Talk:Nambudiri

Untitled
Consider the following section in the main article: "Only a Nambudiri can become the Rawal, Head Priest, at Badrinath in Uttarakhand,[3]and the Chief Priest at Mookambika Temple in Kollur, Karnataka, Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu, Nepal and other Mahakshetras around India."

The priests in the Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu, Nepal are from Shivalli Brahmin community from Dakshina Kannada / Udupi districts of Karnataka and not Nambudiri brahmins. I know this fact, since, a couple of my relatives have been / are the Rawal at the Pashupatinath temple. Kindly change the section accordingly. Halambi (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Halambi

See this part from the article: "Most of them live in central Kerala and a few, in north and south kerala." This is apparently wrong. Do you really think that there are only a few of them beyond central Kerala? Kuntan 03:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC) what about the rawals in kathmandu before 8th A.D. Nambudiris migrated from Godavari area in the 8-9th A.D. Even whether Adi shankaracharya was Nambudiri or other old brahmins like sthanika tulu brahmins is a matter of research. Shivallis came in 11th A.D.They replaced all the sthanika tulu brahmins in tulu nadu and kerala. Same happened in pashupatinath and mookambikai of kollur. Sthanika tulu brahmins were replaced everywhere.Nambudiris and shivallis are half brahmins (ardha brahmanar) born of Nairs and marakalas (fisherwoman). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.28.243 (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Literature
I have removed a part dealing with Nambooothiri's contribution to literature. It was insufferably biased and the claims were unsupported. Most notably the part didn't mention people like V.T. Bhattathiri or poets like Akkitham or Vishnu Narayanan Namboothiri. Kuntan 03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Degree of Orthodoxy
The article states that Namboothiri brahmins are the most orthodox. The Maithil brahmins make the same claim. In fact, several brahmin communities claim that theirs is the most orthodox, just as all language communities claim that their tongue is the most sonorous. The phrase on the Namboothiris being the most orthodoxy should be made less declarative. I'll edit it. Sarayuparin 22:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There's n't room for dispute in this matter, Sarayu. nambuthiris indeed were the most orthodox among all brahmin sects, being the authors of the most rigid code of conduct for castes, intended without doubt at preserving the chastity of their women who were to be out of bounds for all men outside the Nambuthiri fold. Contact, even by sight, was taboo for suitors from the avarna castes.Transgressions were put down with a stern hand, the hapless female being bundled out of the system through an elaoborate system of rituals known as 'Bhrashtu',and ostracised till death.Vaniks or men from the merchant caste or vaisyaclass that included rich Christian (and Muslims, in the later centuries)traders,and Chettiars from Thamizhagam among others, would be only too eager to take the belle home - if she has n't killed herself by then- and fulfill their long cherished phantasies of conjugal bliss with an aristocrat of the highest order, repository of the most exclusive of genes. That's how the nambuthiri Brahmins preserved, or strove to preserve the racial purity of their womenfolk.The wild oats from Nair women and the royal ladies never blossomed into accredited Nambuthiris. That was reserved for children from the Antharjanam ( Nambuthiri women; literally meaning those confined to the insides of the house  . These alone were the regular offsprings, sole claimants to the title, wealth and ancestry. See the game plan? And how well it was executed? So thoroughly practised for about 1200 years that the society in Kerala evolved into little more than a madhouse, as The monk Vivekananda phrased it.There 's no parallel to all this anywhere else in India. So, I would ask you to move over, quit such talk about Maithili etc, and return the mantle with due respect to these stalwarts from Kerala.86.145.171.125 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Length of the article
The article seems to be too long. It should be condensed to the essence. Insvik

Subcastes
Hey...a book i have, called the Travancore State Manual, makes mention of verious subcastes of Namboodiris which are very different from what are mentioned here...they include Sapagrasthas, Sadharnas, Adhyans, Jatimatrams etc.... kindly check that out...Manu

There is a tale that goes from father to son among some of the highest caste brahmins of Garhwal, that disciples of Adi Sankaracharya were settled in the Garhwal region to run Badrinath. Indeed, Garhwali Dimris (a Brahmin surname) do have a stake in running and receiving substantial shares from the offerings made at the Badrinath temple. This information was formalized in a book "Garhwal ka Itihas" written by Pt. Harikrishna Raturi in 1928. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.102.235 (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion
It is stated here that "The unique thing about Namboothiris is that they follow the poorva mimamsa school of Hindu philosophy unlike uttara mimamsa or vedanta school followed by most of the South Indians."

According to Mimamsa

To a certain extent, Mimamsa is atheist, placing all importance in proper practice as opposed to belief, rejecting a creator God as well as any scriptures on dharma outside of the Vedic tradition, yet accepting svarga or heaven awaiting the person who has acted righteously in his or her life. In its rejection of belief in a God, it is related to the nastika Carvaka school.

A community of temple priests who do not believe in God? The Tantrik practices as per the Tantra Samucchaya which the community follows does not fall under Mimamsa.

IMHO this general statement about the community following poorva mimamsa does not reflect reality.

--Sankarrukku 05:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * the article is completely unsourced. It should be drastically reduced, keeping only material that can be traced to reliable sources. dab (𒁳) 11:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sankara.jpg
Image:Sankara.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro
It is stated that they are the most orthodox Brahmins in India - but the encyclo. link provided does not state that(though it does mention that they are rigidly orthodox). "Most orthodox" seems like an OR to me. Any opinion? Suigeneris (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Critical Analysis to the Legend of ParasuRama
let us consider the matter in an analytical way

1st point is chronological order of indian system of time.

That is krithayuga, threthayuga, dwaparayuga, and kaliyuga

each yuga is comprised of multiples of 420000 years

kritayuga is      420000*4=1680000

thretayuga is     420000*3=1260000

dwaparayuga is    420000*2=840000

kaliyuga is       420000*1=420000

therefore in total one mahayuga is 4200000(42 lac) human years

According to astronomical calculations the yoga alignment of nine celestial bodies have been found on BC 3102 February 17th Saturday, this says kaliyuga has started on BC3102. Other archeological and astronomic evidences say that the kurukshetra battle has taken place around BC3140. Now see the difference of time to connect with thretayuga and kaliyuga. So we can conclude Parasurama's personality as a puranic imaginary personality or otherwise a series of real persons having similar charecteristics and has been elevated as Parasurama. The second option among these does have some valid consideration. The fourth point I am discussing here will give some light over this regard.

2nd point is, the puranaanas and ithihaasas say that Parasurama came to SriRaama(threthayuga) at the occasion of Seethaswayamvaram also, and Parasurama couldnt do anything there. At mahabharatha era (dwaparayuga), Parasurama countered with Bheeshma according to princess Amba's marriage issue. In this occasion Parasurama used Brahmastra against Bheeshma and Bheeshma has taken down Brahmastra with a weapon called Praswaapanaastra. Here also Parasurama couldnt do anything. The point is that Parasuraama is not described as an unbeatable person anywhere.

3rd point is, Parasuraama's father is brahmin and mother is kshatriya. According to the inheritance laws followed by prominent brahmin gothras, if any of the spouse belongs to neechavarna then the child also would be considered as the lower sect among the two. The practice which namboodiri brahmins adapted by means of marriage with nair woman is the best evidence. The children are considered as saamanthakshatriya, not brahmin. Therefore how to rebut that Parasurama is not kshatriya. And there is an occasion in Mahabharatha, just after Kurukshetra battle, Dharmaputra says to Krishna that he is the cause of death of thousands of warriors, so he wanted to giveup his worldly life and wanted to pursue a sage's life. Krishna replied if you are giving up your responsibilities after this great war, you are committing adharma and if you rule the land which the battle has affected, the sin for killing these many people will not affect you. These are the words from SriKrishna. We know Parasurama never ruled any region. And another point for nairs, Parasurama's brothers gave their life for saving their mother and Parasurama saved his life by killing his mother.

the 4th point is little more important according to the existence of Parasurama

Parasurama has done his martial academics from Agasthya Rishi. He began to utilize his warrior abilities against kings with reason. Where ever he went he won the battle because of his expertise in weapons, except the south part of Kerala. At Thiruvananthapuram, he has been defeated and captured by Pallichal Pillai warriors taking care not to bleed any drop of blood of a Brahmin - there are two great houses with name vilangaruthala and Kattaamam still today.

Vilangaruthala means "vilangu-handcuff", "aruthala - has broken", he was again captured by the nair family at Kottaamam and they fastened him with a rope made with 'hay'. "Katta" means rope made from haystack and "aamam means handcuff".

After this again Parasurama was released - as he claimed to be Brahmin, nairs were not able to execute or punish Parasurama. Again in far south of Kerala after 12 kms from Pallichal, the places (1).Dhanuvachapuram, (2).Vaalvachakoshtam, (3).Parasuvaykal (4).Idichakkaplamoodu (5).and another Kattaamam again are there even today as main town centers. Around these places, the warriors from Kurunkutti Nair family has obstructed him again. After heavy struggle, the nair warriors snatched his Dhanu (dhanu - the weapon bow) at Dhanuvachapuram, he again has been released because of being Brahmin. He made fight challenges at the place Valvachakoshtam, the in-land warriors snatched his sword at that place(vaal-sword, vacha-surrendered, koshtam-place). Parasurama came back to a nearby place to Dhanuvachapuram, called "Idichakkaplamoodu" at that place Nair warriors captured him and beaten with idichakka (a kind of small jackfruit, it has thorns but it will not cause bleeding). After these much events Nair lords convinced Parasurama to surrender by himself and there he surrendered his master weapon "Parasu The Great Axe", this place is known as "ParasuVaykal." Parasu means Axe and Vaykal means surrendering. All the above mentioned places are existing and are well known Nair dominant areas in Thiruvananthapuram. Countable reasonablenesses are following: 1.Nairs are also having the proficiency in martial arts directly from Agasthya Rishi, 2.Nairs are very sensitive to their relationship with mother and Parasurama was known for his matricide. Upto the period of enactment of Land Reforms act, general transfer of property and inheritance laws for Hindu communities, Nairs were following strict matriarchial family system and matrilineal inheritance.

Also we may consider an event in purana where Parasurama goes to Shiva and counters with Ganesha, there he breaks one tusk of Ganesha and Parvathi Devi was about to finish Parasurama and the matter was settled by surrendering the Great Axe before Parvathi Devi. We should not map the puranic stories with actual events.

VAAMANA Vs. PARASURAMA

This is the region of Naagas(Serpents). At the out-place of this region there is a particular place having an area of 30,000 yojanaas. Vishnu Kala who has the attribute of 'tamasa' lives there under the name "Ananatha." The real Anantha or Aadishesha as the radiant embodiment of this Kala. History says that the Naagas were the early indigenous inhabitants of Kerala. The ancient word "ANANTHA" denotes "THIRUVANANTHAPURAM." The temple of Ananthapadmanaabha at Thiruvananthapuram answers to this description. On the whole the description of Pathaala fits well with that of Kerala. So it is not wrong to infer that the description of Pathaala in puraanaas is entirely about Kerala in all its aspects.

(Encyclopaedic dictionary of Purāṇas, Volume 3, PAGE 762) By Swami Parmeshwaranand

Prahlada's grand son MahaBali was the ruler of the whole world. Because of the efficiency of his rule, the reason came to MahaVishnu to take his 5th Incarnation as Vaamana. Vaamana has taken the Space and Earth with two steps, there MahaBali submits his essence of Punyakarma for donation towards the third step. MahaVishu has given a boon to Mahabali for visiting his citizens in every year at the occasion of Thiruvonam. Pathaala was the region where Mahabali was sent. Onam is the Biggest official and non-official festival of Kerala for the commemoration of this particular event. Therefore once the region of Kerala was called Pathaala and this region was ruled by the Serpent Dynasty from the period of unknown history.

'''This legend gives direct answer to the ParashuRama theory. Vaamana is the fifth incarnation of MahaVishnu and Vaamana went to MahaBali then MahaBali was sent to Paathala, which is Kerala itself (the festival Onam is the concrete evidence). If the fifth incarnation was directly connected to Kerala, how the sixth incarnation (Parashurama) can create Kerala???'''

Population
According to the 1931 Census, out of the 50,000 Malayala Brahmins, less than half were Nambuthiri. So that will be 0.5% / 2 ==> 0.25%. Considering that the Hindu population got reduced from 70% in 1931 to 55% in 2001, I don't see any reason for their current population to rise above the 0.25% level. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved out of article
The following was in the Classes section but has remained uncited since at least 2007. It cannot stay there like this, so I have cut and pasted it to here. Can anyone find some citations please.

"The original Nambudiris are classified into ten sects: These ten classes and their rights and duties are


 * 1. Aadu: They are specialised in Yaagam, and have Yaagaadhikaaram or the right to perform Yaagam.
 * 2. Edu (a page in a book, symbolising knowledge): They have the right to acquire knowledge and teach Sanskrit, Vedam, Linguistics, Astronomy, Astrology, Architecture and so on.
 * 3. Bhiksha (alms, symbolising a saint or a samnyaasi): They have the right to become a saint (or samnyaasi).
 * 4. Picha (also means alms, in crude form): They are Othikkans, helping other Nambudiris to perform rituals.
 * 5. Othu (Spiritual hymns): This class of Nambudiris was basically teachers of Othu (Vedam).
 * 6. Saanthi (temple priesthood): These Nambudiris are priests in temples.
 * 7. Adukkala (kitchen, symbolising cooking): These Nambudiri families were specialists in large-scale cooking and catering. A family belonging to this group has to be consulted on all catering-related issues including for Yaagam.
 * 8. Arangu (stage): This special group of Nambudiris, called Chaathira Nambudiris, was a military group. Their evening entertainment was Panemkali (Sanghakkali).
 * 9. Panthi (dining structure): Nambudiris like Graamani, Thangal, Vaal-Nambi and Ashtavaidyans (all Mooss families except Vaidhyamadham) belong to this category. Vaidhyamadham, though an Ashtavaidyan, belongs to Aadu class, as they are the Vaidyans in the Yaagasaala (the hall where Yaagam is performed). Mooss families are not included in the above eight classes as these physicians perform surgery. Graamani Nambudiris, Thangal Nambudiris and Chemb azhi nambi(Chengazhi nambiar), Vaal Nambis are Nambudiris performing village administration and hence excluded from the above eight classes.
 * 10. Kadavu (bathing points in the pond): Elayath and Adikal are Nambudiris belonging to this category. In elite sub-class of Aadu class above, is a special group of Nambudiris known as "Ashtagrihathil Aadhyanmaar" (eight elite families)."

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. why was the section 'Potti' removed? Though books like Travancore state manual and some other books doesn't says so, they are actually same as Nambudiri brahmins of central and north Kerala. There is no fully reliable article to support it, but that's the fact. And no proper reaearch has been done on this section of Nambudiris though some books mentions about this community as a seperate community from Nambudiri. Thanks. Specialadd (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "There is no fully reliable source to support it" is a good enough reason. We cannot rely on your "that's a fact". See WP:RS for info about reliable sources. Your comment that some books refer to them as a separate community further confirms the point. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok.fine.Thank you.Specialadd (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. By saying 'There is no fully reliable source to support it', I mean't to say that no proper information is available since adequate research was not done on this community. I said 'it is fact' because, otherwise in Travancore region, how come so many temples are having these Potti brahmins as 'Thanthris'(High priests)? You can refer books written on the history of temples of Kerala(Malayalam books)or in some websites. Few books mention them as seperate community but without adequate reason of considering them as seperate commnity.Specialadd (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I may be misunderstanding you here but I think that what you are suggesting would fall foul of the policies regarding original research and synthesis. We are not allowed to draw conclusions based on inferences of what is said in sources etc. I do realise that this can be frustrating and, indeed, it has frustrated me sometimes ... but those are the rules. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Origin
Cited information which stated the the Nambudiris arrived in what is now Kerala etc in waves from around the 5th century has been removed on the grounds that "thats a fringe theory. Nambudiri arrival might be btwn 10th c BCE to 3rdc CE. still academically debated. try a search on "Nambudiri BC" There were two sources provided, one of which appears to have been present for some time and one which I recently added when the reverter originally removed the info.

Could anyone please explain: Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * why it is a fringe theory and/or provide citations that call it such
 * why it was removed rather than counterpointed by the other theory - it is ok to show two points of view
 * why the other theory is not even mentioned
 * some examples of what is usefully returned from the search referred to by the reverter. If I do it then I am pretty sure someone will accuse me of cherry-picking etc, so best that someone else does it in the first instance


 * I have now reviewed the results of Google searches, as referred to be the remover of the cited info. I searched using "everything" (not specifically GBooks etc) for "Nambudiri BC" and the same terms without the quotes. The former search returns one page of results & not a single item on it is reliable. Indeed, they're mostly blogs and self-published sources. The unquoted variant returns 155,000 results, of which I looked at the first couple of hundred. Some were inevitably irrelevant, but of those that did relate to the community none were reliable sources.
 * So, my proposal is that the cited information should be reinstated unless someone actually comes up with info that satisfies WP:V, WP:RS etc. One possibility that might be worth pursuing is to consider searches on the various other spellings of the name. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Balachandran Nair is his book "In quest of Kerala" says Nambudiris came between the 4th and 7th century BC. Hisotorian KP Padmanabha Menon suggests that the arrival of the Namboodiris would be between the 7th century BC and the 7th century AD (as noted in "Towards a transcultural future: literature and society in a 'post'-colonial world"). PKS Raja also say Nambudiris migrated long before Christian era. In Leela Devi's take on Kerala History, she points her fingers to 4th century CE drawing on conclusions from Legends. Ayinapalli Aiyappan takes the date further and postulates 8th century CE. My point here is that the dates of Nambudiri arrivals are just rough guesses arrived from rituals, legends and linguistic changes. There has not been an academically unequivocal evidence or an anthropological study to establish the correct era of migration. In such a context, an edit like citing a couple of historians is but cherry picking that favors a narrow perspective.  Arjun  codename024  19:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Good, we have some more info now. We can only use that which we know of. The info needs to be in there because the thing that is certain is that they are not native to the area and, as such, it needs to be explained when/how they moved there. The date range might be massive but that is no problem: we just list a few. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is native to the area, everybody migrated from somewhere at some points of time. As far as i see it, including the period of migration in the lead is not consistent with other articles on castes in Kerala. Moreover, since we do not have a definitive date range and are just offered some theories, it should not be put in the lead. The range of dates and difference in opinion among scholars can be mentioned in the "origins" subsection.  Arjun  codename024 21:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. I don't mind where it goes and certainly I doubt that I am the one who put it in the lead (although I think I did add a citation). I will see if I can view the sources you mentioned. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Namboothiri Shudras
I think a few lines regarding them being fishermen, who abondoned their original shudra duties to enter into priestly affairs, lured by the temporary advantage of material benefits, deserves mention in this article. Ikon No-Blast  20:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A book of literary criticism is not a particularly great source for a statement of communal origins, but my bigger concern is that in both instances these items are only available (here, at least) in snippet view. The problems of snippet view have been explained to you previously & so I would hope that on this occasion you could provide us with a copy of the relevant pages - not just the paragraph, but the surrounding text for, say, one or two pages either side of the bit which you refer to. I am aware the the origins of Nambudiris are somewhat controversial and largely unproveable. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Progress
We do not seem to be making much progress here. The sourcing is still very poor and there are still items listed in references which are not actually being used per WP:CITE. Can we improve on this situation? If not, then I am inclined to start pruning the thing. - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead! There doesn't seem to be any active contributor to this article, apart from yourself. :-) Joyson Prabhu  Holla at me!  21:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't remember how this ended up on my watchlist, but after seeing an edit this morning I looked at it and was just about to give a "warning of impending removal". It looks like everything after "overview" has been tagged as unsourced since June of last year, and who knows how long it was in before that. That's enough time for me to be comfortable hacking and slashing.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Full protection
I have fully protected the article for 24 hours to stop the edit warring. However, both Sitush and Ashley thomas80 broke 3rr (Sitush hit 4, Ashley thomas80 hit 5). While I feel uninvolved enough to protect the article (the edit warring had to stop), I'm right on the borderline regarding blocking. I will ask Boing said Zebedee and Salvio giuliano, two admins who regularly help manage caste issues, whether or not they feel blocks are appropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Does removal of copyvios count towards 3RR? That is what I was doing, as well as explaining on the other contributor's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

there's mentions of 'migration of Aryans'. Aryan theory has been debunked for decades now. this entire page is bunk and it should be heavily rewritten. is there anyway you can throw up a citation needed or verification need blurb somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.134 (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Old regional names for Kerala
It is fairly common practice for us to identify the prior names of the state now known as Kerala in articles that deal with the history of that region. This is because many of the sources refer to the former names rather than the current one (which has existed only since the 1950s), and if we quote those sources then references to Travancore etc may needlessly send the reader off to another article. A simple statement is justified for reasons of clarity and has never been challenged elsewhere. For reasons that make absolutely no sense to me, has been removing such a statement, most recently here. The edit summary for the last removal is "steriotyping not a practice in Wikipedia", and I simply do not see how "steriotyping" comes into this. The academic sources commonly do just as this article did, ie: explain the former names. My suspicion is that these may be point-y removals in response to my prior removals of copyvios inserted by that contributor but, if not, then it really needs a better explanation. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add that WP:MOSQUOTE deprecates the use of links inside quotations, so having the statement of prior names independent of any possible quotation etc is a neat way of resolving the issue. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, since there has been no objection raised, it is my intention to reinstate the statements today. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an unnecessary information. An internal link to Kerala will suffice. -- AshLey  Msg 07:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have explained why an internal link to Kerala does not suffice. Now drop it, please. - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If we are moving in your line, we would have to mention all the regions of India where ever the name India is introduced in Wikipedia. Don't think that I have bent to your copyvio allegation: in my talk page I have established your manipulations already. -- AshLey  Msg 08:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Issues with recent additions
The last clause in the following sentence is a case of WP:SYN and WP:OR, "The Brahmins used their priestly and advisory relationship with the invading forces to assert their beliefs and position. Buddhist temples and monasteries were either destroyed or taken over for use in Hindu practices, thus undermining the ability of the Buddhists to propagate their beliefs."

User talk:Sitush has reinstated(diff: the clause, citing p.29 of the source which I had removed. But, I'm unable to find anything supporting the clause- "thus undermining the ability of the Buddhists to propagate their beliefs"-in p.29. -- AshLey  Msg 07:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is an issue with comprehension. Pullapilly says, inter alia, "the Brahmins effectively destroyed the leadership of the new religion by abolishing Buddhist monasteries and learning centres". No leadership, no monasteries, no learning centres, temples either converted to Hindu use or to the worship of pre-Aryan deities --> undermining of the opportunities for propagation of the new religion. He also says - p. 28. - that at the time of the Nambudiri arrival, the Ezhava etc population had become Buddhist through the influence of missionaries; there is other stuff on p. 30 and even p. 31, but I would hope that you could use your common sense here. Do you dispute this conclusion? Should we quote the entire chapter? And can you explain how the statement breaches WP:SYN, given that it only uses one source?- Sitush (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a case of synthesis with your OR(you call it as common sense). Temples, learning centres, monasteries etc may not help a religion to "influence" the "civilized people" towards it. If so, millions of people could have been influenced to Islam, influenced with their enhanced infrastructure facilities. It's a case of ideological influence and intellectual and spiritual debate, which may attract a civilized person to one particular faith. Destroying the temple might not undermine the spiritual and ideological attraction towards Buddhism. Need much more "comprehension" to see this. -- AshLey  Msg 08:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing with you about this any further because your linguistic pedantry is known to me, and we both know that you are mainly targeting me because you bear a grudge. Let's see if others support you. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ashely_thomas80, maybe you're misusing the word, but [{WP:SYN]] only applies to combining two sources and drawing a conclusion that neither of them explicitly state. Now, perhaps you simply mean to call Sitush's claim plain original research. I think that's actually what you're trying to assert. I have no opinion on that claim itself (though perhaps I'll try and work through the wording tomorrow and see if there's a problem there. If you want faster action or action from someone completely uninvolved, start a thread on the original research noticeboard; give both the original quote and Sitush's proposed wording, and see what totally independent editors think. If you do that, just leave a note here so that Sitush and others will see there's a noticeboard discussion going on. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We could include the quote I refer to above - "the Brahmins effectively destroyed ..." etc, - if that would resolve the concerns. As far as I can recall, this was one of the many India-related community articles that had developed into a conflict between being a quotefarm and a repository of completely unsourced original research. However, if the quote is not necessary then we should not use it: one of the most useful situations where quotes are justified is when paraphrasing is problematic, but if we quote then we must be sure that the quote fully encompasses the intent and is not a selective representation. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I plan to post it on the original research noticeboard, probably on Monday. There is no case of grudge or anything like that. Apologies, if I misused the term SYN. -- AshLey  Msg 16:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why go to NORN and waste everyone's time there? Are you not content to replace the statement with the quotation? - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your suggestion. Better you could try some rewording like: ...."thus replaced the Buddhism with Brahmanic Hinduism in Kerala." (p.29)-- AshLey  Msg 15:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is what you did first time round. It is not appropriate and is in fact a misrepresentation of what the source says (some Buddhists remained). - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Or, ".Thus the the Brahmanic Hinduism took over the dominance and Buddhism was marginalized" -- AshLey  Msg 15:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is very poorly phrased. I suggest that you read the entire chapter, and/or that we stick with the quote. I do not understand why the quote should be such an issue but you seem to be unwilling to accept it. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Phrasing not an issue here, you could improve it, but the role of Nambudiris in the introduction of Brahmanic Hinduism in Kerala along with the marginalization of Buddhism needs to be mentioned in the article. Sitush, our confrontations have really started with such simple issue. Here, you agree with the content, but instead of suggesting a better "phrasing", you tries something else. You have accused me of pedantry! Why don't you think of the view from other side? -- AshLey  Msg 07:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

More deletions
Please see User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2015/October. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   07:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Moothath
Both the minimal unsourced Moothath and the much longer, sourced, Nambudiri state that "Namboothiri" is an alternative name. If so, then these two are equivalent. Pam D  20:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * But Moothath is indeed unsourced and Namboothiri isn't even remotely a transliteration or alternate spelling. It might still be valid as a redirect but that needs some WP:BEFORE and I suspect the outcome would be a deletion. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Genetic studies
For a recent example of discussions concerning the use of genetic studies in caste articles, please see Talk:Ezhava. The outcome there follows precedent. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Mallay Theory
While reams have been written on the Nambudri Brahmins of Kerala, it would be worthwhile to read Nambudri community participant observer Jayaprakash Mallay's book MALAYALA BRAHMIN AUTOCHTHON THEORY published in the print media from Manjeri in 1995. It is uploaded in the electronic media in 2009 as Malayala Brahmins. You may kindly visit him mallayj@blogslogspot.com Jayaprakash Mallay (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Factual accuracy, Bias and Tone
The text in this article mostly relies on the observations by Cyriac who is a self-proclaimed Christian missionary. His observations are not corroborated by neutral sources. There is little evidence that the Kings and invaders joined hands together with the Brahmin community in Kerala and have emerged as the land usurpers. Noting the current economy of kerala and also the literacy penetration in the state, it doesn't actually sit that the Nambudri Brahmins have had a reigning hand in the socio-political matters that governed the state. More information from contemporary sources is needed to support this fact or it would be tantamount to a biased view of the community.

The tone of the article mostly suggests that the article is not neutral and factual. Hypergamy is practiced in most of the communities in Kerala and not exclusively by the Brahmin and Nair communities in Kerala. The article seems to suggest that Brahmins are the instrumental community that have given rise to this custom.

Moreover, Polygamy is practiced internally by the Nair community as well which was more matrilineal. The attire prescribed to the so-called higher castes in Kerala is Mundu and is again not exclusive to Nambudri community. Mundu was also the attire worn by the ruling classes in Kerala and some southern parts of Karnataka. Hnaluru (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So find some other reliable sources. As it stands, your comments are original research. - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , and please can you try to remember to sign your posts here, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your issue with the article? I dont really understand whats wrong with it, but to be fair I haven't comprehensively read much into it. BreadBuddy (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did. In the initial justification I provided for tagging this article for factual bias. The Brahmin community of Kerala has long been accused of unwarranted hegemony over the other caste groups. Moreover, my contention is that the source being attributed to cannot be considered as someone who can provide a neutral point of view. Cyriac is a Christian missionary and various Christian denominations have long been trying to produce a biased notion of the Brahminic community in the coastal areas of India to foster more Christianity. Hence, unless historically verifiable, the claims of a Christian missionary cannot be considered as an authentic source. I am trying to gather more contemporary evidence to counter or support the statements been made. Will revert on this shortly with more credible sources. Hnaluru (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not sure if I can agree with you or not there, but what I can say is that the Cyriac Pullapilly source counts as WP:FRINGE. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be added, unless there are other reliable sources saying the same exact theory (i.e the views of a small minority should not find a place in Wikipedia). Not to mention, this obscure origin theory is put in the history section, which is certainly WP:UNDUE. BreadBuddy (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * However, I am a bit concerned with your given criterion for removing Pullapilly, and I would strongly suggest that you please use reliable sources and use neutral wording in your addition. Note: I think the Fringe thing was brought up earlier if you scroll up, but was kept due to lack of finding a suitable replacement.BreadBuddy (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pullapilly is a historian, too. Where is the evidence that he is distorting things to suit some evangelical agenda? It is well documented that the Brahmins did exactly that in South India when they acted as go-betweens/translators etc for British Raj ethnographers such as Edgar Thurston, attempting to boost their own position and concept of the caste system etc, but do we have similar documentation for Pullapilly? I don't have a problem with qualifying his position, eg: Cyriac Pullapilly, a historian and Syriac Christian, says ..., although I suspect some people might think even mentioning his religion is undue unless that is known to have been a significant influence on his scholarship. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there is two different discussions going on here, I assume that in your response you were adressing Hnaluru? I never mentioned that he is distorting things to suit any evangelical agenda.BreadBuddy (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was replying to both of you but feel free to adjust my indenting to make things more clear. Hnaluru had mentioned the evangelical thing, you were suggesting that he is FRINGE. For what it is worth, I am unsure how Pullapilly can be considered fringe when he is saying that other people have made the point. Christopher Fuller is one of those in his studies of the Nair community. - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A quick example from Fuller here, towards the bottom of the page. He says more but I'll have to dig out my hard copies of his book, papers etc. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have no problem with the text from Christopher Fuller in the article. In addition, I did take a look at the link you have sent and I believe the portion you are referring to in that text is where it says "There too, at various times, the Nambudiris have wielded considerable political influence.."; This area however doesn't mention anything to what Pullapilly described, besides the fact that the Brahmins were dominant in influence. BreadBuddy (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fuller continues "...given to the caste system an extra rigour which it lacked elsewhere". I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Caste system in Kerala but you need to be to understand this. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Pullapilly
I moved the discussion here as I believe the previous section had two different discussions going on. My main issue with the work from Pullapilly, aside from the fact that he is a questionable source on history and castes (except for maybe theological articles), is that these theories from Pullapilly are a fringe view, as WP:FRINGE states that if such theories or speculations are only held by a small minority, it should not be included; thus far, it appears to only be held by Pullapilly and even if we manage to find a couple other sources that do say the same exact thing, WP:VALID states that any speculative history, or any plausible, but academically unaccepted theories should be ommitted.BreadBuddy (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You're confusing me now by starting another section but so be it. Pullapilly is referring to previous people, as I said above. Therefore, by definition, he is not fringe. Unless you are suggesting that he made up those people. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And please do not forget that, as our article says, Pullapilly doesn't claim the position to be his own. He and we both say that there are other theories. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is that the theories Pulapilly mentions are psuedohistory. For example, a theory he mentions in the source states that the Izhava people of India were Phoenicians that came to India in 5000 B.C and established the Indus Valley Civilization. The theory goes on to say that these 'Phoenicians' brought the coconut from some South American Island to India. Pullapilly goes on to himself justify from this that the Izhavas were a Dravidian people pushed southward by invading Aryans; he also literally goes on to say that this theory is the reason for the ethnic and cultural similarities of the people in the eastern and southern parts of the Indian Subcontinent. Evident from this, is not just the ridiculousness of these theories, but also the fact that they are obvious examples of pseudohistory.BreadBuddy (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Where exactly does he say that? And what bearing does it have on the bit for which we are citing him? - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How does your opinion fit in with reviews such as this? - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't really about my opinon on the matter, but rather what is present in the source. The origin theories are a small part of Pullapilly's essay which in itself is just a portion of a larger book on social conflict; the book wasn't published and reviewed for the purpose of finding the origin of communities. BreadBuddy (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In response to your previous question, i've cited the source here for your convenience. BreadBuddy (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This really shouldn't be a long drawn out of a discussion as we are making it, and all i'm saying is we should replace the questionable origin theories with material from something like this given source in order to fulfill WP:VALID.


 * You appear to have completely misread what Pullapilly says on p 26. He doesn't support the Phoenician thing at all. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And I don't see how Cook resolves the issue. - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, read it again. Pullapilly clearly mentions about how the migration from Ceylon theory and the migration from Bali theory could be ruled out because the migration doesn't account for the large populations of the Izhava community. After he refutes the aforementioned two theories, Pullapilly mentions the Phoenician theory. He makes no attempt to clearly refute the Phoenician theory as he had done for the other two, and it does not help the case that he comes to the conclusion that the Phoenician theory accounts for  cultural and ethnic similarities between the people of the eastern and southern portions of the Subcontinent.BreadBuddy (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Cook's book has a section dedicated to the Nambudiri. It also mentions history without any pseudoscholarship. I've added a link here to the citation if that would help BreadBuddy (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I must be particularly stupid at the moment. He mentions (a) migration from Ceylon; (b) migration from Bali; (c) Pillai's Phoenician theory. But then, after this overview of possibilities, he says "At any rate, the prevalent scholarly opinion today is that the Izhavas are the descendants of the early Dravidian settlers of Kerala ..." etc. There is nothing at all fringe-y about a review of the literature in this manner, and I've already explained that he takes the same approach to the Nambudiri influence thing and our article accurately reflects it. This is not the promotion of pseudohistory but rather a perfectly acceptable overview of what people have proposed in the past. All good historians do it, and so they should. - Sitush (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already linked Cook above, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point but Pullapilly's review of the theories, although possibly controversial, is not the subject of removal. I am saying that the pseudoscientific theories he mentions, like the Phoenician one, should not be present in the article. The piece in this article we have cited him for includes one such theory which makes no historical sense, especially given the fact that it has been established that there has been little to no historical evidence of the early ethnography.These theories, especially the cited one, does not have a significant relationship to established academic consensus either; thus, there is no context for inclusion. We should omit this information as including it would unduly legitimize it, as per the guidelines on WP:VALID. BreadBuddy (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing it, sorry. I've added sources today that seem to support much of what we cite from Pullapilly, except for the Buddhist connection. I'm still reading and have a mound of JSTOR papers to go through but as things stand I am not persuaded that the theory is outright pseudohistory and I'm certainly not persuaded that we should not show a theory simply because is may not be established academic consensus. Academics routinely disagree, and nowhere do we give this particular theory our stamp of approval. Is there something particularly offensive in it? - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The given sources say that there was not much information about the early history and ethnography of Kerala. Then so, how can a theory be so specific about the destruction of Buddhist temples, invading aryans, and a forced assignment of caste? BreadBuddy (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides this, the policy i've linked to you earlier states that "plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize". The policy is enough to explain why we should remove this. BreadBuddy (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And I've shown that some of it is accepted, and I am looking into the rest. Plus, there is no undue legitimisation. I know you have edited the Pullapilly article in the past but, really, what is your problem here? I am pretty sure it isn't anything to do with policy even though you keep teaching me to suck eggs regarding that. It would be much simpler if you just explained what it is you do not like. You've tried to split a discussion, you've tried to bring up irrelevancies about Ezhavas, you've tried to claim it is Pullapilly's own belief etc. For whatever reason, you're gunning to get rid of the entirety of the Pullapilly paragraph even though some of it is already supported by other sources. - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I've added one source that says the early ethnography is uncertain. You are prepared to accept that but not one source that describes a theory presented by other sources? That is the way to madness. - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ill respond to your statements one by one.I hate to create a wall of text here, but to respond to this properly needs some clarification to avoid miscommunication. Bear with me:
 * You accuse me of splitting a discussion; I started this new discussion here as both me and the other user Hnlaru were making two different statements about Pullapilly. The other one was a discussion thread that the other user started, and should be used for their respective concerns.
 * In terms of claiming it was Pullapilly's own belief, you have proved to me that it was not his own, and I have accepted that. But whether or not it is Pullapilly's beliefs doesn't make much of a difference now.
 * The cited Pullapilly material is a combination of material from page 26-30 of the source. I have no problem with the statement that says "Cyriac Pullapilly has noted a theory that the Nambudiris are associated by some with the development of the caste system of the area.[4] Pullapilly refers to other theories also but of this one he says that although Brahmin influences had existed in the area since at least the 1st-century AD" or "The origins of Malayalam as a language is also attributed to the Nambudiri Brahmin's mixing of Sanskrit and the local Tamil language. Their dominating influence was to be found in all matters: religion, politics, society, economics and culture." I believe this stuff is reasonable, and likely supported by the sources you have suggested. But the rest is what i've been saying we need to remove; as i've explained many times, this stuff has to be removed per the policy.
 * Well, the Izhava part is not irrelevant at all. The Pullapilly source we have cited in this article is literally about the Izhava people! The cited piece and the other ones i've explained to you, including the Phoenician theory, is one of the many 'theories' that are stated in this source ——an essay about social change——which is not the most reliable for finding histories of communal origins. I've explained why such theories shouldn't be included with the backing of policy. Note:I don't mean to teach you policy as implied by your comment, I see that you are an experienced editor.BreadBuddy (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, thanks. Now we are getting somewhere. I was under the impression that you wanted to pull the entire paragraph. I will have a think. You may have to bear with me for a day or two, sorry, but if you feel a desperate need to remove some of that paragraph then I guess I should not stop you. The problem with doing so is that it would give the appearance that some of the Pullapilly stuff is pseudohistory and some is not. That might suggest original research. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't see pages 166 and 168 of the Cook source here. I'm still trawling through other stuff but I am struggling to concentrate at the moment due to medication and I also have another 3600 articles on my watchlist, so apologies for the delay. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A. Sreedhara Menon has written quite a lot about the Nambudiri/Buddhist theme and does not appear to mention the theory that Pullapilly refers to, eg: from p. 37 of this. - Sitush (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pg 166 of Cook deals with the relationship of the Nambudiris to the Nayar people, and pg 168 describes the Indian caste system in general. Let me know if you need help finding something out of that section.BreadBuddy (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes unless we find such theories in mainstream textbooks etc——or at least in a significant number of academic publications——we are likely not going to be including it. Anyway, while we are here, would you like to get this article to a GA rating together? BreadBuddy (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not forgotten about this. Got a lot of reading and a lot of other stuff on the go. - Sitush (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hypothesis about Nambudiri origins
In a 2008 article in the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, TP Mahadevan demonstrates quite convincingly that the Nambudiris (at least the oldest section of the community) had their origins in the Purvashikha Brahmins present in the Tamil country during the Sangam Age (usually dated 0-200CE). Mahadevan bases his argument on the continuance of the Purvashikha tradition among the Nambudiris (wearing the hair tuft on the front) as opposed to the Aparashikha tradition (wearing on the back) found among later Brahmin immigrants to South India. He also proposes that an early version of the Mahabharata text was carried by Nambudiris to Kerala.

(p4, On the Southern Recension of the Mahābhārata, Brahman Migrations, and Brāhmī Paleography (2008), Thennilapuram P. Mahadevan)

 "My specific thesis with respect to the Brahman migrations of the two groups and the epic is that what Sukthankar isolates as the Śārada text, his archetype for the epic and basis for the CE of Mahābhārata epic or a text very close to it, say *Śārada version, came to the Tamil country with the Pūrvaśikhā Brahmans by the beginnings of the Common Era (CE): these Brahmans with their fronted tuft are well attested in the Sangam poetry, ca. 50 BCE to 250 CE, and they created from the *Śārada text what has come down to us as SR in the first four or five centuries of CE. I will designate this *Pūrvaśikhā text of the SR of the Mahābhārata. This *Śārada text present in the Sangam Tamil country,being made in the first half of the millennium CE into the *Pūrvaśikhā SR text, supplied the knowledge of the epic displayed in the poetry of the Sangam anthologies, these perhaps being composed simultaneously with the *Pūrvaśikhā text, the basis perhaps even for a Sangam Era translation of the epic, Perutēvanār’s lost Pāratam. At the close of the Sangam period of Tamil history, brought about by the Kaḷabhra Interregnum, ca. 4 th to 7th CE, a far-reachingly disruptive moment in Tamil history, a branch of the Pūrvaśikhā Brahmans moved to the Malabar region of Kerala, later the historical Nambudiri Brahmans of Kerala, through the Palghat gaps, a travel route already in long use, with the *Pūrvaśikhā text, the text remaining there in relative isolation till 1920’s when summoned to Poona for the CE." 

http://crossasia-journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/ejvs/article/view/327

I think Mahadevan's theory about the origin of the Nambudiri Brahmins certainly deserve a mention in the article. Please let me know your thoughts about including it (Chetan vit (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC))
 * If you can't find this theory in across mainstream academic works its not be included in the article. If you really feel the need to add this, then find multiple reliable sources that say so.BreadBuddy (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying BreadBuddy. This is a relatively new theory proposed on the basis of the variation of the Mahabharata texts from different parts of India. It's available at the link I have given. As for other reliable sources, I am sure I can find them. I will list them as I find them. (Chetan vit (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC))


 * That the Nambudiris are Purvashikhas (front tuft Brahmans) as opposed to Tamil Iyers etc (Aparashikha - back hair tuft) is a well known fact. We can find a reference in Thurston's Castes and Tribes of Southern India. Mahadevan proposes that the Purvashikha Brahmans were the first migrants to the Tamil country since they are attested in the Sangam poetry. Therefore that would make the Nambudiris the descendants of these Purvashikha Brahmans. This also explains why the Mahabharata recension found with the Nambudiris in Kerala is the shortest in South India (and thus the "most original") according to the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune which collected manuscripts from all parts of India for the preparation of the Critical Edition in 1927. (Chetan vit (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC))
 * I'll explain why such theories wouldn't be included.
 * This would not be included as it fails WP:UNDUE. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it. In this case, it is definitely a minority view as it is a new theory——as you have said yourself.
 * WP:VALID expands upon this; it states that speculative history and pseudohistory would be removed, as it gives an undue balance with the material that is factually supported.
 * This material fails per WP:REDFLAG. This is an apparently important claim, which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions about the origin of the Nambudiri, yet is not covered by multiple mainstream sources (such as textbooks and other history books).
 * On another note, i've noticed in this diff that you changed the wording of text from another source in order to justify the material that you have just added. BreadBuddy (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * @BreadBuddy Well I am disappointed that the edit had to be reverted. I believe I did provide multiple reliable sources that support Mahadevan's claim. Especially Alf Hiltebeitel's views in Introducing the Mahabharata. Alf Hiltebeitel is a recognized authority on ancient India epics (see his list of contributions). If you still feel the need to exclude Mahadevan from the article, I understand. But that would be disappointing though.And about the change I made in the wording, I did so only because I felt it was necessary for the passage to show logical continuity from the previous one. (Chetan vit (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC))


 * Can we atleast include the fact that the Nambudiris are purvashikhas (front-tuft Brahmans) as opposed to most of the other South Indian Brahman groups (like Iyers) who are Aparashikha (back tuft)?


 * That fact is well attested from the time of Thurston's Castes and Tribes of Southern India. I feel failing to include this would mean we are skipping the most important description that is unique to the Nambudiri together with their orthodox Srauta culture (Chetan vit (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC))

Please help me in expanding the article
There is a lot that can be done and a lot of info that can be added to raise this article from the current quality to at least the level of an A-class article. For example, the famous 32 grAmams established by Parashurama tradition is something found in any source dealing with the Nambudiri right from the semi-mythical Keralamahatmya Purana. The same with the Nambudiris' unique Purvashikha hair style and their observance of orthodox srauta rituals to this day. I am really interested in contributing to the article as part of my ongoing task of expanding content related to Indian history and ethnic groups. I am planning to add some of this info over the next week. Before that I would be interested in hearing if any of this info was part of the article in a previous version, and if so, what were the reasons for their removal. (Chetan vit (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC))

I'm happy to help with a rigorous expansion/rewrite of the article; I've just begun to rewrite the intro, and will be adding more over the next few days. Advocata (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm the original poster and thank you for your edits. I have found a couple of mistakes and corrected them. (gnanvit (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC))


 * I suppose I'll have some time to help as well, though I think I might be busy in the next couple weeks.BreadBuddy (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The History section is too long and disorganized. Needs to be broken into subsections. Can try adding a part on Adi Sankara and his role in the community. (gnanvit (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC))

Genuine Nairs don't feel proud in having Nambuthiri, Empranthiri and Iyer ancestry
For us, Nairs, it's very painful to think about the past of our caste that many Nair men had lost their lives the Chola-Chera war and the Karanavars had to fix Sambandhams and accept matrilineality for their family. Nair Women painfully agreed to become the wives of Nambuthiri men. Our ancestors were very rich and wealthy. Nair men never gave wives to Brahmins. They were well trained warriors. If someone dared to misbehave with the women of their family or the women of their village, they would cut-off his head with sword or Nāgapāsham(Urumi). Yes! Nair men not only protected their family, they also protected their village.

Nair women too loved their husbands very sincerely. Every year Nair women took 'Thiruvathira Vratham'and prayed for good health and long lives of their husbands.

'''From my research what I have got is that Sambandham actually existed in Ambalavasi(Devadasi) community. But as many Nair men lost ther lives in Chola-Chera war, Sambandhams began in Nair community too. I think Kings of Kerala too had lost their lives in Chola-Chera war. Nambuthiri men also had Sambandhams in Kovilakams. As Kiriyathil-Illathu Nair women and Kovilakam women never sang and danced in front of public and never did the Temple duties, they were accepted as women of their caste only and were not seen equal to Devadasis.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.87.132 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Your comments appear not to be relevant to improvement of this article. This talk page exists only for that purpose. - Sitush (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018
157.51.88.207 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 17:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Image of Saraswat Brahmins for Nambudiris?
The image used for the migration of Nambudiris into Kerala is actually that of Saraswat Brahmins. While it's true there were late migrations of Tulu and other Canarese coast Brahmins (of the Saraswat stock) into Kerala, the earliest Nambudiris cannot be said to have formed from this community. As Mahadevan (2007) has shown, the early Nambudiri community had an active Śrauta tradition (unlike the Saraswat Brahmins) and share Vedic recensions with Tamil groups like the Sozhiya, along with the wearing of forelock (purvasikha). Therefore the core of the Nambudiri community must be seen as a Sangam era purvashikha group, not the Saraswats who migrated south much later. (gnanvit (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC))

NAMBUDRIES OF SOUTH INDIA
There is a revised and enlarged edition on the Nambudries of South India published on the internet since 2009 with occasional inputs till date. It is called MALAYALA BRAHMIN AUTOCHTHON THEORY. This richly textured and meticulously researched account presents a fascinating account when viewed from an alternative perspective of the fishermen dimension.

Awestruck by the nature and content of the sahyadri khanda version of the skanda purana narrative Nambudri Documentalist Advocate Jayaprakash Mallay took up residence at Puthan Mana Pulikkathodi Illam Moothedath Palasseri Mana and Poonkutil Narayanamangalath Illam, all in the Nambudri traditional village in Karikkad. As a participant observer he was Registration Officer during Nambudri social gatherings called swajana sangamam consequently from 1997 till 2001. Thus emboldened by Nambudiries well versed in the Scriptures with whom he always interacted, they briefed him up with pin point precision and stunning accuracy on Material Culture and Life Cycle Ritual of the Nambudries which spiralled in him the unquenchable thirst to know the unknown. His two decade long interest and insight in Malayalam and Sanskrit semantics asserted itself in the need to re - define Nambudri ancestral habitats on the basis of fish and aquatic pattern. His protracted endeavour is no sheer wild wizardry of words that spill a beguiling spell of terminology suggestive of sea and sea creatures viz. Narwhal, turtle, prawns and spawns. When sustained by an equally rich texture of empirical data, it is what makes Jayaprakash Mallay's seminal findings about Nambudries through a glaring study of Ethno - semantics Marathon, monumental and unique.

Not only do deliberations and the conclusion of MALAYALA BRAHMIN AUTOCHTHON THEORY espouse an alternative set of argument, but the fish related issue is also elaborated in dispiriting detail. It is the reason why Mallay has every reason to insist that his views be heard. visit him at

http://www.mallayj@blogspot.com.in http://www.facebook.com/jayaprakash.mallay http://www.wordpres.com/jayaprakash.mallay Jayaprakash Mallay (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The lead is too long.
Very long lead, need to structure it. Bilgiljilll (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Bringing these things like "As late as 1936, ordinary, undistinguished Namboodiri families were worth on average 2,500 times that of outcaste Pulayar households, many of whom labored as serfs on Namboodiri or Nair jenmom estates." into the lead without any citation and claims like namboodiri and taylor series ? This is bizarre, kindly discuss here before addung these. Bilgiljilll (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The point of these assertions is to situate the Nambudiri for what they actually were: a tiny feudal aristocracy that relied on hereditary allodial title to land and serf labor to support a life conventionally dedicated to ritual and intellectual output. Indeed, the Namboodiri-Nair hegemony on landed assets is the dominant materialist explanation for the Mappila Rebellion.

If you are are unaware that the Nambudiri were the feudal aristocracy or allodial owners of most of Kerala, and the conservative faction in Kerala's internal political dynamics (as contrasted to immigrant Iyer and Deshastha Brahmins), or that the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics is a primary example in the literature of the distinctive non-literary and non-religious 'cultural' output engaged in by the Namboodiries, it genuinely suggests this may simply be a matter of WP:Competence. The fact that you think it's controversial that Adi Shankara was a Namboodiri is tantamount to thinking it controversial that Jesus was a Jew. See here or here or here. Again, you're welcome to ask for sources, but suggesting that the historicity of the claim that Adi Shankara was a Namboodiri again strongly suggests concerns with WP:Competence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hölderlin2019 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no vandalism involved in improving the article to a comprehensive, academic-quality piece. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but the obvious explanation for your exact criticisms and desire to expurgate easily sourced, uncontroversial scholarly content either suggests you have some personal agenda of whatever sort against anodyne discussions of the feudal structure of historical Kerala, or Nambudiri archaism in ritual and practice, etc.

If you want the text elsewhere than in the lede, be bold and move it. That doesn't seem to be what you actually want, though. I will wait to hear your explanation before restoring the article to its previous quality. As an aside, here are names you can pick out of a hat: Witzel, Jamison, Brereton, Deshpande, Mahadevan. Email one or all of them randomly and solicit an expert third opinion. (I imagine you know who all of them are, of course.)

@Arjayay @Bilgiljilll @Paulwesley36 Hölderlin2019 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Holderin2019 Again repeatedly adding these things without source would vandalise the article .Also @Paulwesley36] ] the practice of [[sambandam is mentioned clearly in the section of marriage customs why pulling into the lead ?? It is clearly structured. @arjyay I think that this page need protection . Just check the edit history of this page. Bilgiljilll (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hölderlin2019 yoy are giving a random website as a source for all these like taylor series invention ?? Bilgiljilll (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Arjyayay need your kind attention here, i think the page needs protection . Kindly check these recent additions. Bilgiljilll (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Arjayay Bilgiljilll (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Arjayay Bilgiljilll Hölderlin2019 I wasn't part of the original discussion, but as far as I can tell the article has had large chunks of scholarly description excised for... apparently no reason, unless we include the sorts of things that do not matter in unemotional Wikipedia editing. The distinctive archaism and shrauta ritualism/Mimamsa tradition are barely mentioned, despite being a focus of the **international scholarship** on the Nambudiris. Meanwhile, one of you seems to be contesting as controversial that Adi Shankara was a Namboodiri. That is breathtakingly... weird, and suggests an extreme detachment from the literature (or even traditional culture, since all the hagiographies attest it). The article on Adi Shankara gives the following two sources: Joël André-Michel Dubois (2014). The Hidden Lives of Brahman: Sankara's Vedanta Through His Upanisad Commentaries, in Light of Contemporary Practice. SUNY Press., and  Roshen Dalal (2010). The Religions of India: A Concise Guide to Nine Major Faiths. Penguin Books India.. It's trivially easy to find dozens of academic and rigorous popular sources attesting the same, if those are insufficient. But I really do have to confirm - are you claiming that it's controversial that a Brahmin from Kalady was Namboodiri at a time when there were no non-Namboodiri Brahmins **in** Kerala? The only dissent I've ever seen is from a Vishwakarmas trying to Sanskritize. That is not the kind of agenda we host here. I will be extensively reverting (and sourcing!) unless some kind of explanation for why we're better off with this neutered article is provided. Advocata (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bilgiljilll Hölderlin2019 see above sorry

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Namboothiri (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)