Talk:Nair/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

why no information taken from keralopathi

respected sir i do not know why wikipedia such a reputed encyclopedia have semi protected this article it itself prove that the facts in this article is false.I have facts to prove it from keralolpathi a book about kerala and i will prove it sir wait — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.250.116 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

respected sir i do not know why wikipedia such a reputed encyclopedia have semi protected this article it itself prove that the facts in this article is false.I have facts to prove it from keralolpathi a book about kerala and i will prove it sir by sumesh kaimal and thank you very much for your response — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumesh kaimal (talk • contribs) 12:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The article will not be unprotected. Instead, please provide more information about this book: who wrote it, who published it, when it was written, and, specifically what does it say that you think should be added? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I would not set your heart on the Keralolpathi; like many such books it is a collection of legends which are certainly culturally rich, but by no means historically precise. There may be things worth mentioning about the book's version of history, but by no means are we going to be able to cite the book as an authority on history. Please take a look at the article on the book and note the criticisms by modern historians (both Indian and non-Indian). MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The articles of Kathleen Gough and fuller are also legends and stories not truth.wikipedia showing double standards

Mr Matthew are you telling to me to believe what ever written by Kathleen Gough or by fuller is true then i beg to differ they may also have written the books or articles from legends said by other people so like me so many other people also do not believe in their books or articles so will wikipedia delete their articles.Why wikipedia is showing double standards.I respected wikipedia but now i am sorry to say i have lost it toady like millions of other people your article have insulted our nair race .Now how i can believe the other articles of wikipedia which may also be false like this.My humble request to wikipedia is please go after truth do not go after legends or stories of Kathleen Gough or fuller.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumesh kaimal (talk • contribs) 22:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gough and Fuller are academics, with respected reputations. More importantly, their works were reviewed by their peers, through the academic review process. I'm sorry that you don't like Wikipedia's rules, but this is how Western academic writing works: information produced by scholars, reviewed by other scholars, is held in higher value than information produced hundreds or thousands of years ago by religious/mystical leaders without any review process. I'm not saying that those religious texts are wrong--I myself happen to believe in the "truthfulness" of a number of ancient mythological texts...but I also know that they aren't reliable sources in the way that either Wikipedia or an academic would accept. Just because you're using the word "myth" to describe Gough and Fuller doesn't mean that they fall under that definition. Since it looks like you won't find what you're looking for on Wikipedia, I wish you success in searching for it elsewhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Nairs are kshatriya proof found it is only a begining more proofs will follow

Mr matthew in the book "Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Volume 5" on page number 40 it has been clearly stated that nairs are kshatriya means warriors class why you did not mention it here.So here is my first proof.Respected sir please wait for other proofs. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumesh kaimal (talk • contribs) 22:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are several Brtish Raj sources that state the Nairs to be kshatriya. They were written by people who are now generally considered to be uninformed amateurs who at best recorded what they were told by members of the communities that they were studying. All this has been dealt with on numerous past occasions on this talk page. I recommend a read of our article concerning sanskritisation and also a closer read of what this article actually says - it does mention the kshatriya opinion and it does explain that such a group did not really exist in southern India, where the four-fold varna system did not really exist. Indeed, it is probably because it did not exist that Kerala became a "lunatic asylum" of castes (Vivekananda used that phrase). - Sitush (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr sitush, the point made here is that since it has been mentioned and cited it should be included.

Unwanted information's like sexual relationships between some women and nabudiri's ("Some Nair women also practiced hypergamy with Nambudiri Brahmins from the Malabar area.") is of no importance to be put up on the lead section. Are you playing games here ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.204.138 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia includes information which has been verified by reliable sources. Once you find a reliable source, the info can be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The hypergamy of he Nair community is the most studied aspect of their culture and is indeed their primary "claim to fame" in anthropological circles. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably because there are people like you who are more interested in sexual matters. Your declaration of this most studied aspect comes from your own personal opinion and has nothing to do with the facts. Moreover that is a ritual and if something needs to be mentioned in the lead it should be about the ritual and not the way you have crapped in the lead.

Nair's include people of forward caste and mostly kshatriya's. They also include few communities that cam under shudra's this can be pretty well covered in the lead.

Please note

It is stated in the article that castes like Vilakkithala and Veluthedathu Nairs belong to Nair caste. It may be noted that:

Vilakkithala and Veluthedathu Nairs do not belong to NSS. They have their own organisations, namely the Vilakkithala Nair Samajam and the Veluthedathu Nair Samajam.

These castes are eligible for reservation in the Other Backward Caste category. The Government of Kerala and India have recognised Nairs as a forward caste. That is, they are ineligible for reservation.

Those desirous of reservation in educational and employment sectors should specify which eligible (for reservation) caste they belong to, along with necessary proof. 'Nair' is a caste that is thus ineligible, while 'Vilakkithala and Veluthedathu Nairs' are not. No authorised authority would furnish a testimonial to some one belonging to Nair caste stating his eligibility to reservation and its benefits.

In educational and employment sectors, the purpose of reservation is to help those communities who were earlier socially and economically handicapped in the past. The government has charted out a detailed list of those deemed worthy of reservation. The idea of putting a community that dominated the political, economic, administrative and cultural history of Kerala amongst castes eligible for reservation could only be ascribed to selfish and base motives.

It is a glaring truth that in India this woe and curse of caste system existed that was meaningless and inhuman. It served no purpose other than dragging back a great civilisation. Thankfully, the influence of this system is on wane, particularly in Kerala. However, it is requested that those writing on social set up of Kerala including the caste system, should try to stick to facts as far as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indrajitthotta (talk • contribs) 09:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

We stick to what is said by reliable sources in accordance with our policy of verifiability. I'm not sure that issues of government classification and NSS membership necessarily relate to Nair status but if you have any such reliable sources that contradict the ones presently used then feel free to raise them here. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Those interested in the veracity of the earlier post may kindly refer to the booklet issued by Government of Kerala along with PSC forms. I mean to say that this is the easiest way of checking out. I don't know about how it is now (in this era of downloadable admission cards), but they used to issue booklets detailing the instructions to the candidates about six to seven years back. A list of the reserved castes were listed. Surely, this information must be available in the sites of the concerned departments and the PSC itself. I stand by what was said earlier. 'Nair' is a general category, ineligible for reservation. Castes like Vilakkithala and Veluthedathu Nairs are eligible as they should be, given their disadvantageous position in the earlier cultural and social scenario in Kerala. I fail to see how the experts who preside over the editing are unaware of these basic facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indrajitthotta (talk • contribs)

This article is not presided over by experts. As Sitush said, all we ever do is follow what reliable sources says. Those booklets may or may not be reliable sources, but if they are, they are primary sources, and so we have to use them very carefully and only for exactly what they say (i.e., no interpretation at all). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Some Nair women also practiced hypergamy with Nambudiri Brahmins from the Malabar area." - in the lead section?????

Is this line talking about sexual relation ships between some women with nabudiri's worth mentioning on the lead. Oh come are you kidding ????

EDITORS - this is an epic fail article. This is how resources can be used out of context to lead to a total disaster. Whoever has protection rights, shame on you. Do act innocent it's very clear how biased you are.

See my reply to your exact same point of a few minutes ago. Please don't open new sections just to repeat yourself: it makes keeping track of things difficult and it leads to people having to repeat themselves in turn. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Sitush, since you have taken this enormous task of monitoring this article on your strong shoulders, this comes as an added responsibility. No body is forcing you to be a watch dog. I see you strive very hard to keep this article out of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.122.130 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, although your conclusion is misguided. The task of maintenance and development of this article would be less onerous if people could make the effort to comply with our policies and guidelines and, erm, read or provide the sources for the point that they wish to discuss. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The words of duke of Lord Wellington

" I like to see these nairs who never care their lives who lead an army of similar people even against mighty ocean of enemies and fight to win like a hell-fire " - Lord Wellington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.58.149 (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

List of nair freedom fighters

Pallichal Pillai (Also known as Vanchimuttam Pillai) - Leader of the first rise-up(1721) against British in the Indian History Known as Attingal Riot, Kodumon Pillai - Co-partner with Pallichal Pillai and Attingal Queen in Attingal Riot, T.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair - Master brain of Royal Indian Naval Riot(April 1946) which caused the exile of British from India, Billy Nair - South African anti-apartheid activist and comrade of Nelson Mandela and M. P., Chengalathu Kunhirama Menon - Renowned journalist and freedom fighter, Ammu Swaminathan - (freedom fighter), N. Sreekantan Nair - (freedom fighter), G. P. Pillai - (freedom fighter) - Founder Madras Mail - News Paper, K. P. Kesava Menon - Indian independence activist, Velu Thampi Dalawa - Dalawa of erstwhile Travancore Kingdom, Freedom Fighter, Edachena Kunkan Nair - Commander of Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja's army in Wyanad., Kaitheri Ambu Nambiar - Commander of Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja's army in Kottayam, as well as his brother-in-law., Vaikom Padmanabha Pillai - a.k.a Kuthira Pakki, Commander of the Travancore Nair Army, which defeated Tipu Sultan., Mannathu Padmanabhan - Social reformer and freedom fighter, Sir Chettur Shankaran Nair - President of the Indian National Congress & member of the Viceroy's Executive Council., K. Kelappan - a.k.a Kerala Gandhi, freedom fighter, founder of NSS., Cherumony Damodaran Nair - {freedom fighter}-INA., Sankara Narayanan Thampi - Freedom Fighter., Kuttickat Krishna Menon - Freedom Fighter; arrested with others for hoisting the Indian National Flag during the Independence Struggle and jailed along with prominent youth leaders of the time like K.Karunakaran;died in 1980 while in service as Public Relations Officer at Indian Rare Earths Limited,Cochin., T. M. Nair - Tharavath Madhavan Nair - Founder of Justice Party,Politician And Physician., K P Madhavan Nair - Freedom Fighter and former All India General Secretary of Indian National Congress, Dr. G Ramachandran - Freedom Fighter and Founder of Gandhigram (Now Gandhigram Rural University) in Madurai, Shri. T.C Kesava Pillai - Member of Legislative Council, Travancore, Founder of Kuzhithura VavuBali and of the Kollencode heritage, R.Ragava Menon-Palakkad,freedom fighter.minister Prakasam ministry,Madras, N. Chandra sekharan Nair, Karikkakarhil Veedu, Nanniyode Pacha ( Freedom Fighter and Congress Leader) He is from Ancient Ettuveetil- Chemphazhanthy Pillai Family. His son P.N. Bhaskaran Nair, Founder of Kerala Press Nanniyode is also involved in freedom fighting and a Hindi Pracharak., — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.58.149 (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is mostly based on Aryan Invasion theory which has been proved as faux all over the world

This article is ridulous and is based on Aryan invasion theory which has been accepted all over the world as false.

Its a shameful article which should be kept short and sweet. Why is this article so long. Why arent the disputed information removed from the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.204.133 (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC) 

Please could you give an example from the article of AIT-derived statements. As far as "disputed information" is concerned, we are not censored and rely on what is verifiable by reference to reliable sources. Our policy of consensus specifically notes that we are not a democracy operating on the vote model and thus it is not enough that some people - perhaps a majority - dispute some of the content of this article. Unless they can provide policy-based reasons for its removal, the stuff is going to stay. - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

sitush tell me your real name.Why you are using a fake id and name to publish a fake article which is wrong.I hope you only want to make money  ?

~~ mr sitush i found out that you are using a fake name and you are writing this article to make money let me see what i can do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.66.190.91 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, who has a side job as Batman, is unable to divulge his secret identity lest Arkham fall into chaos. Ok, that might be rediculous, but not really more ridiculous than your accusation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If I was in fact paid even, say, £1 for every hour I have spent on this article then that would be a pleasant situation. On the other hand, I'm happy to contribute to Wikipedia in exchange for nothing at all, which is just as well because that is precisely how much money or other forms of tangible reward I actually get. Well, with the exception of a t-shirt that I was nominated to receive and that, alas, is far too small. The only thing that is unpleasant with regard to this article is the repetitive, unwarranted abuse. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The dravidian people of kerala were serpent worshippers - not a proper reference to show that nairs were serpent worshippers.

This citation means for all the people of kerala, and doesnt refer to whether nairs of kerala were serpent worshipers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.204.133 (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed umpteen times in the past. Please consult the archives to this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason all this nonsense is left here? Surely a bit of DENY would be useful? Has that been tried before but lack of admin support meant there was too much side commentary regarding AGF and so forth? Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I for one do sometimes remove/collapse comments here and on similar talk pages per DENY. However, I am attracting attention from the "civility brigade" etc and have enough problems to handle without adding more to the mix. A situation that of late perhaps has not been helped because some of the few experienced editors who take an interest in this stuff have themselves decided that enough is enough. This entire project is supposed to be a fun and uplifting exercise for the benefit of mankind but increasingly it seems to be a drag. It is easier for me to respond to comments on articles such as this sometimes, and ignore probably just often, than to set myself up a a target for people who are adept at using policy and guidelines to run well-intentioned people off the project just because someone is having a bad day. I know and I apologise: this is a rant that has only trivial relevance to improvement to this article. In the spirit of AGF, myself and a few others soak up an awful lot of punishment on India-related stuff. - Sitush (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame you have to take all this rubbish as well as do your excellent work that I have noticed, however I see what you mean. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a shame you take up tasks voluntarily and then crib about it. Even I have noticed stupid statements in this article and this one is exactly one such small thing. I would like to know as to WHY is it written as a Dravidian custom ? Maybe you could rather write as humans were serpent worshippers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.91.140.4 (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I second to what IP : 202.91.140.4 has said. This article has clearly been manipulated to impose a particular point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.50.59.180 (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Aww! Look at the love-in between Sitush and Johnuniq. There have been repeated complaints about the quality of this page and all we get is a neo-orientalist attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.179.50 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Nairs do not believe in Kothi. It is derogratory to mention the same. "They also believed koti from a poor man watching someone eating a delicious food will cause stomach-aches and dysentery.[96]" Nair diet did not include PORK or buffalo meat. Please remove this line "Pork was also noted as one of their favourite foods,[107] and even high-status Nairs were noted as eating buffalo meat.[108]" Anand 16:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It is sourced. Are you saying that the sources are unreliable and, if so, why? - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Some Idiots have edited this article in Wikipedia..There are many unscientific theories,lies and propaganda. This is ridiculous. As an example It is written that Nairs worship serpents. Actually Nairs worship Nagas not Serpents. Nagas are demigods in the Hindu Mythology. And Nairs came to Kerala from North India. They are not a Dravidian race at all. References like Malabar Manual and various genealogical studies have proved this. Why this propaganda and who is behind this? But you foolish head, truth cannot be hidden for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.50.153 (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I was recently watching a documentary on traditional Manipuri house hold. The presence of Thulsi plant in the courtyard ('Thulasi thara'), cowdung smeared ground (which one could argue is more common through out India), and the now more well-known North east traditional building architecture style. The only other place in India that I have seen these is in Kerala, esp. Nair tharavadus. A friend of mine (a Nair) recently did a DNA test (23andme) and guess what turns out, he shares ancestry with speakers of Tibeto-Burman languages through his paternal haplogroup:O3a3c1. This and the legends of migration from Ahichatra, the stories still retained by the Bunts of Kannada, Kasargode, etc.. and countless other anecdotal/traditional stories just solidifies that that Nairs HAD to be the decendants of the ancient Naga tribe and migrated from the North-East/East of India to Kerala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.247.102 (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

15:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC) i am planning to approach some prominent kerala leaders( nairs like tharoor etc)and possibly explore a judicial option to get hold of these guys sitush, mathews vanitas and see how they can be sued for slander etc..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.29.16 (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That is your prerogative but (a) it won't work (jurisdictional issues, if nothing else) and (b) please read WP:NLT. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This page can be blocked from being published in India with a COURT ORDER. Wikipedia (or it's Indian arm) will be answerable for slander. Hiding away conversations is not going to stop any of this.

Ref Regarding Kerala & Nairs

I found this ref which seems telling a lot regarding Kerala & Nairs [1]:

• Nairs were the martial & landed nobiltiy of Kerala since more than 1000 years and are called Kshatriyas
• Their origin is linked to the Scythians
• Etc.
  

If this ref is reliable, we must mention it in the article which does not tell much about the above things.
Rajkris (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Seen it before. If you honestly think that a book written by someone called "Nair" who happens to be a military officer & has no apparent training in history, ethnology etc is reliable then you need to re-read WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That's why I mentioned 'If this ref is reliable,'. If I am not mistaken, Nairs were known as rulers & warriors of Kerala since more than 1000 years... If true, I just regret that this is not enough emphasized in this article.Rajkris (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Rajkrish, the scythian origin of Nairs is a well documented and proven fact. If you just google “Scythian origin Nairs”, you will get a plethora of articles written by both Indian and European anthropologists. But none are “acceptable” to the editors here, In the perception of defining Nairs as a “Dravidian” community, the editors turn a blind eye on the Scythian theory and terms snake worship as a ‘dravidian’ custom, it is a known fact that during the pre-biblical era, the Hitities, Assyrians,Canaanites also worshipped snakes until Judaism became a prominent religion when the snakes were portrayed as evil in the garden of Eden. While the editors claim to have cleansed the article from mythical stupidity, they still use terms like ‘Dravidian’ which are very much obsolete in modern anthropology. Ironically, the vernacular version (Malayalam) of wiki is clearer on this and cites A.L. Basham, an English historian and indologist to throw light on the Scythian origin of Nairs. If you could read Malayalam, please read that article to get a clear idea about Nairs, wonder why wiki has totally different versions for the same article having completely different content except for the pictures. Of course, the Malayalam version does justice to both the content and the context. Thanks Vyasan —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sitush is still holding on to his racist views of looking at Indians as biased. I wonder if Sitush would apply the same principles on other communities around the world as well.

On the positive side, I am happy to see Panikkar being quoted here. If I remember right, he was a Nair. But Sitush, please don't hold that against him.

Sitush's racist views must be brought to the notice of wikipedia admins. But ultimately it is useless because admins are his friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.179.50 (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'm the one who added Panikkar. Check the history. - Sitush (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Praise the Lord! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.28.103 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2014

67.165.234.171 (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done - you have made no request - Arjayay (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Some Nair Hater has posted all nonsense about the community, Wiki is also siding with that fellow by locking his blasphemous article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.206.19 (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC) actually ya some nair hater has posted all these nonsense,,, snake worshiping is not a Dravidian custom as the highest class 0f nairs belong to Nagakshatria they do worship Nagas... and Nagavamsha kshatriya is a subclan of Suryavamsha kshatriya which is an Aryan Kshatriya clan... and these articles are edited wrongly and its in protected mode... tats good because the editor doesnt need one to correct it he states that the one he said is correct... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.90.1.9 (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nair

air (Malayalam: നായര്‍, also known as Nayar and Malayala Kshatriya) is a Kshatriya caste among the Hindus, mostly found in Kerala, India.[1][2][3] Before the British conquest in 1792, the Kerala region contained small, feudal kingdoms, in each of which the royal and noble lineages, the militia, and most land managers were drawn from the Nairs and related castes.[4] Nairs were prominent in politics, government service, medicine, education, and law.[5] Nairs constituted the rulers, warriors and landed gentry of Kerala (pre-1947). Nairs were traditionally matrilineal, which means that the family traces its roots through the women in the family. The children inherited the property of their maternal family. Their family unit, the members of which owned property jointly, included brothers and sisters, the latter's children, and their daughters' children. The oldest man was legal head of the group and he was respected as the Karnavar of the family or Tharavadu. Rules of marriage and residence varied somewhat between kingdoms.[6] The Nairs are known for their martial history, including their involvement in Kalaripayattu and the role of Nair warriors in the Mamankam ritual. The Nairs were classed as a martial race[7][8][9][10] by the British, but were de-listed after rebelling against them under Velu Thampi Dalawa, and thereafter were recruited in low numbers into the British Indian Army.[11] Only Nairs were recruited into the Travancore Nair Army, until 1935 when non-Nairs were admitted.[11] This State Force (known also as the Nair Brigade) was merged into the Indian Army after independence and became the 9th and 16th Battalions of the Madras Regiment. The Samanta Kshatriya Kolathiri and Travancore kingdoms[12] were originally of the Nair caste[13] The Zamorin Raja was a Samanthan Nair[12] and the Arakkal kingdom of Kannur, which was the only Muslim kingdom in the Kerala region, also had Nair origins[14][15][16]. Nair feudal families such as the Ettuveetil Pillamar of Travancore and Paliath Achan of Kochi were extremely influential in the past and exerted great influence on the ruling clan.

The earliest known description about Nairs state that Nairs (Nagars) are the descendants of nagavamsha soldiers sent by the Nāga Kingdom for taking part in the battle at Kurukshetra during Mahabharatha. Mythology apart, Nairs are thought to be the descendants of Nagavanshi Kshatriyas, who migrated to Kerala from further North.[26][27] According to Dr K. K. Pillai, the first reference about the Nairs is in an inscription dated to the 9th century A.D.[28]

the most widely accepted theory is that the ethnic group is not native to Kerala and the Nairs of Kerala and the similarly matrilineal Bunts of Tulu Nadu are thought to be descendants of the Kshatriyas who accompanied the Brahmins to Kerala and Tulu Nadu respectively from Ahichatra/Ahikshetra in southern Panchala.[30] One finds mention of the Nairs during the reign of the King Rama Varma Kulashekhara (1020-1102) of the second Chera dynasty, when the Chera Kingdom was attacked by the Cholas. The Nairs fought by forming suicide squads (Chavers) against the invading force. It is not clear whether the Cheras themselves were Nairs, or if the Cheras employed the Nairs as a warrior class.[31] The Sanskrit Kerala Mahatmayam, an upa purana of the Bhoogola Purana, calls them the progeny of Namboodiri men with Deva, Rakshasa and Gandharva women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.90.1.9 (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

the article lead should have only general points that are applicable to all nairs.

Statements that point out to only a particular subcaste or portion of Nair's should be removed from the lead.

This is a very simple and surd logic. Please do the needful as the rest can be described below in detailed descriptions.

103.226.7.198 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC) kcerasera

Lead sections should summarise the article. What bit do you consider to be undue? - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, this article lead tends to cover only the medivial nair properties. It points out to a certain era.

Secondly, the lead summary should always be general to all Nair's. All the statements that point out to 'some' Nair's or 'a few' Nair's should be discussed in the detail sections instead of the lead.

I hope you get my points. Thanks.

103.226.7.198 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)kcerasera

the Dravidian people of Kerala are serpant worshippers

I have 2 points.

1) If you are accepting this author's works as reliable then why object when the same work is used for other areas ? I have noticed that the same author is states as reliable and non reliable based on the admin's luxury. This seems wrong.

2) dravidians are serpant worshippers - how does this imply that Nair's were serpant worshippers ? Are you aware that you are committing to fraud here ?

103.226.7.198 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC) kcerasera

AH, I thought that might be your point. This issue has been discussed time and again. Please read this talk page and its archives. The content is not going to be removed because consensus is to keep it. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. I know what consensus means. "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. "

I am hoping we all want Wikipedia and the articles to improve with time.

Instead of having meaningless rules resulting in complex and weird article editing cause the article to turn out to be a total disaster, what is needed is a flexible understanding of the ground realities and thus improving the article as a whole.

103.226.7.198 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Kcerasera

Consensus is not a vote. You need a policy-based reason to overturn the consensus that the works of people such as Kathleen Gough are reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That's okay. But as far as I see there is no Kathleen Gough here. I see Balachandran Nayar, Krishna Iyer and bala subramaniyan. And these articles are used meticulously out of context to change the actual points that these articles make. Is balachandran nayar via accent publication accepted as a reliable source here ?103.226.7.198 (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Kcerasera

As I said earlier, the lead is supposed to be a summary. I can't see the source cited in the lead but as a general rule we should not need to cite there anyway, precisely because the thing is a summary. That the citation exists is probably because of the contentions that have arisen regarding the claims made. However, that cite in the lead is supported by others in the body, including Gough (see the Religion section).

The lead section is pretty poor generally and could do with a rewrite. However, I'd be surprised if any such rewrite saw the naga worship etc removed from it. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Dravidian variety of the Aryan Kshatriyas?

Hello,I'm new here and I have a question about the article: What exactly is meant by 'Dravidian variety of the Aryan Kshatriyas' ?Does this mean that the Kshatriya classes of Kerala(Thampurans,Varmas etc) are part of the Nair community?I'm asking this question because unlike the Nairs(who were viewed as Shudras by the Brahmins),the Thampurans and Varmas who reside in Kovilakams wears the sacred thread and are mostly vegetarians.But they do follow the Nair customs of Sambandham with Brahmins and Marumakkathayam.I'm totally confused here....

Nair is a group of castes and most of which have no relation to shudra duties. They we definitely not shudra's except in some areas. Thampuran is not a caste. Get your facts right first.

Plus Aryan Dravidian distinction is based only on the basis of native language. This is another thing to be pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.41.32.112 (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I myself am a Nair,and my grandfather told me that as per Kerala's caste system,the Namboothiris only considered Nairs as Shudras.

Thampuran is a title generally applied to the royal Kshatriya Varmas(like Rama Varma Shakthan Thampuran).AFAIK Varmas never identify themselves with Nairs.They have different organization named Kshatriya Kshema Sabha,which is unrelated to NSS.I don't think royal Varmas are related to Nairs,they have the sacred thread and are vegetarians like the Brahmins.Nairs doesn't have the sacred thread and they were not royalty,just nobility.

And yes,Aryan and Dravidian are linguistic terms.But what is the need of Dravidian 'variety'?I think 'Dravidian Kshatriyas' is enough.AryaBharatiya (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Too Many Disputes

The archives show a multitude of disputes against the entire article. This page is currently being managed by Sitush who is self placed moderator with no research degree on the subject. The article is fully edited or presented as he would wish. No regard is given to others edit request even though they comeup with proofs. so its time to go against this through formal channels. I request all to write to info-en-v@wikimedia.org with a detailed description of your complaints. Lets all bind together and report against this injustice. A formal complaint against Wikipedia can also be sent to HRD ministry for calling a group of people as "Shudras" and attempt to humiliate and insult a group of people , without any substantial proof — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simple Thought (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? You are going to complain to the Indian government? And I know what info.en will say, they will tell you to sort it out on Wikipedia. The Foundation doesn't get involved with this sort of thing. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, the disputes are between people who understand Wikipedia's need to use reliable sources and to only echo what reliable sources say, and those who either do not understand or, for various reasons, want to paint a caste as higher status than it has actually attained. Honestly, if we believed every claim we've heard for every caste we have articles about, we'd have to accept that everyone in India is descended from kings and warriors and nobody ever built the roads, made the shoes, or worked the farms.

  If there are inequities in the caste system, then the answer is to change the system, not to change Wikipedia to rewrite history. If we consider the approach taken by a lot of caste champions here, it would be like black South Africans challenging apartheid by claiming "No, we're white, we always have been" - and how stupid would that have been?

  If a caste has historically been classed as "Shudra" and there are reliable sources to document it, that's exactly what Wikipedia should say about it. If you find the word offensive, then the fault surely lies in those who look down on Shudra castes, not on those who document the historical classifications.

  There is nobody here at Wikipedia trying to insult or humiliate anyone - just to document what reliable sources actually say. And if you take offense at what they say, then that's not the fault of Wikipedia (or of any of its editors) - changing Wikipedia won't change a damn thing in real life! And no amount of petitioning to anyone is going to get us to abandon our requirement for reliable sources - Wikipedia will not be used as a political platform for rewriting documented history. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Alan and zebedee. It's not very tough to understand the fact that as mentioned in the lead nairs are a set of different castes. These include rulers and warriors on a huge scale and only 2-3 of the subsets are low caste. As the dispute herr goes out to be, when it is accepted as a group of different castes it makes no sense in consolidating it to a particular type. You can see even the word renowned king zamorin was Nair and a nairs were mainly a warrior class. You I u can find ample of cited sources. I can get you if you want from the same references used in this article.

The other cases like for example servant worship is stated as a dravidian custom which is totally untrue. It's a nairs specific custom and not a general dravidiam custom. There is still no explanation to that. I don't really care about what Wikipedia has to say since no body accepts Wikipedia to be reliable yet, but I do have to make sure wrong/incomplete information does not get logged here.

223.230.72.6 (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC) k cera sera

The people posting above have conveniently dodged the main issue and created strawman fallacies upon what the original post said. There are several disputes here and Sitush the self placed moderator conveniently uses confirmation bias to choose citations that elucidate his agenda whatever they may be, whilst eschewing anything that doesn't suit him (even if the sources are as good as or better than his). He also uses the historian fallacy on several occasions. Also the wording of this article is rather hilarious and ridden with POV which is against wikipedia's code of conduct, there are a plethora of credible citations to show the nairs are a warrior clan and yet the first few paragraphs of this article have relegated that to " historically involved in military conflicts ", The nairs had their own army named after them, used exclusively by the Kings and yet that too has been relegated to something of a lesser value. Take a look at the ezhava caste article their first paragraphs states all their known professions from being laborers, farmers, ayurveda practitioners and warriors (chekavar section). The Nair article has condensed centuries of their martial history into " involved in military conflicts " that is something befitting of al qaeda or tamil tigers wikipage. No one is asking for a haughty puffed up article ridden with jingoism, all people are asking for is a fairly written article that talks of Nair history properly, or at the very least having a first few paragraphs that articulate what Nairs were known for historically like the Ezhava article's first few paragraphs. ps. There have been several parties who have sued Wikipedia for defamation and won. Louis Bacon even got a court order forcing wikipedia to reveal the personal details of every single person who defamed his company he then went onto sue them for substantial amount. Once upon a time Sitush saved this article from a quagmire of exaggerated claims and today he/she is the one standing in the way of a fair article, undoing all his own hard work. Why is a person who has no research background or contextual background in being a Nair or living in Kerala free to not let anyone else edit this article? Rather silly! He also majorly uses western derived citations that stem from the colonial era, which is as ridiculous as using majorly Indian derived citations on a historical page for British history. Things like this might be why so many educational institutes think wikipedia is still a joke. Sitush is particularly pedantic and skeptical over anything pro-Nair yet he has no problem using sources which glorify ezhavas. Smells fishy! 82.2.99.4 (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

article photographs fiddled again?

So after I was away for a while and now that I got back I see that the good homely pics of the ancestral home and group of the community members removed and Replaced yet again with a pic of a naked girl?

What rubbish is this? Where is the pic that we all agreed to last year? Why was it removed?

223.230.72.6 (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC) k cera sera

Which picture is that, then? - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

better picture replaced?

There was a better picture of nair women that was used earlier from the same.source also @ http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll123/id/5403/rec/3.

Any specific reason that was replaced by this little girl without a top?

Any pedo bears?

It might help if you at least skim through the pictures that are used before casting aspersions. The picture that you link which shows the women eating is already in the article. The other picture to which you refer has also been in the article for years, although I think someone recently replaced it with a tweaked version of the same thing. There has been post discussion about it and the consensus was that the thing should stay. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That picture was replaced by the meal one. And there are other better pictures of ancestral home and women taking part in singing and so which are better deserving than some naked picture of a little girl. And I am 100% sure this naked pic has been added recently. Are you willing to lie about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.41.32.65 (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There are better pics!!!! Why is this picture used?

image in nair article http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/Nair_women_Malabar.jpg

We have a better picture with traditional dress to depict nair women. This pic is already in Wikipedia and can be reused.

Please replace the naked little girl's pic with this. I don't see any reason u need that specific image only.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/Nair_women_Malabar.jpg (posted by Bongsaidzebedee, 19:34, March 22, 2015‎)

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the words of someone who was blocked for impersonation. And she's not naked. ekips39 (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi All,

We can still argue why the suggested picture which seems to be better cannot replace the other quite disturbing picture which does not depict any traditional dressing of the nair women.

I also vote for the picture suggested in the link above and am of the opinion that the pic used in the article looks inappropriate. Lets have a small discussion on this if you people have time.

Warm Regards. - This is Mexy here, former dead soul(active years ago). Back with a new ID ^_^ NoSolaceforaDeadSoul (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for caste disputes

Hi Everybody,

The caste systems in India have been jumbled up and all that results is a lot of chaos. The reason for this being that 'Nair' is more of a title which includes the ruling royalties, land lords, merchants as well as low class servants, barbers and more so. I totally agree with stating it as a unitary group of diff castes but also suggest that we take the focus off the caste system and focus more on their lifestyle, traditions and other attributes like kalaripayattu(big deal), thaiyyam (ritual involving spawning of ancestors - pretty typical to nayar's), their housing system(tharavadu), matriarchial system, the differences between Nayar's in diff areas of Kerala.

Most of these are covered here but I think the lead can be improved tremendously and all the ambiguities could be removed.

OOB opinion : Nair's also belong to the Kayastha community which are hindu communities indigenous to India and dont fall appropriately in the varna system.

[PS : Study of Nair's is part of my academic assignment, i'd be happy to contribute as much as I can] NoSolaceforaDeadSoul (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm fairly new here and I just want to point out few things about your post:

1)Kalaripayattu was also practiced by non-Nairs and even non-Hindus.But military class of Nairs specifically dedicated their careers on Kalaripayattu and other sort of warfare.Majority of Kerala's military consisted of Nairs.

2)Theyyam is mainly restricted to Malabar region,I'm not sure if it is associated with Nairs.As the name may indicate,it is more possibly associated with Thiyya caste.I think Kathakali is more associated with Nairs.Also this artform shows the martial heritage of Nairs

3)Matriarchal/matrilineal system was also followed by other castes,including tribals like Kurichiya.However,I think matriarchy along with hypergamy was only followed by Nairs.

And I don't understand how do you equate Nairs with Kayasthas.Could you explain?Majority of the Nairs,like said above,consisted of warriors,landlords,elites and even royal classes.So in the original Vedic 'Varna' system(which is different from Kerala model) majority of the Nairs can be considered as Kshatriyas.

But the Namboothiri Brahmins only viewed Nairs as Shudras.At the same time they had no problem cohabiting with the Nair women,wearing the cloths washed by low ranking Nairs(Veluthedans, See this link),hair being cut by lower ranking Nairs etc(Vilakkithala Nairs were barbers of Namboothiris and other higher ranks,so when cutting the hair of the Namboothiri,the barber would obviously touch the head ).So in my opinion,the 'Shudra' identity of the Nairs were bestowed upon Nairs by the Namboothiris according to their fantasies and satisfactory needs.Namboothiris even had 'shuddams' or purification rites(which involved bathing) after coming in contacts with Tulu and Tamil Brahmins(see the above link),and they considered themselves superior to other Brahmin communities,let alone Nairs or Kshatriyas.I own a book named 'Kerala Mahatmyam' which is literally the 'bible' of Namboothiris and it contains legends about the origins of Kerala by Parashurama and his donation of the land to the Namboothiris.According to the book,there were no real Kshatriyas since Parashurama exterminated all of them and gave the newly founded Kerala to the Namboothiris.So the rulers of Kerala were Namboothiris,and the only Kshatriyas were those Namboothiris who degraded themselves into Kshatriya status.Although in later chapters,we find mention of Namboothiris themselves electing Kshatriyas from local lords(Samantans) or even importing few surviving Kshatriyas(Perumals,see here ) from aboard.But these Perumals could only reign for few years because after certain period of time,the Namboothiris will elect another Perumal.So even the Kshatriyahood of Keralite rulers was in the hands of Namboothiris.To sum it up,only real 'rulers' of Kerala were the Namboothiris and the only real 'king' of Kerala was the Azhvanchery Thamprakkal,who is the supreme authority of Namboothiris(much like Pope of Vatican) in Kerala.

Having all this said,majority of the royal houses of medieval kingdoms(Swaroopams) in Kerala had Nair origins.This includes all 4 powerful kingdoms like Kolathunad(north Malabar),Calicut(Malabar proper),Cochin(Central Kerala) and Travancore(southern Kerala).Majority of the royal members have the sacred thread,holds the title Thampuran or Varma(instead of typical Nair surnames),follow vegetarianism and are widely recognized as Kshatriyas today(compared to 'Shudra' Nairs).Based on this,I previously thought that these royal members were different from the Nairs(previously I even made a post on this issue here,it is archived now).However,I had to change my views when I became aware of the facts that :

1)Majority of these Thampurans/Varmas follow identical customs like of Nairs(like hypergamy along matriarchy/matrilineal system).

2) Royal males,especially the kings,only married Nair women.Many royal females,like other Nair females,conducted hypergamy with Namboothiris or even higher ranking royal males.

3) These royalties do not have their own separate 'Jati' from the Nairs.The name Varma is just a Kshatriya title(like Brahmin surname Sharma in north) and was mainly restricted to the male members in the past(but it is also applied to females according to modern trend).Thampuran simply means 'lord' in Malayalam and the Kshatriya recognition,as I have stated above,was given to them by the Namboothiris.Some of these kings like in Travancore,frequently conducted costly ceremonies like Hiranyagarbha and donated wealth to the Brahmins to gain the Kshatriya recognition.

4) Both Nairs and Thampurans/Varmas fall into same 'category' i.e they both had political powers and had their own armies(many local Nair lords or Madambis like Mooppil Nairs,Karthas,Nambiars/Nayanars etc had their own small troops and bodyguards).

So taking these 4 points into account,these royal Varmas/Thampurans who had/have the sacred thread can easily be considered as part of the elite Nair group who gained political prominence and the Kshatriya recognition by the Brahmins.Although,they had higher ritual ranks than the ordinary Nairs,thus the sacred thread and vegetarianism just like Brahmins.

I admit I am not an expert,but these are my conclusions after researching a lot on the Nair community(I myself belong to a middle class Nair family).It may have errors and please feel free to correct them if you detect any.Also,if you are aware of any patrilineal royal houses in Kerala,them please inform me.I have doubts on the royal house of Kodungallur,Poonjar and Pandalam.I don't know whether if they practice matriarchy or patriarchy.Kodungallur Rajas are considered as direct descendants of the Cheras who had capital in Kodungallur.Poonjar and Pandalam Rajas are said to be the descendants of the Tamil Pandyas who migrated into Kerala during medieval times.So if these royal houses are matrilineal and practice hypergamy,then we can say that they too have Nair influence.

--AryaBharatiya (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

Quality of Article is low, as many of the citations are of opinions and bias. Pictures are obviously not of people of the Nair Caste, and include those of tribal people of the Malabar. The 'diet of the Nair' and its source is one such example of complete speculation, and is somewhat ridiculous. Can the article please be cleaned up, with sources checked, and most of the pictures removed without base such as "Nair woman in 1914" which in itself shows an irular tribeswoman as opposed to a Nair. Thank you for your consideration. Rabt man (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done that is not an edit semi-protected request - you cannot just claim a 1914 photo "shows an irular tribeswoman as opposed to a Nair" without citing reliable sources to prove that the University of Southern California, the source of the photo, is incorrect. - Arjayay (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Arjayay there was a better photograph of Nair women in their traditional dress having a meal in the traditional home. This photograph is still there in the same.source as the current one. Is there a reason that was replaced by this one which seems totally inappropriate and does have to do anything with the Nair traditional.dressing style????

Thanks. Please check history for the previous pic.

Request to replace the existing picture with a better one

@Arjayay @Rabt man

I suggest replacing the existing pic with this one.

http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll123/id/5403/rec/3

122.171.29.168 (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC) xaxaxaxa

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2015

modern day, alcohol is a component of Nair-dominated festivals

Please remove that sentence , liquor is never a part of High caste Nair festivals

Hey this is Rabtman, Yeah I tried to remove it earlier, but anyone who tries to, or has tried to remove it, had their edit undid and a threat given for 'edit warring'. I understand, but this article is monitored by groups of people who have tried to attack it, and they have the power to block whoever they want for whatever they want. I'm sorry. Rabt man (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Kottaramnair (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 20:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

General Note:

To anyone just seeing this talk page, or my comment for the first time, please look at the archives for past discussions that were either ignored or shut down. This Article seems to have a clean set of cited opinions that attack this caste, and the quality needs a lot of improvement. At least to maintain a neutral POV.Rabt man (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you consider as attacks on the caste? - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Cite style

Has anyone got objections to me moving the citations over to {{sfnp}} as I work through improving sourcing etc? The style that is used at present was one shown to me when I was starting out and it is rather clumsy. Sfnp will have more or less the same visual effect for the reader but will make editing easier. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought we came to a conclusion?

Hey sitush, um..I thought we had came to the conclusion that we would keep the Aryan stuff as well as the other racial insults by the British etc until a modern source refuting these claims were reached like you said? And also, I did not revert any edits. See for yourself at the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabt man (talk • contribs) 09:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Re your first query, please see my reply above. Re: the revert policy, please read WP:3RR: you have added the Logan stuff three times despite not having consensus to do so. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by Rubbish? The statements where sourced, and they were not of bias either because they were from a British Christian (who were known to take the side of lower castes and Christians for the purpose of conversions and support). Just because you do not like the statement does not mean you can just revert it and threaten me with a block. That statement was in the same nature as those that said Nairs were not real Hindus, and that they were "sudras" (the real reason behind the sudra thing is because of a Brahmin legend that Parashuram killed off all the Kshytrias. This legend being the source of the 'sudra' status is even mentioned in the sources. However, that is clearly not added to the article because it at least shows the Nairs in a little bit of a good way). I also did not do any 'reverts', as you can see for yourself. You did more than 5 that day as well. The Picture has not been thoroughly discussed either, as the countless people who asked for it's removal were refuted by your team. The painting of the Nair woman having lighter skin was also 'replaced' with the one of the naked little girl. Why do you revert every single edit that someone who is not from your group does?

Are you also saying that I need your permission to add the Logan stuff? Wikipedia is for everyone, not just for personal vendettas. Please let others edit without threatening to block them. I am trying to discuss with you in civil way, Rabt man (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)and will do anything in my ability to keep it that way.

Your definition of civility obviously differs from mine: we've had a lot of people trying to glorify etc the Nairs here but precious few going out of their way to denigrate them. All we can do is paraphrase reliable sources, and if those sources happen to upset some people then that is just unfortunate - Wikipedia is censored.

Logan is not a reliable source, period, and is therefore rubbish. I do believe I have given you links to places where that type of source has been discussed previously. WP:HISTRS is an obvious starting point. - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Just because you say Logan is Rubbish does not make him Rubbish. If you call Raj era sources rubbish then you must remove ALL raj era sources as that is the logic behind it. Logan is if anything, more reliable than Panikkar, Cyriac Puliapally, and other Syrian Christian/Ezhava sources. 'Logan is not a reliable source, period, and is therefore rubbish' is not good enough to prove why he is not reliable. Also, you keep sending me links to Wikipedia essay pages as if to try to express your 'seniority' in the Wikipedia community and to bully me out of this article. Rabt man (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the Article

How is logan not a reliable source? Logan is more reliable than Panicker (an Ezhava: Whose community had countless problems with Nairs), Vargheese( A Christian malayali whose community also had conflicts with Nairs)as Logan is a westerner who didn't have personal opinions of caste in Kerala as he was a foreigner. Also, the other citations are from Scientific Rascists as well. Just because you do not like what Logan has written does not mean that what he says is Rubbish. Also, just because people have tried to 'glorify' the Nairs does not mean that they have done nothing 'glorious'. Also on a note of common sense in Kerala, The Syrian Chrisitians, izhavas, etc were all communities that were historically oppressed by the Nairs. On top of this, Izhavas are also known to (I mean this to not offend but to show the POV) change their names to either identify as Nairs or marry into Nair families. These lower caste communities were known to side with the opposing side (Such as the british in Velu Thampi's rebellion) in order to defeat the Nairs. The SNDP is known as the general 'opponent' of the NSS, and with such glorifying writing in the Izhava article, it is hard to believe they would let the NSS be shown as 'successful' in their efforts. This whole article is filled with Cited opinions against the caste, with some undeniable things diluted with more of the latter. I know that some of you may want to take the side of Neutrality, but you are missing the point in this case as this is not a 'neutral' article by any means.Rabt man (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This is becoming boringly repetitive. Have you actually read WP:NPOV yet? It doesn't say that articles must be neutral in the sense that I think you mean. What it says is that articles should neutrally reflect the content of reliable sources. That is, if a source is reliable and says something significant that is not already in the article then that something should be mentioned.

And for the umpteenth time, there were no kshatriyas in South India. The Vedic varna system never took hold as it did in the North. Someone even tried to create a general article about South Indian kshatriyas about three years ago and there was extensive discussion at that time which concluded it was inappropriate for this reason. - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

In that logic, Logan's citations are also reliable then. They are from the exact same viewpoints as your other British citations. Your opinion that there were no Kshatriyas in India has no reliability. As per your logic, who said that there were no Kshatriyas in South India? Do you have a source? It doesn't matter how boring it is, this Article does not even have a neutral POV. Rabt man (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the article I vaguely recollected above was Tamil Kshatriya. While that was ultimately redirected, Talk:Tamil Kshatriya and its subpages clearly demonstrate a long discussion relating to the existence of kshatriyas in South India that concluded their absence. There were, of course, social strata but not in the formalised Vedic varna sense.

The logic is sound. Logan is not reliable, for reasons I am becoming fed up of repeating, and therefore he deserves no mention. I have already said above that some of the other cited stuff needs sorting out. I probably know more about this topic than any other experienced Wikipedian and I promise you that I will sort it out over the next few days - it involves checking whether or not the content used from the Raj sources is also used in more recent sources, and amending the citations as appropriate. There isn't a single sensible argument that can justify including Logan, which is the stick you should drop. Please consider WP:IDHT and WP:SPA. A read of WP:CANVASS might not go amiss either. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rabt man: I am sorry, but you need to write quite a bit more coherently if you want people to pay attention to what you are saying. I have asked what in the article is an "attack" on the Nair caste, and you haven't answered that. Can you please go back to the previous section, and answer that please? As for Logan, note that you didn't even to bother to fill in the original year of publication of his work. If you did, you would notice that it was written in the British Raj era, when all kinds of scientific racism prevailed. So nothing written during that time is considered reliable. You need to find current sources for whatever you want to put into the article. There is no point in arguing this any further, because it is a well-established norm in all caste-related articles on Wikipedia. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Kautilya3, I have in fact wrote the problems of the article in the top, (ill separate it into another section).I agree, that all sorts of sources in the British Raj had some form of Scientific Rascism or another. However, the majority, or at least the great many of citations in the Nair article are from the British Raj (Not only by English people, but by people of different castes that had conflict with the Nairs as well. Also for your convenience, I will list which citations are contradictory to your statement.

Below are some examples of the citations;

[18],[19],[24],[33]*,[46]*,[51],[53],[55],[66],[68],[72],[75],[80],[81],[84]*,[85],[86],[89]**,[92],[93],[94],[95],[96],[97]*, [98],[99],[100],[105], [106]

-33* is written by an Izhava convert Cyriac Puliapally, (the name Puliapally itself is a last name that Izhava converts had received for their conversions). Also, a Christian's opinions in general is not considered to be reliable, as Nairs had constant conflict with that community (as even mentioned in the article).

-46*, 84* is a Syrian Christian book written by a Christian herself (Vargheese, a christian name itself), in which the stance of Syrian Christians and their greivances are mentioned. This is a book in which clearly asserts opinions. You can't possibly have this as 'cited work'.

-89* is a book written by a Christian regarding Christian opinions. Same as above ^^^

-Panicker's statements are also from the Raj period, but not only that, contain for the most part an Izhava point of view. Panicker itself is considered to possibly be an Izhava name, or that of the lowest castes of Nairs. His opinions are not proven as reliable.

Also, Sitush, just because you have been editing this article for a long time does not mean that your opinions justify what is your position in the article. Just because you have been 'editing' does not mean that other people have not read these other sources or have been following this page. You have only kept mentioning that "Logan is from the Raj and not reliable", but his opinion is even mentioned in the article ["Anthropologists, ethnologists and other authors, including William Logan, believe that the last name of a Nair was a title which denoted the subgroup (vibhagam) to which that person belonged and indicated the occupation the person pursued or was bestowed on them by a chief or king. These names included Nair itself, Kurup, Menon, and Pillai.[34]" ] , and many other sources (almost all of them being from anti-Nair viewpoints) are from the raj. Your opinion that "Logan is not reliable" has no support behind it. If anything, Logan's stance would show an oppressive attitude towards Nairs as he is from a British (Christian) community which attempted to take the side of the Christians in any conflict in Kerala (for the purpose of more conversions etc). Also please do not avoid my questions, and say everything is 'boringly repetitive', as this is a controversial topic and must be discussed to the fullest. Kautilya, I will mention the list of problems in the article in a different section. CheersRabt man (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Posting another 3K bytes of hard-to-follow comment is not helpful. I suggest focusing on a single issue and working through that, without mention of other editors. It doesn't matter now, but next time, please use a heading which identifies an issue rather than an editor. Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the heading, but have listed some general problems of the article above. Thanks for the info, but the above is still to be discussed.Rabt man (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The position of Panikkar is somewhat unusual and you'll find discussions about him in the archives. There is no blanket "ban" on authors of the Raj era but the exceptions are few and generally for very specific circumstances. Another example of a Raj author who has been deemed ok in some situations is the chap who wrote an encyclopaedia of religion, whose name escapes me right now. Even the dreaded James Tod, who is pre-Raj, is allowed an outing at 36 royal races. You might care to review WP:RSN, where it is noted that reliability can depend on context. - Sitush (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I am happier with a blanket ban on Raj era sources (with some rare exceptions) because we don't want to make choices of sources based on religion, caste, skin colour and such things. Not only scientific racism, but also unscientific racism and unscientific scholarship of all kinds prevailed at that time. If the subject is important enough, there should be recent sources on such matters. If there aren't, then the subject is not important, we shouldn't bother to cover it. Also, Rabt man, a Raj source might be notable so that his/her views are explained in an article, but still not reliable to state such views as facts. In fact, even to state the views of a Raj era source we often require a current source that narrates such views with attribution. If a subject matter is not current, don't bother putting into Wikipedia, unless it is history of the subject itself that is being talked about. Cheers, - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I am currently trawling through the more recent sources and many of the Panikkar citations will be removed and/or replaced - perhaps even all of them, given sufficient time. There are, as you say, situations where they might still be valid and it is probably useful for Rabt man to point out that if a modern source uses Panikkar then the statement will quite likely remain, even though the attribution might change. - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems as if you had planned the 'reliable modern source' in advance in order to keep your desired statments in your article. Rabt man (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not revert the controversy banner at the top of the Article

The Public who reads this article deserves to know what specific issues are in the Nair article and must be given a heads up while they are reading. Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I am becoming concerned now. Like many others in the past, you seem to want to see a sanitised (ie: pro-Nair) article and I know that others have been fiddling around with similar intent. We do not tag-bomb articles. The "factual accuracy" tag covers everything. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not want a pro-Nair article, or an anti-Nair article for that matter as well. The "Factual Accuracy" tag just means that the stated may not be correct, not that there is a controversy of whether the cited sources are reliable are not. That is what we need to say to the public who are not aware of Wikipedia tags and what they may mean. As an example,the chap earlier who wrote directly into the article what needed to be said in a talk page (or didn't need to be said) probably had no clue that such thing as a talk page existed and he was probably not aware of a discussion such as this earlier. Putting the tags would hopefully prevent such conflicts in the future and allow for more collaboration in controversial articles such as these. In summary, let the readers know exactly what is going on in this talk page through the article (i.e tagging).

But this is just a suggestion and would be very helpful. Keep what we have now as it is absolutely necessary. Cheers

Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No I do believe it is neccessary as those who are not seeing the article and who have no idea what a Wikipedia talk page is will take this article's bias and cited opinions as to be undiscussed. Rabt man (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You believe what is necessary? - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Appearance

The problem with this sort of thing, aside from the misleading edit summary, is that we are citing a commentary is based on racist theories, eg: the reference to being "more Aryan" in appearance. This is like using the nasal index to determine origin, and is deprecated. - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, the majority of the sources in this article are from European anthropologists, or Brahmin magistrates in the British Government a hundred years ago. They are all extremely rascist, and this is what was said. The opinion that Nairs are dressed "scanty", have pork and beef as 'favorite' foods, worship 'demons' are all much more offensive. This is a statement in accordance with what was said. These are all clear attacks on the community, but when something of their physical appearance is said, why should it be removed? Earlier, Achayan replaced an image of a lighter skinned Nair woman in a painting with a picture of a little naked girl. The source was from an article of pictures in which a Christian malayali (whose community had conflicts with Nairs) published. The Aryan statement on the other hand: It was cited, and it was sourced, and was from a similar source of all the other rascist statements on Nairs. European anthropologists have used scientific rascism many times in their anthropologic journals. It is not fair to remove that, and keep the other rascist theorites in accordance with that logic. Rabt man (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It was also clear in the edits what was done. Rabt man (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, I agree, with the exception of Panikkar and your opinion that the Raj stuff is in the majority. They were added by someone who is no longer involved with caste-related articles. Please do note, however, that the Nair are one of the most studied castes and that in this particular instance modern sources often do reiterate some of what the Raj sources said - this is unusual but means that any stripping out would require us first to check whether the information is repeated in the modern sources.

I am likely to be rather busy for the next few days - got a lot of work on, which is a rare occurrence indeed but you can blame Microsoft for that. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

New Windows eh? Yes, I agree, as long as the other statements remain, the Aryan statement also stands. Right now, I'll re-add the Physical Appearance statement, and i'll add a couple pictures. Also i'm going to remove the picture of the scanty little girl because that is just wrong (from the source, to putting something like that on the wiki. Nairs and Brahmins historically wore upper body clothing almost exclusively until the revolt). Also I didn't put any opinions on the page. They were all sourced, and cited. If you have a grievance with this, tell me before undoing the edit. Tell Gates I said hi. Rabt man (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I said re: Raj sources - you don't make an article better by adding more rubbish. As for the picture, it has been discussed umpteen times, as is evident from the talk page archives. It was a favourite target of the sockfarms. - Sitush (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Sitush nobody would think that a picture of a naked little girl which isnt even a part of nair traditional dressing is fair to be placed in this article. There were better pictures uploaded for this article umpteen number of times but replaced with this derogatory picture only because you have personal enmity against nairs or hold personal grudges. There is evidently no reason why you would replace images with nair women in traditional dress from the same source. It's just that everybody is not a wikipedia nerd like you and hence arent really sure how to challenge your atrocities. But its a huge shame on you for being such a pathetic pain. 122.171.94.77 (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC) xaxaxaxa

   @Rabt man If possible please replace that picture ASAP. IF you look in the history there was a discussion and everybody agreed on adding the pic i gave and it stayed for a while until Sitush came and again replaced it with this picture. I really appreciate your stand.

   @Kautilya3 I need your stand on restoring the previous pic used in this article. Which can be sourced fro here : 1) http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll123/id/5403/rec/3 2) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nair_girl_(1901).jpg

I believe this has more to do with nair dressing and would be more accurate to replace the image of a random naked girl. If you check history this has been discussed with Je huan and soe other senior editors and was agreed to be updated until someone removed it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.94.77 (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that too, and it was agreed to be removed multiple times or either downright ignored by saying 'say ___ in an x and y format'. I'll do that because that is what we have consensus on. But the problem is, the other two pictures must be uploaded, and I'll replace a picture of the naked little girl with another file in the commons.Rabt man (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@122.171.94.77 lmao I was reverted again by Sitush. Rabt man (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Negative POV dominates Article

Countless battles, Status in society, The Brahmin legend of Parashuram killing Kshytrias [therefore shudra status], none of which is mentioned. Weight is given to the Polygamy and Hypergamy [But is should be kept because it has been studied a lot. But make it seem at least a little less degradatory], worship of 'demons','serpents' [They are actually called Nagas, and are prominent in HInduism], 'Satan', 'ghosts', 'scanty clothing', 'Failure' of the NSS, replacing pictures of 'lighter skinned' Nair' women with pictures of Naked little girls, Mass conversions of Nairs in Malabar by Tippu Sultan [Without mention of the Overall Victory of the Hindu States and The Nair Caste with British assistance], Velu Thampi's Rebellion, Pazhassi Raja's rebellion, status of Forward Caste, Having 'fish smuggled in' as as well as 'pork and beef being consumed' Beef in itself is prohibited in Hinduism, Pork was not historically consumed in Kerala, 'fish being smuggled in' is of opinion, alchohol being part of Nair Dominated Festivals (Alcohol is not a part of any Nair festivals, and I don't say that Nairs don't consume it at all, but as part of tradition Nairs are not allowed to Drink Alcohol. The Modern day is a different story, but saying that a community as a whole consumes it is offensive and a clear attack), Also words such as 'unusual' and 'primitive' are used. A pro-Christian stance in the least bit is taken as Nairs never took a prominent stance in joining the armies of colonial powers (there obviously may have been a little bit, but seriously, one Nair traitor has a whole paragraph glorifying him and his traitorous exploits). Pretty much the majority of the Caste System part is falsified, as it is taken from the opinion of Modern Western Anthropologists who by the time were studying the castes, were obviously not able to take it to its highest potential due to the overall dilution (but not removal) of the Caste system in Kerala. It is mentioned how lower castes could not touch a Brahmin from that source [that is also contradictory to the hypergamy section], but now how Izhavas or other lower castes could not do the same with Nairs. The "Prominence of the Christian Community who held status on par with Brahmins"? Seriously? Are you saying that is not POV at all? The Christian community on the majority were converts from fishing communities who were considered 'avarna' and/or 'untouchable'. Puliappaly who suggested that Nairs shared origin with the Izhava caste was an Izhava convert (the name puliapally itself was a name given to new Izhava converts to Christianity). High ranked Nairs were called Samantans (in the marriage section) so that part is inaccurate. The thali is just a necklace similar to a wedding ring that is given to the Wife, the other things make it look extremely complicated. Matrilineatly was actually exclusive to the Nair caste, but I am not too sure about that so...we can discuss that later I guess. Also, Nairs were considered Kshytrias. The Nair dynasties around 300 years ago that performed this ritual (I saw it somewhere in the archives) were given 'Kshytria' status by Brahmin Namboothriris who believed that Parashuram killed off all of the caste due to a Kshytria killing his father. That is where the Western Anthropologists keep saying 'Shudra-par excellance'. Also, it says that Ramaswamy Iyer adopted a pro-Nair status and had 'an oppressive attitude against Syrian Christians' *sigh*. It didn't say anywhere that Nairs shaved their eyebrows either. So..are you saying there is no negative POV in this article at all? Just because someone earlier tried to write a little gloriously about the Nairs (they did do some 'great' things that are worth mentioning) does not mean that everything good about them should be removed and the caste should be attacked.Rabt man (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the discussion on Tamil Kshatriya was never fully complete, it just faded away. There was no clear consensus on the article. Just to point that out. Rabt man (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not true that the discussion faded away. Rajkris eventually accepted that they could not substantiate their point in a manner that was compliant with Wikipedia's policies etc. Similar arguments have gone on for other areas of South India and they have always ended with the same result, so I'm really not keen to waste yet more time in what will be a lengthy and convoluted discussion that has a certain outcome. Especially not when the person who is promoting the idea is basically here for one purpose only. - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rabt man: There is nothing "negative" about eating beef or pork, consuming alcohol or having a black skin color. There is nothing "positive" about Kshatriya status or "negative" about Shudra satus either. You need to examine your own biases and views for neutrality. If something is written in a disparaging way then please mention it. I see that Sitush is reviewing the content to check for sources and biases. That should be enough as far as I am concerned. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Being a Nair myself,I don't see anything historically inconsistent in the article.It is quite well written.Regarding your points : Pazhassi Raja,Tipu's invasion,Veluthampi etc have their own articles and related issues are highlighted there(this article is about Nair caste itself,and not about military conflicts). While the elite Nairs who had relations with Brahmins would have abstained from meat and alcohol,the lower ranking ones would have certainly used them.Blood sacrifices or Guruthi Puja was common in Bhagavathi/Shakti/Devi temples which many Nairs worshipped as their Kudumba-kshetras or family temples,and it is seldom practiced even today(though most are replaced with symbolical offerings such as turmeric,vermilion etc).16th-17th century accounts state that Nair warriors even intoxicated themselves with certain drugs to invoke warlike fury,which would turn them like ferocious beasts in the battlefield.Skin color is not even an issue,I have many relatives who has dark skin color.The photograph is from early 20th century(so obviously it doesn't have modern qualities) and depicts a teenage girl.The elite Nair women would have looked like this or just check Ravi Varma's paintings like 'A Nair Lady Adorning Her Hair with a Garland of Jasmine' or 'There Comes Papa' in which he depicts his own Nair daughter and her son.As for Kshatriya status,the article rightfully states that the Nairs most likely represents Kshatriyas but Brahmins only considered them as Shudras.It also states that some Nairs 'ripened' into Kshatriya status(i.e gained recognition of Brahmins) and the Kshatriyas should be treated as 'supereminent' Nairs.The only thing which I find awkward in the article is the mention of Sarpa/Naga cults as 'Dravidian' custom,when the very names Sarpa and Naga has Indo-European cognates! Regards.--AryaBharatiya (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Just an update: I have a copy of Robin Jeffrey's book, which has long languished in the Further reading section, and I am also trawling through modern sources available on Questia to see whether we can re-cite/expand/amend various bits of content. For example, there is a decent study hosted there that discusses the spirit worship stuff, although as a topic area I find matters spiritual rather tortuous to write up. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rabt man

I agree for now that a lot of things in the Nair article are neutral, like AryaBharatiya, Sitush, and Kautilya have said. But I do see what you mean by the 'negative attitude'. These are some problems with the article:

• Heavy Weight is given to the Nair convert to Christianity who turned on everyone else (portugese era)
• "Pork was noted as a favourite food of the Nair,[96] and even high-status Nairs were noted as eating buffalo meat.[97]" I agree that this is somewhat degratory as Pork was not historically consumed in Kerala (even by the lowest castes), buffalo meat was not eaten either commonly. Those do reflect the opinions of Westerners who are not keen on knowing the centuries old customs and cuisine of an old community.
• "Nair avoided beef, and many did not eat lamb.[98] In the modern day, alcohol is a component of Nair-dominated festivals in Kerala.[97]" Same reason of the Western opinions, as it is true that the Nairs did not eat beef, but lamb was not consumed in Kerala commonly either. Lamb consumption is and was actually considered a Muslim tradition from the middle east. Also, Alcohol being part of Nair-Dominated festivals is quite rubbish (I do have to agree with Rabt man with that). Overall, the diet of an entire community cannot be generalized.
• There is a lot of comparison with Syrian Christians which does not seem necessary, and only goes to show Political and Caste based aspirations
• Despite the polygamy/hypergamy/cheating on partners/ etc being the most studied, it is not necessary to give such a degratory tone in the writing, especially as the sources are mainly cited opinions of Westerners. Also, it should be given consideration, but not this much weight.
• Colachel, Velu Thampi's rebeliion, and many other rebellions/battles are not mentioned significantly, but a Chrisitan convert who betrayed his nation is given weight in the military section.
• The 'trade with china' part in the Early history section seems a little off, as Arab traders have been trading since pre-Islamic times and the Chinese only arrived in the late middle ages and left soon after. The reliability of that seems to be concerning.
• "Panikkar, writing in 1918, describes the religious practices of Nairs as being "an extraordinary mixture of Hindu and Dravidian cults." and that the community was at that time "as a whole, a people almost without a religion". Of those who were devout Hindus, he notes that " ... although they have been Hinduised in form and have belonged to the Hindu fold, their primitive beliefs have survived to a great extent ... [The Nairs] still maintain with undiminished vigour their spirit-worship, black-magic, and demoniacal ceremonies ..." I also agree that Panikkar, who wrote at the time of the Raj does not give reliable source of information (being from the Ezhava community (panikkar) and being a possible Christian.Also, this is most definetly a cited opinion.

Overall, this is a Wikipedia Article and not a journal of opinions by Westerners regarding the Nair caste. I agree that the Article is subject to a 'attack on the Nair Caste'. But, Rabtman, you need to examine your own point of view as well. Thanks all, and consider the above. I ask everyone to reconsider the above and remove the clear attacks on the caste. We must come to a consensus on this issue that has been going on for (about 5 years according to the revision history). -- Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the whole Diet section can go, because it is not particularly important and the sources seem vague with only off-hand mentions. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree regarding the diet section and probably most of the dress section also, unless there is some aspect that is unusual for Hindus. (We would need to discuss the Upper Cloth controversy, though). Quite a lot of this article is the work of someone who trawled the Raj stuff for every possible bit of info and with hindsight some bits are probably rather trivial.

I've not yet digested all of what Kanchipuramsilk83 says but I would be loathe to massively prune the marriage stuff because that is the thing for which the Nair have become most notable among academics. I'm still going through sources, though, and I can't see any major revisions happening until I've got to grips with them. Although HISTRS would probably dictate removing Panikkar, I'm also loathe to do that right now for reasons that I will explain when I've done more research into him - we are, for example, getting conflicting accounts here otf his caste origins etc and, which is worse, they conflict with earlier accounts that he was in fact a Nair himself. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the diet section and the dress section should be removed as well, it is a very trivial manner, and this is not mentioned in most of other caste articles. The case of Pancicker is also one that is very complex. The name itself could be that of Nairs, that of Ezhavas, or a name kept by Christian converts. Panicker is also a source from the British Raj Era (which if I am not mistaken, Raj sources are not very reliable as according to the above discussions). If he is a Nair, it is not very ideal to keep his account as there is for sure some bias in his works. However, the same would also apply if he was from a different community as they were also known for persecution from the Nair community and bound to bias.

However, in Panicker's case, there is some doubt whether he is a Hindu Nair. An example below shows one instance of Panikkar's account of the caste.

"Panikkar, writing in 1918, describes the religious practices of Nairs as being "an extraordinary mixture of Hindu and Dravidian cults." and that the community was at that time "as a whole, a people almost without a religion". Of those who were devout Hindus, he notes that " ... although they have been Hinduised in form and have belonged to the Hindu fold, their primitive beliefs have survived to a great extent ... [The Nairs] still maintain with undiminished vigour their spirit-worship, black-magic, and demoniacal ceremonies ...".[82]. This particular section does show many opinions of Panikkar, especially taking into account how he says 'primitive', 'the Nairs still maintain with undiminished vigour' (the phrase exerts that the beliefs of the community should be removed and are not up to modern standards, and that they still have not changed), 'their spirit worship, black-magic, and demonical ceremonies' (this section quite clearly shows a degratory tone), and on a lesser note, the use of 'their' may quite possibly indicate that Panikkar was not of the Nair community.

The Historical customs and traditions section seems to overtake the article too much. I do agree that it may be important to anthropological studies, but is way too much for a Wikipedia article. I do also agree to an extent that there is a degratory tone in many parts of the article. What do you all think?Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That something is not mentioned in other articles isn't a reason to remove it from this one. As I've said before, the Nair are a particularly well studied community and so it is inevitable that there is more information about them than about many other groups. I'm not prepared to see this article sanitised just to suit the vanity of members of the Nair community. Wikipedia is not censored. - Sitush (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

hey Sitush, how are you? Keep most of the historical traiditons etc, but the diet section, the attire section, and the Panikkar/raj sections have reached consensus to be removed. Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. I am aiming to bolster stuff by checking up for more recent sources, which I'd prefer to do rather than tear things down. I've already found some decent sources that support a fair amount of Panikkar's stuff about spirit worship etc, and even a source that allows the opening statement about a putative Naga connection to be retained. I am not going to be bullied into ripping up this article, especially given its history with regard to disruption from members of the Nair community and their sockpuppets etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, no one is asking you to tear everything down, but the tone in which the sources say are degratory like I explained. Use the other sources if you like, but it is quite obvious that Panikkar is not reliable. Keep the Naga things etc, but the diet/attire etc is not relavant at all. No one is bullying you as you have enforced your viewpoints on this article for years now according to the revision history. You keep mentioning that you have 'found sources' but you are not keen on explaining what they are to the rest of us, and thus, are not able to properly discuss anything. It may be true that members of the Nair community have ripped up the article earlier (revision history circa 2012), but the reason is because everything is written in a degratory manner. Remove that, and maybe there would be no need for constant discussion regarding the issue or persistent vandalism. The very reason that there is no viewpoint from the Nair community on an article about them goes to show that there is a biased viewpoint. So would you like to discuss this article properly, or continue with the cited opinions? ThanksKanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Derogatory is ok if the sources are ok. Like I said, I'm trying to validate stuff and it is not going to be quick. This is not intended to be procastination or a filibustering tactic: you can see for yourself that my daily edit count is nothing like what it has been and that is in large part because I am researching. There is nothing to stop you doing the same.

If it comes to the worst, yes, stuff will have to go and then be reinstated if/when it can be. The diet section is a prime candidate for that because I doubt very much that it is something that has been covered in any detail by recent sources. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My dear friend Sitush, my point is that the source for some statements (Panikkar) is not reliable to put it simply. I have said above why as well. In summary, the source if from the raj era [agreed to not be reliable in countless times in this talk page and archives] by a caste/community that was either Nair [low chance that he was, but if he was, it would not be right to put him in the article], or from a different community that had conflicts with Nairs (pretty much every community except for Brahmins).

The statement "Degratory is ok if the sources are ok" would be somewhat contradictory, as the sources can only be ok if there is a neutral viewpoint and not degratory views.Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I have now again verified that Panikkar was indeed a Nair, as we said some years ago. All the various attempts to argue that he was biassed because of being either Ezhava or Brahmin are misplaced. We already know he had some credentials as a historian etc and here he is writing about the customs of his own caste both historically and in his experience. I don't think he can be excised totally from the article. The verification comes not only from books such as this but indeed from his autobiography, published in 1977 by Oxford University Press. We are going to have to tread lightly. - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, with all due respect, you have absolutely no evidence at all that Panikkar was a Nair, and if so, you need to prove to everyone here if that is a case. Preferably with a link or something to where you found that information. Considering your history of editing in this particular article and your stance on it, just because you said something on this case does not make it a reliable fact at all. Panikkar even writes in a obviously deragatory tone and also uses 'their' instead of 'our' etc. Rabt man (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No evidence at all, you say? Why not drop the hyperbole, read the link above and check out the citation in his bio article on this project. Then go find something useful to do instead of ripping up sourced material at various articles and pushing a clear pro-Nair agenda in defiance of reliable sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The link leads me to google books where they ask me to buy or read a sample of the book. Also, i'm not trying to push a pro-nair agenda, this whole article is example of groups of people who want to push an ANTI-Nair agenda, and I'm trying to go with the consensus that the majority of the people has agreed upon. Also, why don't you show me proof instead of actively avoiding giving any evidence or discussion. Please be civil as well, your time in wikipedia may have been longer, but that gives you no right to try to bully anyone who does not agree with your opinion.Rabt man (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have given you proof of Panikkar's Nair origin. If you discount the activities of known caste warriors, their sockpuppets and their meatpuppets, this article represents the consensus as it was prior to your arrival here. Yes, some things can be improved, as has been discussed in the last week or so, but you need to understand that consensus is not a vote. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The trade with China section is ridiculous

Trade with China was never prominent in Kerala until the late 14oo's, and the Arab traders had been trading with Kerala since before the time of the great prophet Muhammad. This statement is laughable, and it questions the reliability of Panikkar.Rabt man (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a section, rather a paragraph. The Chinese had periods of vigorous overseas trade followed by self-imposed seclusions. I don't see anything wrong with the information there. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is, the (statement, paragaph, sentence, section, whatever you would like to call it) seems off. Decline in trade with China was not anything major to Kerala, and it is actually kind of funny that it is included in this article how trade with China led to the downfall of Nairs etc. Panikkar's reliability seems off, as what we have learned in 8th standard is somewhat obvious.Rabt man (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are referring to 8th standard in India, well, that is not a good benchmark. Teaching of history in India is known to have been politicised at various times (eg: the NCERT scandal). That said, I will see if I can find more recent support for the China point. - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. The source for that stuff is Kathleen Gough, not K. M. Panikkar. Are you reading something else? - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Rabt man is fast losing all credibility. What on earth is he talking about? - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph also doesn't say that the China trade led to the downfall of the Nairs. If anything, it suggests the opposite. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Dravidian custom

Snake worship is a NAIR custom, and not a DRAVIDIAN custom. Please remove that, as a whole community of people cannot be categorized.Balakrishnan Koran (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is what Google books shows for Dravidian snake worship: [2]. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah thats fine. Balakrishnan Koran (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Nairs

Hey everyone, Nairs are a Sudra caste that have discriminated against communities of lower castes for many years. They have done some atrocious acts, particularly against the Ezhava community. This should be included, as Nairs are constantly invading the ezhava talk page etc. ThanksBalakrishnan Koran (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Also, Sitush, I really do appreciate your work and stand. Balakrishnan Koran (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Picture

I added a Picture of an upper-status Nair lady for the article.Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That picture has been in the article before. It was removed because there is no support for it being a Nair woman. The same still applies, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Sitush, there is no clear citation that the woman is Nair but that is because it is kind of obvious. That style of dressing was almost unique to the caste, as well as the hair. Enough so to make it clear. For example, a picture of a man praying in a mosque may not say he is muslim, but it is fairly obvious that he is. Likewise, the woman in this painting has the charactaristics of a Nair lady, but it does not explicitly say so. I don't believe that we would need citations to say that a white man is white, an elephant is an elephant, or an orange is an orange. For example, the picture could say: "A fruit on a table.jpg" but in reality it would be an orange. This does not mean that the picture should not be rejected on the grounds that it is not an orange. And so, likewise. Happy editing, and cheers.Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Well,that painting does not have a caption of it being a Nair lady.I think the painting is simply called as 'a lady playing veena' and there are many other similar paintings from Ravi Varma.On the other hand this painting does have the caption 'A Nair lady adorning her hair with a garland of jasmine'.So IMHO this painting is better suited for the article.But keep in mind not all Nairs had these luxurious themes as depicted in the paintings.Perhaps only royal and aristocratic ones did.Best regards,--AryaBharatiya (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Aryabharatiya, I agree with what you have said. But consider how all Nairs were not like the ones in the photos given, and it is not made clear which subset they had belonged to. The Low-status Nairs are given extreme weight. I am busy as of now, but I will try to re-add the picture later. That picture of her adorning her hair is pretty much identical to this one, and it is like I said, fairly obvious that she is a Nair as that type of attire was almost exclusive to the community. Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Ravi Varma most likely had a Nair lady in his mind while painting the veena playing lady,however there is no caption or reference that it depicts a Nair lady.On the other hand the image I provided does have the caption of it depicting a Nair lady.So it is more appropriate for using in the article.--AryaBharatiya (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2015

Diet Trationally, Nairs were not strict vegetarians, but preferred vegetarian cooking in tharavads. The Karkidakam and Thulavam vavu ceremonies consists of strict vegetarian food being served (Karkidakam and Thulavam Vavu festival is where forefathers are remembered with balitharpanam and their favorite dishes ,are served in the feast that included only vegetarian dishes, ) and this indicates the early nairs were vegetarians. With the arrival of British, communism/marxism and inter-mingling with people of different communities and religions, and more importantly ease of availability of non-vegeterian food, slowly fish and poultry were part of Nair's diet (though not completely).In this mordern era, when people started disassociating their traditions with personal choice of eating habits, a large majority of Nairs turned omnivores. Some, not all, consume even beef and pork (which is not part of traditional hindu-nair diet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreelakshmi26 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Diet Traditionally, the Nairs were not strict vegetarians, but included fish in their diet, though this was shunned by the higher classes. The love for fish was noted as so strong that it was "often smuggled in." Working class Nair favoured kānji (rice gruel), as did many Malabar Hindus.[106] Pork was also noted as one of their favourite foods,[107] and even high-status Nairs were noted as eating buffalo meat.[108]

Nairs dont eat beef, please remove "and even high-status Nairs were noted as eating buffalo meat.[108]"

I tried, but this artice is under constant watch by moderators who will block anyone who removes that for 'edit warring'. I'm sorry.Rabt man (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

12.15.136.26 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 20:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment

I've reassessed this to B (as it was before). Sourcing is adequate, inline citations present but there might be places where GA standards will demand more. Coverage is good, is goes well into detail. Structure adequate, though can be improved once the stubby sections are expanded. Well-written. Supporting materials, okay. Regarding whether the topic is understandable to a layperson, I may have constructive things to suggest.

• Perhaps some more description on what exactly is a Nair would help? After reading the whole article, I'm still not sure whether what exactly defines one (maybe that's the way it is).
• What is their relation to other Malayalees or castes like Brahmin etc. and their distribution throughout the state or country. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC) (modified later Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC))

Thanks very much Ugog. Somebody arbitrarily downgraded the quality assessment, and I changed it to request a reassessment so that we have a fresh look at it. Thanks for your help and comments. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracy tag

I'm unsure though why that factually inaccurate tag is added. I briefly skimmed over old discussions and couldn't find any topic over it. Perhaps a new one directing to the proper discussion would do? or it could be removed. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, there was tag bombing obviously [3], and this is the shrapnel left. I will get rid of it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2015

Include the fact that nairs being the ruling military caste formed the core of aristocracy Kuttan thampran (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide verifiable reliable source. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't get that???reliable sources? its the same kathleen gough that has been used as reference for the article Kuttan thampran (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Verifiable. Can you give link to the text? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=lfdvTbfilYAC this is the link, flip to Pg 298 Kuttan thampran (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the requester has been blocked as a sockpuppet account. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Oh that OBC stooge again, why don't u openly claim that you are just another vandal from one of those OBC communities with obvious reasons to hate nairs!!!, this is not the place to let of your frustration Sitush

Montage Issue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_51#Photo_montages_in_infoboxes_of_caste.2Fcommunity_articles

In the discussion that followed regarding Montages in Caste based articles, there were 2 people who said they opposed them while 2 said they had approved of them, while some who were pro-montage inevitably left the discussion. There has been no consensus during that issue, and I feel as if it should be brought up again. However, I would like to discuss this issue before someone 'reverts' my edits without giving solid reason. Rabt man (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

See User:Sitush/Common#Montages for the background, and try to understand that consensus is not a vote. I have no idea why you think it was "inevitable" that some pro-montage people would leave a discussion, unless you think they recognised theirs was a lost cause or you recognise that this article has been plagued by sockpuppets and believe those who left were among that number. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

NairCustoms

Kathakali,velakali,thiruvathirakali were nair traditions, why is that there is no mention regarding them? What about the partial scythian origin of nairs?(polyandry, matrifocal family functioning and Snake mother/goddess worships were Scythic customs and further proven by genetic studies. Such large number of sources ( Sitush seems to have spent a lot of time searching them and scanning for negative POVs) ,all by British anthropologists who were treated as Avarnas(untouchables) by Nambudiris and nairs (until the rise of Syrian christians and Ezhava) seems to be a delibrate attempt to defame the community

"Syrian christians who were treated at par with nambudiris"-Blunt stupidity, many of them got Kudikidappu from their nair/nambudiri landlords and was abolished from oozhiyam by the proclamation of Dewan Reddy Rao,106.51.20.13 (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, anything published before about 1950 is not considered reliable scholarship. Do you have any contemporary sources for your claims? - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Oh really,then why qoute panikkar (1918)?? Fawcett (1907)??

Whats the idea of such claims, the proclamation was issued on 29 December 1815, now how can you modify the date and time of a Royal proclamation?

Syriac Pulapilly Says" Nairs and Ezhavas have common ancestors" well another typical christian vandal whose problem with nairs are historic, The proximity of EZHAVAS AND SYRIAN CHRISTIANS seems more evident from the fact that many ezhavas converted to christianity to escape casteism,Both communities are into LIQUOR AND COIR businesses, Both became influential after the World wars, Syrians claim namboothiri origin while in kerala and Jewish origin while in USA just to "big up" their status.

Wikipedia is a work in progress. sitush has been in the process of replacing the Panikkar citations. However, in general, we attempt to progress, not regress. (By the way, the welcome message on your talk page tells you how to write talk page messages and sign them.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya This is Rabtman. You mention that Sitush was in the process of removing Panikkar's citations. He has not not done anything yet, and if we are in the process of builiding an Encyclpedia, why is no one else allowed to contribute and to do the exact same thing? The fact that this article is written in a deragatory manner is beyond question. However, I have read many Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and am now clear on the citations. This has gone too far, and I would have expected a little more from other editors who are not so keen on defacing Military Castes (see Jatt article). I will repeat what has been said for far too long and far too much. There is too much bias in the sources of the articles for starters. The intro itself doesn't say what the Nairs were, but rather says "also known as Nayar, are a group of Indian castes, described by anthropologist Kathleen Gough as "not a unitary group but a named category of castes". The Nair include several castes and many subdivisions, not all of whom historically bore the name 'Nair'.[1][2]". What is mentioned by Kathleen Gough in a tiny section of her book has all but been copied into this article. None of the military activities, family rituals, and role of the community sections found in the book has been found in this article. In fact, there is no Polygamy section at all in Kathleen Gough's book and the only section which has polygamy even mentioned is in the introduction (and there is no particular reference to Nairs in that intro regarding Polygamy). This is an article about a Community that has been oppressive to lower castes for hundreds of years, to an extent that there are literally organizations which seek to bring down the Nair community. This Wikibullying is going a little too far. Rabt man (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You do not advance your case by sockpuppeting, as you have done. I will continue to trawl through the sources as and when I feel well enough but I am not going to pay much attention to you, sorry. This article has been infested by sockfarm(s) for years. You are another Nair POV-pusher and frankly I don't give a shit what you think and will just concentrate on the sources. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@kautilya -you said that any literature earlier than 1950 is unreliable, in that case the Law should be applied to the articles of communities such as Ezhavas and Syrian christians, By the way The sources for "SYRIAN CHRISTIAN" article are christian missionaries while Ezhava article seems to have referred from a lot of News papers!! and that too with communist leaning!, Now give me a reason as to why the references earlier to 1950 is unreliable?, are you questioning the credibility of historians and anthropologists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.20.13 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Because prior to 1950, during the colonial times, the scientific standards in social sciences was rather low and scientific racism of all kinds prevailed. There is a lot of contemporary literature that shoots down the theories and conclusions formulated in those times. The guidelines formulated for history, WP:HISTRS, insist on "recent" scholarship. Similar conventions are followed in all social science-related areas. In any case, if any of the claims made in pre-1950s literature are in fact true, they would again be stated in recent literature. If they are not stated, we presume that they weren't true. So your best bet is to look for recent literature. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That is too childish,as i have mentioned why is that there is a double standard while writing articles pertaining to Syrian catholic and ezhava articles, even communist oriented newspapers are made references.More over the book by Kathleen gough has clearly mentioned that NAIRS FORMED THE CORE OF ARISTOCRACY IN ALL PARTS OF KERALA, not some militant organisation like LTTE- your opening paragraph suggest that nairs were some militant oraganisation!!, now this is very important in context of the social renaissance in kerala  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.20.13 (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC) 

Photo of woman

In the articles of other Malayali Hindu communities photos of women are not added. Why only in the article of Nair community? Hypergamy is not mentioned in the articles of Ambalavasi and Samantha Kshatriya communities. Why it is only mentioned in the article Nair community? Seems like the editor is highly jealous of Nairs. Dear Wikipedia, I have got a photo of a Nair woman from a website. Here is the link: https://www.oldindianphotos.in/2011/10/studio-portrait-of-nair-woman.html . I am requesting you to please remove the current photo and add this one.

Mura kalyanam

Why has the article not talked about Nair wedding rituals like Murai kalyanam or in plain words- Cousin marriage? this was the most common form of wedding, Sambhandam was done only by a few of them while the majority practised cousin wedding 106.51.20.13 (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Where are your sources? Many sources refer to sambhandam, which is why it gets so much attention in the article. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

you have to understand for nairs the marriage was MURA KALYANAM, sambhandam was not a common affair, you seem to have referred so many sources and if you don't find any information it simply means that you are then trying to stereotype the community with all negative POV https://books.google.co.in/books?id=MgwaAAAAIAAJ&dq=editions:0AFLRE73TKdVYLaZfFRR9ig5YsqjVtreKIM0nwcpVHHlWTszLoOau0nM&lr= Refer this book on the link i have shared "The Eastern Anthropologist" (vol4),flip to page 29 and enlighten yourself,I REPEAT SAMBHANDAM WAS NOT A COMMON AFFAIR,do not meddle with the identity of an entire community

106.51.20.13 (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Changes

The reason for the persistent trouble in the article can be dealt with as per the given reasons. Ill try to keep it as short as possible.

1. Diet Section

The Diet section uses a lot of statements which say that the Nairs eat beef and pork etc. In fact, they actually contradict each other, as one says that they do not eat beef . The entire diet for a particular community can not be generalized in such a way, and has caused a ton of problems.

2. Origin Theories

Completely based upon the work of Cyriac Pullapilly. By origin theories, I am referring to the common origin with Ezhavas, and the 'Aryan Jains needed protection' theory. This is presented only by Pullapilly, and per, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&redirect=no#Due_and_undue_weight, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article". The point is, the article isnt an ancillary article like for example, Aryan Invasion Theory.

3. NPOV Concerns

NPOV can be addressed in two areas, one in the religion area and the other in the lead. In the religion area, I do not mean that the source is biased, but rather, the way in which the religion section is worded can be changed. Namely, this;

"Panikkar, writing in 1918, describes the religious practices of Nairs as being "an extraordinary mixture of Hindu and Dravidian cults." and that the community was at that time "as a whole, a people almost without a religion". Of those who were devout Hindus, he notes that " ... although they have been Hinduised in form and have belonged to the Hindu fold, their primitive beliefs have survived to a great extent ... [The Nairs] still maintain with undiminished vigour their spirit-worship, black-magic, and demoniacal ceremonies ...".[83]"

As per, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion, I am not asking for removal of it, but merely a change in wording to reflect a less offensive tone. The other point as well ties to the above statement, but words such as 'unusual' in the lead do not reflect NPOV at all. This leads to the next issue.

(3.5?) Neutral Sourcing

There are two main sources which are of concern. One is, Pius Malekandathil who glorifies the Syrian Christian community of Kerala whenever possible in his works and degrade others. The other one is much more obvious, and is the minority rights and Syrian Christian assertions source. Although Malekandathil's work has a title of Portuguese Cochin and the maritime trade of India, 1500–1663, the material itself is a Syrian Christian glorification text. Much like Sadasivan's work which was at first thought to be reliable but later found to be complete nonsense.

4. Lead

Some information in the lead can be cut down/and-or/moved into the actual article itself. For example, the snake worship section does not give a significant portion of what is in the article itself. This can be moved and re-worded into a new section known as 'Naga Worship".

5. Organization

I have explained this in the edit summaries, but mainly move some things which pertain toward the Modern Era into a section with that itself as the name. For the history section, perhaps removal of the two subcategories into one cohesive section. Also, an etymology section from the first part of the history section.

6. Expansion

Namely two areas:

Military History:

Some new information was added earlier, which was reverted. When this "most are about specific people, not the community" was said, I assume that it means the Velu Thampi section. The information pertaining to the Nairs themselves were in the article alongside the information that he himself was a Nair.

Martial Traditions:

There is already a citation for military history which said,"Fuller has noted a general opinion that Nair soldiers were drawn only from the higher subdivisions of the community but believes that these subdivisions formed numerically the vast majority of the whole.[11]". This can be added to the beginning of the Martial Traditions section which was removed. This will address that concern.

This revision attempts to deal with such issues in a much more cohesive manner; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nair&oldid=702472398 Thanks, Rabt man (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Another point to repeat is that in the article before the mass revert, the information was in fact pertaining to a large group of Nairs as opposed to a single person. Please read the article itself. Thanks Rabt man (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge from Illathu Nair

PRehse has marked Illathu Nair as unreviewed with the comment, "This seems like a duplication of Nair now that all that copyvio has been removed." If that is the case, perhaps a merge is in order. ~Kvng (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

As it stands now - all the information is in the Nair article with no new article specific information. In fact the remainder is still a copy paste from http://malayalakshatriya.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/nair-sub-castes.html. Should be a bold revert to the redirect.PRehse (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like PRehse has removed the offending material from Illathu Nair. ~Kvng (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The copy paste had to go as a clear copyright violation. It was easier since it was about the Nair in general not abut the specific sub-caste and therefore not necessary. Very little remains - still think it should be a Merge.PRehse (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This was posted on my talk page: ~Kvng (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

There are no details available for Illathu Nair in Wikipedia and no article written on Illathu Nair yet in Wikipedia, this article perhaps helps people to understand about the different group existed in Nair group. These days Nairs are generalized as sudra category, its very important to give awareness to public that Nair community had both Kshatriya and Sudra group existed in this community same like Singh community where Kshatriya, Bhrahmin, Sudra and Sikh exist in the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nair Community (talk • contribs) 19:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done, merged from Illathu Nair --Yelysavet (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061216022421/http://www.localgovkerala.net/lsgd-links/Committee/1Adminrpt1958.asp?intID=1 to http://www.localgovkerala.net/lsgd-links/Committee/1Adminrpt1958.asp?intId=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322053123/http://www.trivandrum.gov.in/~trivandrum/index.php/district-profile-mainmenu-73/146-listobc?showall=1 to http://www.trivandrum.gov.in/~trivandrum/index.php/district-profile-mainmenu-73/146-listobc?showall=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901154501/http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/main.htm to http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/main.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)