that we would need to scrutinize it carefully. Finally, we can do some proper work, but you may first want to acquaint yourself with our core policies. I recommend WP:NPOV (the requirement to write neutrally), WP:OR (the prohibition against including original research), and WP:V (the requirement that all information on Wikipedia be verifiable) as a good start. If you're willing to follow those principles, I'm looking forward to new information that you can provide. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012
Wrong information given. Many of the statements given in the entry are wrong are not mentioned in the linked sources. These statements are demeaning to the caste and maligns their status. These mistakes have also been protected by the author. Changes must be made with full proof references

Myth 90 (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Traditionally all Upper caste of kerala (brahmins,ambalavasi,good section of nairs) were vegeterians. pls edit this.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.55.248 (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to provide reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Worship of the snakes, a dravidian custom. Needs to be corrected
Hi,

The final block in the overview mentions worship of a snake, a dravidian custom. However it needs to be corrected. The fact mentioned is Nairs worshipped snakes. The reference is totally misinterpreted. It is nowhere written that snake worship is a dravidian custom. Please correct it.

Nairs ere or dravidians who worshiped snakes, not the dravidians in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bidett (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I cannot see that source but there is a quote from it in the citation. Are you saying that quote does not exist in the source or that it has been taken out of context? If so,is there any way that you could provide a copy of the relevant page and perhaps the ones immediately preceding and following it? We have had this discussion before but I don't think that anyone has actually said that the source doesn't say what the statement claims. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The source only mentions that Nair's are south Indians who had a custom of worshiping snakes. It never mentioned that all south Indians worship snakes. Ex: You are a human named Sitush. It doesn't mean humans are named Sitush :) No offense I am just explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeeHuan1023 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The quotation provided in the citation says that snake worship was a Dravidian custom, not a South Indian standard practice. You seem to be mixing apples and oranges. I am sure that you are aware of the migration theories, whereby various communities moved to southern India from the north and that those Brahmin communities etc claim, for example, Aryan origins. And I am sure that you are also aware of the historic influx of Arab, Portuguese, British etc people in southern India. Such theories must surely mean that not all people in southern India are Dravidian. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My point is exactly the same. Now lets not beat around the bush. It's a Nair custom and not a general Dravidian Custom. I don't see any reason to make it as a Dravidian Custom. Why isn't it 'The Snake of worship is so prevalent...' and so on without the inclusion of unwanted and false routing of Dravidian custom poking in between ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.204.10 (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ???? Not settled yet ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.62.132 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Propose removal of 16th century portrait
Stemming from the discussion above with the admin Qwyrxian I suggest removal of the 16th century portrait by Jan Huyghen van Linschoten  secretary to the Archbishop of Goa João Vicente da Fonseca, O.P.1582–1587. Intothefire (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? So far, you have given no coherent reason in the thread to which you link or in this new one.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not use a better image ? I have suggestions
'''This history is totally biased, baseless and an attempt to degrade and depict Nairs as some tribals in kerala. I object this with full energy.''' The image selected for this article doesnt seems to be with a good taste. I would request Editors/Admins to replace the image with any of the following ones which seem much better :

1)Nayer women at meal : http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll123/id/5403/rec/1

OR

2)Nayer Girl in Malabar http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll123/id/24642/rec/9

OR

3)Nayer Girls Singing Song http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll123/id/22744/rec/5

OR

4)Nayer Temple in Malabar http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll123/id/5254/rec/12

OR

5)Nayer House in Malabar http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll123/id/36012/rec/10

Hoping a kind and positive response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeeHuan1023 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the pages themselves, all of the images are copyrighted and cannot be used without permission and paying a fee. Now, I don't understand how that's possible, because I thought they're too old to be copyrighted, but I admit to being an idiot about copyright rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It is also postulated that the Nayars of Malabar originally migrated from the Tulu nadu as noted here: Manual of Madras Administration Vol II (printed in 1885) notes that the Nadavas are the same people as the Nayars of Malabar and the Bunts of Southern Tulu nadu. 'They appear to have entered Malabar from the North rather than the South and to have peopled first the Tulu, and then the Malayalam country. They were probably the off-shoot of some colony in the Konkan or the Deccan. In Malabar and south of Kanara as far as Kasargod, they are called Nayars and their language is Malayalam. From Kasargod to Brahmavar, they are termed as Bunts and speak Tulu. To the north of Brahmavar, they are called Nadavars, and they speak Kanarese.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.183.138 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @Qwyrxian - The image already existing is referred from the same website where the above mentioned images are located. So incase its copyrighted and cannot be used, the existing image should be removed as well. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeeHuan1023 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion here might explain the copyright issues. As far as I am concerned, all of the Raj images are ok to use now. However, I'm not sure what is your objection to the current image - not being "good taste" is rather subjective, especially since we are not censored. Use of these ethnographic images is quite common and I note that three articles at Malayalam Wikipedia use this particular one. - Sitush (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Sitush,

The other pictures provided a traditional view of Nair Women. The current picture is of a semi nude girl whereas the remaining are pictures with women in their traditional clothing. They also give an aura of the surrounding at that point of time. I also suggest adding image depicting the Nair housing and other prominent shades instead of just showing the women.

Hope you understand what i am meaning to say. Thanks a lot for your time. JeeHuan1023 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming copyright isn't an issue, I actually like "Nayer women at their meal" better than the current image; I think it captures "life" more, which seems more appropriate for a general article like this one. However, JeeHuan1023, Sitush is currently away from Wikipedia, and may not be back for a week or more; could we wait before making a decision here? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure Qwyrxian, we can wait till Sitush is back. I have been living in Kerala since long and i totally adore the architecture especially the housing and temples which is totally different from those around the rest of the country. Maybe we could add and additional image of the housing pattern along with the replacement. Thank you Qwyrxian.

JeeHuan1023 (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

HI Jee Huan (talk and QWYRXIAN Qwyrxian, why do you need permission from Sitush for everything ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.211.66.59 (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have little interest in images. Provided that they comply with our copyright policies etc and that they are verifiably relevant, I'm rarely sufficiently motivated to state a preference. I'm afraid that I am one of the philistines who can rarely weigh up relative merits and, in many cases, I would probably be happier if there were no images at all! Sorry for the delay in responding.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears we have consensus, then, to replace the current picture with #1 on the list above. JeeHuan, you're welcome to do the honors of uploading the picture. Let me know if you want me to handle it. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All of those images could be uploaded to Commons. Although showing them all in this article would likely be excessive, creating a Commons category and linking to that from this article is an entirely valid and useful exercise. I've not actually checked to see if we already have a category or if the images have already been uploaded.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian Please do the honor and replace the image with the new one. I dont think Jee Huan is available since long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.62.132 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Editors please work on it since i dont have permissions to edit. Jee Huaen, Qwyrxian, Sitush ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.229.76.160 (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. JeeHuan1023 (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Calling Editors
Lets remove all the disputed points and keep it short and sweet. Have a list of reliable authors for R&D. I moved the previous out of the title because it makes it very difficult to leave a full edit summary. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Although editors claim that not much have been recorded about the history of the Nairs, this article is pretty huge compared to other articles based on remaining surnames of India.

What I propose we should do :

1) Remove all the disputed points which has issues. 2) Lets make sure there is no ambiguity in this article. 3) I have noted that some suggestions by certain people are totally valid, why not listen to them ? The snake worship being put up as a 'dravidian custom' as pointed out by many. It is totally useless. The Nairs are specially known for snake worship and custom. Why is it generalized ? Not fair at all! 4) Nairs are not shudras. A lot of kings were Nair's. It is more of a title. And the caste system which never existed in Kerala, how can that be enforced. Most of this articles is unfair and will be removed upon auditing. The caste system is totally based on the work: Nairs are warriors and warriors alone. The foreigners coming up and guessing things is unreliable.

FINALLY; I propose the editors give a list of reliable authors so that others can do research by themselves and provide valuable input.

Keeping watch on it!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FindingSolace (talk • contribs)


 * While I do agree with the idea of improving the article with reliable sources, I can see you already have a number of flaws in what you point out. First, you make one of the biggest mistakes possible in your first sentence, because you equate "surname" with "caste", when it's very well known that there is no certain correlation between the two. Names change over time, as does caste membership, and thus having a particular surname is no guarantee of caste membership. Your fourth point is also concerning, given that there is a valid reference in the article indicating that at least some reliable sources consider them Shudra. Of course, if you provide reliable sources that state the opposite, we should certainly include both opinions per WP:NPOV. But, as I said at the beginning, your underlying message is great: bring what you believe are reliable sources, we can collectively (with the help of outside editors if necessary) evaluate if they meet the reliable sources guidelines, and, if they do, we can figure what information from them to include in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Which editors have claimed that not much has been recorded about the history of the Nairs? In fact, they are one of the most studied communities in India and that point was made clear when the article underwent a major collaborative overhaul a couple of years ago. That is one reason why this article is of greater length than the average for an Indian community. I would be grateful if you could list those points made in the article that you consider to be ambiguous or disputed, aside from the shudra and snake issues, which have been discussed to death. As far as Nairs being kings is concerned, sure, some held high rank as the article says but you cannot extrapolate that all Nairs were therefore kshatriya or whatever. Most clearly were not, otherwise there would have been many thousands of kingdoms, the reliable sources would say so and those same sources would acknowledge that the caste system of Kerala was of the four-division variety found elsewhere in India when, in fact, we have an entire article explaining that it was not and indeed was a "lunatic asylum of castes" (Swami Vivekananda).--2.219.218.79 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Manusmrithi segregated the Cast System based on function. As per function Nairs were primarily Warriors. So naturally Nairs should be regarded as Kshatriyas.Other than showing their palms to the believers for alms.. what is the contribution of Brahmins in Kerala History, on the other side nairs fought wars.. many books describe their valour and courage. Namboothiri brahmins were a minority (less than 2 percent)..census show that..yet Wikipedia boasts that they considered Nairs as shudras. Let manusmrithi go to hell and "sitush"smrithi prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.244.22 (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources...just like always. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any higher authority we could write to .. or is it you two or three guys are running the show on "as i think" concept.Beacause you guys have put an article which totaly tries to demean Nairs, I went through some of the writers mentioned in this article ... their books show great respect towards this community.. they all describe about the courage and warrior status of Nairs..but here you guys have extracted some portions of each book and then presented a consice impresice report on Nair community..targetting only on some aspects which would be considerered improper from todays point of veiw and have totally neglected the whole idea that the Nairs were primarily Warriors. You guys have used wikipedia to potray your anger and hatred against Nairs..putting up pictures which disgace Nairs, using potraits when real good pictures were available.and that too potraits by british hired people..who were specifically keen in undermining the local traditions, so that they could potray those communities as barbaric and justify their act of looting and illeagal occupation on a foreign land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.244.22 (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no real "authority" on Wikipedia, but we do have a series of steps called dispute resolution that we follow when people disagree. But before we can follow any of those, you need to be a lot more specific. Don't tell us the page is bad or demeaning: show us what is used that isn't a reliable source or is taken out of context or is given undue weight. And if there is information in the books (or other books we don't currently use that meet our reliable sources guidelines), tell us what it is. Give specific quotes and page numbers of stuff that you think should be included. But please don't tell us we're doing it to portray our anger or hatred against Nairs. For me, for example, I've never been to India, have met less than a couple hundred people of Indian descent, and don't know the caste of any of them (well, maybe one). So not only do I not hate the Nairs, I actually have no opinion about them at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 January 2013
I would request you to recheck the validity of Putting Nair in Shudra Caste. Besides some books written by western and indian historians who have clubbed Nair to Shudra Caste had no valid backings except showing some similiarities with other lower castes in Kerla which is hypocritical. Besides, nobody consulted people representing the Nair Community or Nair Service Society which is sole Social Organisation representing Nairs before writing such article.

I do not have evidences or proofs, but there are many cultural, day to day and behavioural similiarities of Nair to Nambudiris(Kerala Brahmins) and Verma(Kshatriya Kings). In fact, I have read an article of a Historian where he refers Vermas Of Kerala having origin in Nair Community.

Since Kerala Nambudiris always referred Castes below them as Shudras in which Vermas and Ambalavasis also come, there is no justification seen in Clubbing Nair in Shura Caste which specifically means Lower Caste.

It is a fact that Nair belongs to Kshatriya Community not just because they dealt with war and ammunitions, but lived, behaved as well. Besides there are Historical Evidences also which shows that this Community migrated to South India specifically to Karnataka and Kerala during 4 AD to 6. AD.

So pls update Nair community description and Club it into Kshatriya Caste in Wikipedia. Pls do contact NSS (Nair Service Society) for any further clarifications.

115.111.124.130 (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Vaca  tion  9  12:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And, more importantly, your request fundamentally misunderstands how Wikipedia works. The fact is, we never contact groups directly and ask them about themselves, and, instead, only rely upon works of scholarship. The NSS is unlikely to be a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia, unless they can be shown to be a body of experts with accepted fact checking skills; instead, I'm guessing that they're actually a support or political action group, and thus would not be a reliable source. However, if you do know of reliable sources that support an alternative POV, let us know and we can examine how to incorporate them into the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been following this page since many Years.. and I have noticed that some people who hold the rights to edit this page are biased and use bits and pieces of information from books of Paniker and Kathleen Gough to portray Nairs as some "Dirty Caste". The fore front of this group is "Sitush". Wikipedia should see the number of request coming for edits (over the years). It’s unfortunate that there is no auditing body that audits the information provided in this page. They just see if this particular portion is mentioned in any book, they do not validate how authentic is that information provided in the book. For instance it’s mentioned that Nampoothiris over ranked even the kings and they regarded all Nairs as Shudra. From where did they get this information….. If its mentioned by Gough, who approved it, Does any of the scriptures mention this phrase. No body knows in what context Gough said this and how was it validated.In contrast to this Panicker states Nairs as Caste group similar to Kshatriya.. Both of the writers are have no proofs in their books yet for some reason have been called shudras indirectly. Now what Wikipedia has done is they have published this information and people all over the world who don't know the status of Nair’s in Kerala will start thinking Nair’s as Shudras, when its repeatedly said in many books that the Quadrilateral system of Caste division was not followed in Kerala and it relied more on Avarnar and Savarnar Based division of Caste. Caste system is a reality in India ..even today..Intercaste maariages are considered Taboo... and in this phase they call Nairs as Shudras..Totally derogating them. Nairs gave their blood and life in protecting this State.. but the way it has been described in this article ... their souls will never forgive those who wrote this page. Think what nambuthiris and Bhramins have contributed to this state….. noting ...they have simply taken alms and offering from other people and carried out their lively hoods by exploiting "fear of God" in people’s mind.. their gene pool itself is a Sham and Shame in that context. Wikipedia should remove the line "The Nambudiri Brahmins were at the top of the ritual caste hierarchy and in that system outranked even the kings. They regarded all Nairs as sudra. Below the Nambudiris came the Tamil Brahmins and other later immigrants of the Brahmin varna. Beyond this" stated under the paragraph "Caste System" or retain it if their is proof for Kathleen Gough's Statement. Wikipedia should understand the reality in India .. calling A Caste as Shudra is a real Shame.. no other philosophy will work here.. Peoples life depend on this.. especially people who are in love..in which boy or a girl is a Nair.. all these times ..Nairs were respected and with this article people will start avoiding alliances with Nairs..They will be degraded..people like sitush will get happiness through this.. but the causalities of this statement is far reaching (than you imagine).. Please consider this request seriously..Kindly remove the line "The Nambudiri Brahmins were at the top of the ritual caste hierarchy and in that system outranked even the kings. They regarded all Nairs as sudra. Below the Nambudiris came the Tamil Brahmins and other later immigrants of the Brahmin varna. Beyond this" stated under the paragraph "Caste System" or retain it if there is proof for Kathleen Gough's Statement...any scriptures that authenticate her statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.244.22 (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's because of requests like this that the page is specifically protected from editing by nonconfirmed editors. We never look to "scriptures" (religious texts) for evidence, as those are primary sources which are generally not helpful. "Scriptures" can never be "proof" of secondary sources. So, if you want to help edit the page, please review WP:V and WP:RS as a good starting point to understand how sources work on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Caste Systems are subset of Religion..Specially in the Case of Hinduism..for example Manusmrithi is the code for all caste based divisions ..I donot understand when you are are not able to provide substantial proof of your claim..wouldn't that be considered as a biased action to publish that statement. My question is simple "if a writer sees a cat and writes in his book that its a cow..would you go ahead and use that information or you restrain yourself and say "i dont know what that animal is... this particular writer thinks its a cow"..and this task becomes complicated when there is another writer writer who say its a cat..So now as an unbiased publisher wouldn't is be correct if you say in your article.."There are multiple opinion about the category of this creature.. some say it belongs to Cat family some say it belong to cow family.." For your reference i have copy pasted a section of "The Indian Empire Census of 1881 Statistics of Population Vol. II." Here the Nairs and Sudras are reffered under different categories.Showing that the government didnot consider Nairs as Sudras.

web page:http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&record=566

CASTE-SUDRA; TOTAL 339355 166483 172872 CASTE-SUDRA; BENGAL 186467 90606 95861 CASTE-SUDRA; COCHIN 152871 75868 77003 CASTE-SUDRA; HYDERABAD 17 9 8 CASTE-VANIAN; TOTAL 339136 168029 171107 CASTE-VANIAN; MADRAS 316610 156882 159728 CASTE-VANIAN; TRAVANCORE 22526 11147 11379 CASTE-NAIR; TOTAL 336227 162881 173346 CASTE-NAIR; COORG 907 845 62 CASTE-NAIR; MADRAS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.244.22 (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, yes, if I see an animal, and I think it's a cow, but all the reliable sources I can find say it's a cat, well, then, that's what I would put in a Wikipedia article, because the simple fact is that my analysis has no validity since I'm not a reliable source. But if a newspaper article, a scholarly journal, and a publication by a known expert all said it's a cat, then that is absolutely, without question, what a Wikipedia article on that animal should say. And if those reliable authors disagree, and neither has more clout in the real world, then I'd say that there is disagreement. On another point, I'm not saying that we can't use religious information, what I'm saying is that original religious texts are not useful, because such texts always require interpretation. However, if we had a scholar (historian, sociologist, cultural studies, religious studies, etc.) who has looked at those primary religious texts and commented upon them, then we can write down what the scholar said. The only time we can ever use a primary source is to state exactly what the primary source says, and only in cases where it is completely unambiguous. The same is actually true with the census you're citing--it's also a primary document. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I should say that wikipedia it totally flawed. It doesnt respect the primary document but if a secondary document derives a false interpretation its totally reliable. Absurd!!!! And government articles are not reliable ? Really ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.229.76.160 (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And how would we know how to interpret primary sources? Are you asserting that your interpretation is necessarily correct? And let me clarify on the census: we can and do use census data on Wikipedia, quite often, in fact. But we use it only for the actual, numerical data. You're interpreting those categories to mean that Nairs are not Shudra, when there are plenty of other possible interpretations for that (not the least of which is that the British colonial census, while somewhat reliable for it's numbers, is not reliable for determining the status of the people they allegedly counted). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So you have decided that British census is only good in numbers and not reliable for determining the status of the people. Qwarxian this is Human Rights Violation against a group of people who unfortunately have to go outside Kerala for work..(for your infomation..Kerala was declared the least employed state in the country.. but the most educated)as many have mentioned Sudras are given a totally different status in rest of India.Nairs are not extinct group Qwarxian... they are very much alive and wikipedia which most of the India would read..would see Nairs as Sudras..Can this be put into catagory for calling the present generation as Sudras and thus being denied "Right of Equality" in India. Is wikipedia ignoring the fact that Caste system is taken seriously even today in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.244.22 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Provide reliable sources to support that they aren't Sudra, and we'll add them. You haven't done so yet. Repeating what sources say is not a human rights violation. And yes, I am aware that caste is alive and well in India despite it being officially abolished. That doesn't change the fact that we are bound by our mission to report on what reliable sources say. Again, all you have to do is provide sources that clearly state a different varna for Nair—not primary sources that you interpret to mean something, but sources that explicitly state the info—and I will be happy to help you alter the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please dont link Nairs to any caste if that is creating a ruckus among the users. Add valid points that have no objections.

Profile created III-XII --QueSeraCera (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture from 16th century source
Hello Qwyrxian , Following up from our recent discussion on your talk page with regard to your stand as an admin and actions therein on what I consider the contradictory position or  ambiguity of when a source is deemed reliable, on this page the main picture is a painting by a 16th century European traveler. But on 17th November 2011 you "Undid revision 461091826 by Vineet Nayar1 (talk) the lead should only have one image; howveer, consider moving it elswhere if verified" .Did you in the capacity of an admin consider Jan_Huyghen_van_Linschoten a 16th century painting reliable a source for the main pictorial on the Nairs ? When you Conscientiously deleted the picture by Raja Ravi Verma ...did the credentials of this one simply miss your attention or you concurred that this 16th century picture was fine .Many caste articles like this one where you have intervened have these colonial pictures of "natives". Would appreciate your rational for leaving this picture intact when you deleted the other. Thanks for your reply Intothefire (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless you are claiming that the uploader of the Linschoten image faked the inscription contained within the image itself, I don't see any great problem with its validity - it is known that Dutch travellers referred to them as "Nayro" and there is a consensus, expressed across numerous caste articles, that historical images in infoboxes are less likely to cause issues with weighting/POV etc than some modern image. Aside from your desire to nitpick - which has been the underlying cause of your previous blocks - what is your point here? Other than trying to find fault with Qwyrxian in the manner that you tried (and failed) to find fault with me over a prolonged period.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is one of the many discussions about what image goes in the lead section and is one of those that relates to the image that Qwyrxian removed in the diff that you showed. It should hopefully explain the issue of verifiability regarding that removed item. It certainly is not coming back in the infobox.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Intotothefire, I reverted it for the reason I stated: the infobox should have only one image. If someone wants to put it elsewhere in the article, maybe that's fine, I don't know. I did not make a judgment about which picture was better; I merely didn't want 2 images in the infobox, because, well, we never want to images in the infobox (except for some articles that use micro-galleries, which I personally hate, but that's a matter for another discussion). Is the new article better? I dunno. Start a discussion about it. Take into account past discussions like the one Sitush linked to. I'm not even certain I would express an opinion on the matter. I might, but it depends on what is said.
 * Please note, once more as I think I explained to you this before, I was not here acting on my capacity as an admin. By definition, an admin could not "administratively" revert an edit for content reasons. If I'm making content decisions, than my administrative status has no relevance whatsoever. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian :The underlying issue I am repeatedly raising with you is the self evident, inconsistency in implementation or observance of what constitutes a reliable sources according to you. I would imagine that it would only be fair that since you have the status of an admin ….your responsibility is manifold therefore, that  even when you are not editing in the capacity of  an admin …you uphold an overall advanced level of  consistency  with your admin status . This is far from the convention you are practicing .On 17 Nov 2011 Vineet Nair 1 introduces the picture just above the 16th century portrait . There is no infobox .on 17th November itself  y deleted it] you state" the lead should only have one image; howveer, consider moving it elswhere (if verified)"You deleted a co editors contribution ….simply for the sake of your preference?...moreover there wasn’t even an infobox , to compound this  the picture  you select that should remain in the lead  of this article is a portrait depicting  Nayars by a 16th century explorer ? I am asking you a specific question on reliable sources and Your response is fuzzy …..you say " Is the new article better? I dunno. Start a discussion about it. Take into account past discussions like the one Sitush linked to. I'm not even certain I would express an opinion on the matter. I might, but it depends on what is said." What on earth does this nebulous position on reliable sources mean for balance  coming from someone who is an admin ? . The issue I am  putting here to you is about reliable sources ...and your ambiguous stand being incompatible with your status as both a admin and a editor .Intothefire (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is beginning to look like another of your witch-hunts. You have been told previously where you can escalate any concerns regarding alleged patterns of misbehaviour etc. Do you want to start a discussion here about reinstating the portrait somewhere in this article or do you want to drop the stick? Those are your two options with regard to this matter on this talk page.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I didn't check if there was an infobox or just a lead image; the difference is irrelevant: we want only one image next to the lead. This is simply the standard formatting for all articles. That's the one and only reason I reverted. If you (or the original editor) thinks the current image should be replaced, usually, such a change warrants a discussion. If you think the old image is bad and should be removed no matter what, well, then, start a discussion. If you think the old image is fine but you also want the new image in the article, then start a discussion. As for my alleged poor behavior, you're simply reading way too much into this. Neither I nor any other editor, admin or otherwise, is somehow obligated every time they revert something for a simple reason to then search through the article, the history, and outside sources, and consider whether or not there's some alternate approach or possible idea. The fact is that two pictures in the lead is (almost always) wrong; that in and of itself means one of them should be removed. By default, we should keep the old one, unless someone gives a good reason in an edit summary or a discussion here why the new one is better. As to my nebulousness, I'm simply being honest. Nothing about being an admin requires that I express an opinion on every subject. I don't care much about pictures, though in special cases I do (one of the primary things I care about is that there are not too many images in articles/sections). So, if you want some change, you'll need to take the initiative. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree! Moreover images like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nairs_with_European_Army.png have been gradually and slowly removed and unwanted age old pictures of random people have been added. This is totally unprofessional. I wonder why would people waste time in doing such things. Why not publish a decent article ? Live and let live. List the points in articles that are 100% covered and correct. Chuck all the remaining ones. Also mention only statements that are general to all the nairs. Nothing specific to a particular kind of nairs is required to be mentioned in this article.

The image mentioned above was contributed by Kondothy Sultan found to be a sockpuppet of user Nair who himself was a user who created a profile name called nair itself and used it to malign the whole caste/race/title. Its suspiscious how his contributions were readily accepted by the admins.

--QueSeraCera (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's got nothing to do with admins - admins don't get to make content decisions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * QueSeraCera, you'll have to dig through the talk page archives for past discussions concerning images. I recall that there were some dodgy claims being made and perhaps that applies to the one that you have linked. - Sitush (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Boing! said Zebedee, See, the recent edits done by Sitush and Qwyrxian. This clearly shows that all points made by Sitush are supported by Qwyrxian. Is there anything smelly?

This picture is the oppening immage for the Entire Article and as mentioned it was painted by Jan Huyghen van Linschoten.IN his another painting, he himself calls the malabares as Enemies. And for some reason the painting done by this very person is displayed upfront. Its similar to a potrait of America by Osama bin Laden being put in an Article for America..that too as a head mast. So can this image be removed until a neutral picture from a neutral person is obtained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.244.22 (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting find. Are you sure that the "Malabares" are the Nairs? Are you sure that, regardless of that, the image depicts the Nairs in a derogatory manner? I am on record as saying that I'd rather we did away with these caste infobox things entirely but I couldn't get consensus for that. Since the box does exist, do you have any suggestions for an alternate image, given that people seem to expect something to appear there? Is there any reason why the image should not be in the article somewhere?- Sitush (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Admins removing content from talk page which question them !
I have recently seen one post by someone at the end of this page. But admins are removing this. A history explain a destructive nature by the admins. I just created an account seeing this. We need to restore our page to give clarity to the users. See the history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nair&action=history

And here is the original content deleted by the admins!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvn nair (talk • contribs)
 * The comment violates WP:BATTLEGROUND and specifically WP:CANVAS. Wikipedia is not a place to rally the troops to fight for your rights or your identity. Our purpose here is to create a neutral encyclopedia. If that's what you want to do, welcome. If you want to help perpetuate a fight, then please leave. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

But this clearly is not our history. We have a proud history for years. But only things highlighted here are the negative side. And those are really rarely seen. Take the achievers in Kerala. Atleast in south Kerala, I can say that out of 100 achievers, 90 are from our community.Kvn nair (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussing the article Nair - for example, suggesting specific changes to it, backed by reliable sources. If you want to make any additions to the page, tell us what you want to add and show us the references that support it. Any other use of the page (for example, for trying to foment unrest at other pages, or making personal attacks, etc) is likely to be considered disruption and can lead to sanctions - I shall shortly leave you a notice of the discretionary sanctions currently in force on caste-related articles. If you have any complaints about admin behaviour, please feel free to raise them at WP:ANI - but be prepared to back up any accusations with actual evidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem here is almost everything written here doesn't reflect our history. These are written biased just to tarnish our image. And I can see that few of the admins(Atleast Sitush) is not accepting the sources referred by many of our editors.Kvn nair (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are now on a final warning for that further personal attack - please pay careful heed to my messages on your talk page if you wish to remain a part of this project. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This is simply the imperialistic arrogance of pawns of European historians, they never wanna hear what local historians have to say , or they simply always want to control the flow of information. as long as Boing! said Zebedee and Qwyrxian are here its always a british pov push. they have to go! for us local contributors to do anything about this articles. Its a shame wikipedia history section is still under british imperial agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.79.76 (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Updates to article lead.
Nayars are not a caste, but a race with its numerous sub-castes and surnames. Nayars can be found in all walks of life. They are aware of their cultural traditions and history and form an integral and active part of Kerala society. Nayars are the Savarna Hindus who constituted the warriors, landed gentry and yeoman of Kerala.


 * Uh....no. First of all, the book you're referring to is painfully old. In the present day, scientists don't even believe there is such a thing as "race", other than a social construction, subject to constant change, with no genetic or other biological underpinning. We would never label a group like this as a "race". Qwyrxian (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian you dont have the right to classify a book as old and reference as irrelevant because you are not a historian.Please try to stay within your bounds. and if your real motivation was "Scientific" tell me what biological distinction creates a "Caste System"
 * I have the Robin Jeffrey book here &, yes, it is recognised as one of the modern classics of the subject. It is quite understandable that Qwyrxian has misjudged it because the cite given says it was published in 1908 when in fact that should read 1975. Worse, Jeffrey doesn't say that "Nayars are not a caste, but a race with its numerous sub-castes and surnames". In fact, the words "caste, "savarna", "traditions", "history", !warriors", "yeomen" and synonyms thereof appear nowhere on page 28. Nor would I expect them to because there is a logical contradiction in the statement given, ie: if they are a race rather than a caste, how can they have "sub-castes"? - Sitush (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You might have all the books at your desk but try getting out sometime and even visiting Kerala. You have been obsessed with this page for years. Thanks for pointing out to us how sources of information are controlled by Europeans with their refusal to accept any local historic account. This garbage page will one day create a huge controversy in India. Congratulations because then you would have finally arrived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.232.169.156 (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Clensing the article
I've been through this article and it is very cluttered.

To begin with the lead talks about the 'snakes' in Nair compund ?

The main point to be noted is that Nairs were not a race that got extinct. THey still live and hence the article hould be about nairs in general. What I have seen is this article describes how nayars lived at one point of time. Comeon guys. It's a human caste/race/title and not dinosaurs.

I suggest please remove all unwanted points and add up only the important points.

--QueSeraCera (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The snake thing is an interesting point. The sources are from 1968 and something much older and yet the tense is present, so perhaps some rephrasing is necessary. However, the actual issue of whether worship goes on has never been raised in the numerous discussions here regarding that paragraph: the issue has always been with regard to whether or not it is/was a Dravidian custom. Those discussions involved many people from the Nair community, so I can only assume that the general point of worship is valid even if perhaps the wording needs some modification. Please do not forget that we are an encyclopedia, not a current affairs website: we are trying to capture the whole gamut of the Nair subject. I have no idea what points you consider to be "unwanted", although I could probably hazard a guess based on the numerous past discussions here. It would be worth your while trying to have a read through the archives for this talk page before letting us know what you consider to be "unwanted" - you may find that it has been dealt with in the recent past. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

'''I agree this is an encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean that Nairs should be treated as Australopithecus. ''' I am a Nair and After reading this article I feel like converting into some other religion. I don't know who has edited this.Non sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.127.140 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what this page says, Nairs are basically warriors..This page is POV against Nairs.Just ignore for time being.Some people arebasically trying to potray Nairs as bunch of crooks.

There are many books which narrate the courage and valor of Nairs.But this page toatally deviates from addressing what the primary function of Nairs was..and addresses some of the social aspects which was common in the past but seen as "bad" in the present day.

People like Sitush get a peacefull sleep by doing things like this..and they do this simply beacuse they can..there is basically nobody(no panel) to judge them. These people want to potray Nairs as Shudras..but we know its like saying Lion is a cat..But unfortunately they are trying to put both of them together in a single cage..the cage of Indian Caste system.And people who know the entire piccture understand how silly this is.

Nairs belong to Kerala..everybody there knows what they are..i think even you know that..that's why like all of us you also got offended by this page..But i would suggest that you understand that we fought, gave life, took lives to protect our country.. Out of 100 famous personalities from kerala 90 would be nairs..if you doubt it check it.. I have even seen a funny reply where these people say that Mohanlal is not a Nair..This page has many bull craps like these..ignore those. ...Remember that you have a warrior blood..just be sure that you honor it all the time. Why our history is being controlled by few admins here? Please restore the wiki to its original state soonKvn nair (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to make any changes, please make specific suggestions here and back them up with evidence from reliable sources. And do not make personal attacks on other editors, as that is likely to lead to sanctions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Dont give us this crap of "Sanctions threat".If you go through the Archives from 2004, you will find only oppositions to whatever "pile of waste" you guys have posted here. If you had commonsence you would have understood long back that the article which you have segregated here doesnot matchup with reality.the shear volume of oppositions from the community (from 2004) is a testimonial to this,. And is there any other "Caste group" which is controlled like this.The so called "fact" have been taken from sources from the colonial period where the authers have taken some bad behavior within a minortiy group and the you guys took bits and peices and projected it as a mojority group Behaviou. And the saddest part in all this is there is no well qualified historian from Kerala in this commity who has audited this.And for your information the colonial writers were never here to "Praise about INDIA" their main objective was to show Indians as some lunatics or savages,and hence justify their encroachment and plunder to the masses of England.

The whole article amounts to defamation. I can understand telling the truth to caste myths. But this whole entry reads like an exercise in verbal diarrhea filled with things that have nothing to do with reality. This has clearly been written by people who have no real idea about what they are writing about except for what they have read in some books, which invariably have to be written by White people for authenticity in their eyes. They refuse Nair sources claiming that they are biased. It is like refusing Jewish sources for anything related to Jews. It makes no sense but the few people who control this page keep on doing it. Whether well-meaning or not, this entry depicts a Eurocentric point of view.

This page has to be brought to the attention of the NSS. This joke has go on for far too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.232.169.156 (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, you're providing criticism with no suggestions for improvement. Do you have other sources you'd recommend editors read to come to a more balanced picture of Nair society? And no, "come to Kerala" is not a valid answer, Wikipedia does not conduct WP:original research.


 * Further, a history of people complaining about the article "since 2004" is by no means a valid objection. Could it not be the case that these objection are caused by neutral editors providing factual information which happens to contradict caste myth, such as we see happening that same at Rajput, Kunbi, etc? Just because an article upsets people is no indication it is incorrect. From what I have seen in the past few years, a large portion of the people complaining explicitly state their membership in the Nair community, and (as in posts above) mostly show a preference for adding material lauding Nairs, and removing material that "denigrates" Nairs. If the article were simply "inaccurate", then neutral observers would remove "positive" misinformation and add "negative" correct information as well. I find it telling that you suggest the Nair Service Society be brought into this. Why should the NSS be viewed as a neutral party? Why not instead suggest bringing in commentors from, say, the Social Sciences faculty of reputable Indian universities if the goal is indeed to bring in objective fact and not partisan propaganda?


 * Thirdly, while there is indeed (as we all often attest) concern about an over-use of Western sources on Wikipedia, and in academia in general, you level this accusation without at all taking into account the number of South Asian academics cited in this article. If you have objections to these particular academics, please state so, but please don't carry on acting as though every authority cited was some British colonel in a powdered wig. Aside from a number of South Asian academics, the article also cites non-British academics with no personal favoritism for English colonialism, academics from a leftist-progressive anti-colonial background, etc. Perhaps the "defamation" here is also your broad brush accusing anyone who disagrees with Nair caste puffery as being racist?


 * If you have recommended changes, please bring them up. If you have specific concerns of given passages or authors, please list them specifically. But if all you're going to do is rant about unfairness, then you are adding nothing but disruption to the discussion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The article on the whole seems negative
The article on the whole has a negative conotation. In the diet section it says ' In the modern day, alcohol is a component of Nair-dominated festivals in Kerala;. Which are the nair dominated festivals of kerala? Veluthedathu, Vilakkithala nairs are people who did the laundry and hair cutting for nairs and does not come under the nair caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.63.162.99 (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The source for the alcohol statement is definitely reliable, as is that for the laundry/barber stuff. However, page 32 of the "alcohol" source does not mention what we say. Almost certainly, this was added by using the citation tool that they favour - in my opinion, it produces a poor "page" parameter but since I can see neither the page that precedes #32 nor the one that follows it, I cannot verify the claim. I'll ping MV later to see if they can clarify. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake, the page# is actually pg69: Since alcohol plays a part in both celebration and in masculine sociality, Nayar-dominated festivals and Christian weddings and baptisms all have a similar boozy atmosphere.... I have corrected the footnote. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

1."Today, the government of India does not treat the Nair community as a single entity "-- Is there any reference for this statement? can it please be mentioned in the article?

2.The write up --Christophe Jaffrelot believes that the NSS stands in contrast to the All-India Yadav Mahasabha (AIYM), another caste association, since the NSS desired "emancipation" and saw sanskritisation as "a means of reconciling low ritual status with growing socio-economic assertiveness and of taking the first steps towards an alternative, Dravidian identity", whereas the AIYM sought to subvert from within the existing case system.[47]

In this reference 47 ( India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes) there is no mention about NSS.There does not seem to be a AIYM either.Does All India Yadav mahasabha exist? Any details of AIYM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.166.85 (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (1) is perhaps more problematic than it appeared when the citation was given. The source is the OBC list that appears to show these groups under different headings. However, it has since become apparent that these primary source OBC lists can be ambiguous in terms of what groups are listed under each schedule number. Since the statement aligns with the (cited) opinion of Gough that is given in the lead, I am inclined to think that our presentation is correct. Do you have any sources that say something to the contrary?
 * (2) the Jaffrelot thing is wrong and I am not sure why, except there seems to be some confusion between Nayar and Nadar. I suspect that the wrong source is being cited. I am going to remove it pending a look at Jaffrelot's (many) other works, and I am going to re-check the Fuller source that is mentioned in the same paragraph. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Fuller bit - As late as 1975, the NSS still had most of its support in the Central Travancore region - is checked & ok. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So many people find this whole entry complete garbage. NSS has most of its support in Central Travancore in 1975? It's 2013 now. Any idea how it is going now? Or are you waiting for another book from a European author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.232.169.156 (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC) And btw alcohol consumption is rampant in Kerala in every community. That doesn't mean that they are officially part of any "Nair-dominated festival" (whatever that means because there aren't any such ones where people of all Hindu castes don't participate). But reality doesn't matter in wikipedia when it comes to the lives of dark-skinned natives. Only citations matter. This is clearly an attack on the community and will be seen in serious light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.232.169.156 (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, given that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and thus does not conduct original research, our options for this article are 1) cite content from reputable published works, or 2) take the word of anonymous people on the internet. As you can imagine, we have to stick with 1). So far as the East-West issues, yes, it would be a very good thing to have more non-Western academics represented on Wikipedia in general in order to get a broad array of backgrounds. That said, if you peruse the footnotes of the article, you'll note that a good portion (perhaps a third?) of the citations are to works by South Asian academics with advanced degrees published by reputable academic publishers. If you have newer and/or more accurate data from South Asian academics, by all means provide it here, but we can't go adding or removing text based on some anonymous person's allegations of bias, with no documented verification whatsoever. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)