Talk:Nair

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2015

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [1]. 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 handhttp://www.dollsofindia.com/product/reprints-of-raja-ravi-varma-paintings/-nair-lady-adorning-her-hair-with-garland-of-jasmine-reprint-on-paper-QZ76.html 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)