Talk:Sambandam/Archive 1

Talk
Hey guys i wanna know how to use talk Hello4563222211 (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency
"Sambandham is a concubine system" is inconsistent with "Sambandam cannot be considered synonymous to concubinage".

Rainjar (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
Extreme vandalism going on in this page. Please make it protected. Ahuwwhh (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

About Samantha Kshatriyas
Why to exclude Samantha Kshatriya not Kshatriyas from the article?

Added Samantha kshatriya with C. J. Fuller - 1976 The Nayars Today - Page 116 as reference.Outlander07 16:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I removed it because it was not sourced at the time. You have added Fuller as a source now & that is a really poor move. Fuller's belief was that "Samantans" (not Samantan Kshatriyas) were involved in tali exchanges or whatever (I forget the detail) with "Kshatriyas". It is widely accepted now that there were no kshatriyas in South India, which blows a big hole in his mid-1970s book & article. Further, since he thought the Samantans were separate from the Kshatriyas, why are we saying "Samantan Kshatriya". The whole thing is a mess and has been discussed dozens of times on Wikipedia during my time here, almost always with people trying to glorify the Nair caste and more often than not with sockpuppets. You name it, myself & a few other impartials have gone through most sources and it doesn't stack up. Yes, it is what he said and we could mention it somehow, somewhere, but to show it in Wikipedia's voice is likely to be a problem because his opinion simply does not match academic consensus for the organisation of Keralite society. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Now all the unreferenced content is gone, but so is any indication of what the heck Sandandam actually is/was. :) 70.77.37.23 (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Sambandham is The Formal Marriage of Nair Clan
There is a lot of wrong information being spread about the Marriage Ceremony Sambandham. Sambandham is the name of official marriage ceremony of Nair Clan/Community where a Nair Man marries a Nair Woman. This ceremony is the act of professing ritual "pudavakoda" (Groom formally gifting coronated cloth to the Bride). It is a very ancient ritual and till today this itself is Nair Marriage. Marriage relation with Namburis is not a deciding factor for the Sambandham Ceremony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pprasadnair (talk • contribs) 05:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Article update
I updated the article from Weberian Sociological Theory, Professor of Sociology Randall Collins, Cambridge University Press, pages 300 & 301. Please check. 2402:3A80:57F:A73A:FD79:37F5:2516:ECF9 (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2020
Please remove the the restrictions on edit because this statement have no references 3535TheGreat (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. Requests for lowering of page protection can be made at WP:RFPP –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2020
Please remove the edits on Sambanadam 103.70.198.23 (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2020 (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.  Seagull123  Φ  10:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020
Please remove the restrictions on sambandam and allow others to edit it 43.229.88.60 (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 15:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020
please remove the protection on this article to add relevant information. the information written here are wrong. thank you Kailash1234 (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request.. You are welcome to suggest improvements using requests in the form "change x to y". Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2021
PLEASE REMOVE THE RESTRICTIONS ON SAMBANDAM BECAUSE THE REFERENCE AND WRITINGS ARE WRONG. PLEASE ALLOW TO REWRITE THE INFORMATION WRITTEN THEIR ARE HATE SPEECH 103.155.222.65 (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2021 (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.  EN  - Jungwon  07:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Review needed,complete hoax
This articled need to be reviewed. Anyone who read the same can understand the clear politics behind the way the article has been written. The base of the article is pointed out from a single source. Partisan sources. 117.230.50.32 (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Who is this fellow? 2402:3a80:563:23d5:0:30:1d3:4901? Never remove tags from articles.117.230.191.172 (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 2402:3a80:563:23d5:0:30:1d3:4901 is a mlecchan who is always interfering in other's business and spreading misleading information without any warning/signal Prof.Krishnamoorthy (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Mister 2402:3a80:563:23d5:0:30:1d3:4901 Sources of my edits are :
 * 🔹️Census of India 1891.Volume XIII Madras report
 * 🔹️Census if India 1901 Volume XX Cochin, Part I report
 * 🔹️A Gazetter of Southern India:With the Tenasserim Provinces and Singapore by Pharoah and Co.
 * 🔹️Malabar Manual by William Logan


 * Now,can you please not make edits till I figure out to find online copies of census documents and paste the links to the reference?
 * I said this because I have noticed you have edited this page multiple times without giving a warning in Talk section. Thank you Prof.Krishnamoorthy (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Also,Mister 2402:3A80:53D:7E3E:0:46:D395:9001 sorry for the harsh words used, but please remember to consult others in talk section before a repeatedly reverting an edit. Thank you Prof.Krishnamoorthy (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Sambandahm
There is only one reference cited. The subject needs multiple references from distinguished authors and records. Currently it seems unilateral for no other references availed. Christophermarlow (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Christophermarlow, our general notability guideline does require multiple sources for articles to exist, but individual claims on articles can be cited to a single source—as long as it reflects a significant viewpoint found in reliable sources. If you have a specific issue, please bring it up.
 * I'll ping User:Tayi Arajakate because yours failed, but I'll also note that they edited this article only once (that I could see) and that was 4 months ago. Woodroar (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure why I was pinged here. I don't exactly remember making the edit, but it seems it was a revert of an edit which blanked a sourced section so I probably saw it on recent changes. The source itself is a sociology book published by Cambridge University Press (an academic publisher) and authored by a subject matter expert so it would qualify as a high quality reliable source. If one thinks it doesn't reflect the current mainstream viewpoint among scholarly sources, they are free to present equivalent sources which contradict it. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 06:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)