Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:21, 19 June 2012

This page is currently under extended confirmed protection. Extended confirmed protection prevents edits from all unregistered editors and registered users with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits. The policy on community use specifies that extended confirmed protection can be applied to combat disruption, if semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Extended confirmed protection may also be applied to enforce arbitration sanctions. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask for uncontroversial changes supported by consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nair article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:Castewarningtalk

India: Kerala / History B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kerala (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Archive 1 (Sept 2004–Aug 2006) Archive 2 (August–Dec 2006) Archive 3 (Dec 2006–March 2007) Archive 4 (March–May 2007) Archive 5 (May–June 2007) Archive 6 (June–August 2007) Archive 7 (Aug–October 2007) Archive 8 (Oct–December 2007) Archive 9 (Dec 2007–April 2008) Archive 10 (April 2008–July 2009) Archive 11 (August 2009 – Feb 2010) Archive 12 (April–Sept 2010) Archive 13 (April–Sept 2010) Archive 14 (Sept–Dec 2010) Archive 15 (Jan–Jun 2011) Archive 16 (June 2011) Archive 17 (June–July 2011) Archive 18 (July– 2011)

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Portuguese/British admixture in Nairs

".. On the other hand, Hindu Nairs have been influenced by the western European gene pool based on high prevalence of alleles B*07 and Cw*07..." (A crypto-Dravidian origin for the nontribal communities of South India based on human leukocyte antigen class I diversity: R. Thomas, S. B. Nair, M Banerjee)

Leaving behind their historical explanations, this genetic study has a great anthropological importance. It is a clear evidence for the admixture of Portuguese, British and Dutch blood in today's Nairs. The Portuguese were the first Europeans to arrive. It was Portuguese who popularized the term Nair which was a mere title until then. Nair men served in Colonial armies as infantry soldiers. The Portuguese soldiers had numerous Nair mistresses and since the Nairs followed 'Marumakkathayam', the children born from these unions were classified as Nairs and were brought up in tharavadus.

Portuguese army (Parangi Pattalam) had its main barracks at towns such as Kannur, Thalassery, Calicut, Cochin, Quilon, Attingal, etc Nairs in all these areas are fairer than those in other areas. The Menons of Valluvanad are the only Nairs without European admixture. This is why the Valluvanad Nairs (Menons/Mannadiar) consider Travancore Nairs (Pillai) and Malabar Nairs (Nambiar) as inferior castes. Actually genetics reveal that all the human beings now exist in the world are having a root that coming to an African- Negro Mother who lived 15 Lakhs of years before. But even when the genetics reveal that, people avoid to tell the truth. And always see the hurry only to find out somehow a European / any white colored father from somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRAHMIN-EZHAVAR (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nair hair remover is more well-known than Nair caste

Nair hair remover is more well-known than Nair caste. If you search the term "Nair" in google, all the top results are about the product. So "Nair" should lead to the article about the hair removal product. This article about the south indian Hindu caste should be renamed as Nair (Caste). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.212.8.106 (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMMONNAME and note in particular "When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources". - Sitush (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look authentic history books in google books and other online collections, you can see a more common spelling for this caste is "Nayar". "Nair" most often means the product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.220.134.162 (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

We'll need some data to verify that hypothesis of yours. If Nayar is the more common name in high quality books and newspapers, we should change it. But the hair care product is irrelevant--it's only more common from a US perspective (do they even sell it in other countries?) Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No matter whether they sell in other countries or not. Even in many other parts of India, people have not heard about this caste. If you ask a Punjabi or a Bengali, he probably would have not heard about this caste. The product is atleast known to all Americans who form a major portion of the English speaking population of the world. Since the caste has an alternative spelling, which is unique to it, it is perfectly apt to move to new spelling and give this title to the product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.221.26.247 (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMMONNAME. You are providing no evidence to support your claims & I think that you would struggle to do so because it is a common surname. I wish that there was a GBooks method for excluding authors with a particular communal name such as this, but to the best of my knowledge there is not. I have had to research the Nair caste quite extensively in the English language and the "Nair" spelling always seemed to produce more sources, especially among modern works. Since I did check variant spellings, I suppose that we could roughly test this simply by checking how the cited sources refer to them.

FWIW, I have never heard of this haircare product, except in so far as it appears in the disambig. While it is true that there are many US people, I doubt that they form a majority of the English-speaking population or indeed of the English-speaking retail market. We are supposed to avoid being US-centric (or, indeed, any-other-country-centric). - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Selective legend in the article

A legend also narrates that Portuguese general and the king of Cochin once arranged a duel between a Nair and a Portuguese; the Nair's loss in this match led to a new Nair respect for the Portuguese.

If you were to narrate a 'legend' in wikipedia, there are many other legends regarding Nairs which also needs to be mentioned. Apparently adding only this particular legend in which Nair lost to Portugese is exposing the editors intent here. If you are to re-look at history in today's terms, then this legend should be removed immediately.Vyasan —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Are any of the other legends verifiable using reliable sources? I would be interested to read them. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

How can a legend be verified..? That throws a bigger question of how reliable these sources are, if it is to include legends. Legends are not facts and if you were to rely on that, this article should be reverted to the version one year back when the article had only legends of glorification. Legends either glorify or defame both needs to be avoided. Also there is no citation for “During this era, the Portuguese popularised the term Nair, referring to all of the locals who fought along with them as Nayari or Nayar, irrespective of strata or caste”. Similarly the second paragraph in Early Period section is scantily cited. The hill tribe origin makes it all the more confusing as generally the Nairs doesn’t have Dravidian physical attributes. There is no explanation made on this aspect which mislead the common readers and go to the extent of thinking Nairs have portugese admixture etc. which is totally rubbish.Vyasan —Preceding undated comment added 06:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC).

Indeed, I sort of thought that I had not explained myself very well! My point was that if the legends are discussed in reliable sources then they may have a place in a Misplaced Pages article. To give a couple of examples:

• the mythology of the Lunar Dynasty etc is shown in many articles; and
• non-believers in any particular religion that you could name would usually assert that the religious texts of that religion are no more than legend.

I hope that this makes more sense. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A legend, though in a reliable source is unreliable as even in the reliable source it is mentioned as a legend. In this context, of a duel in the medieval history, there is absolutely no need to drag a legend since most of the history during that time are available. Moreover, during those days, Nairs were experts in martial arts like Kalaripayattu and it would have been impossible for Portugese to defeat a Nair in an individual fight. It is just the use of gun that gave them an upper hand and also the presence of Nairs in their own army. Hence, this statement is irrelevant to this article and exposes only the double standards of the editor. Also you are not giving an explanation on the next two points that I have mentioned.Vyasan —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC).

Has it ever crossed your mind that the Portuguese were, relatively speaking, as expert in guns as the Nairs were in Kalaripayattu? Yours is an illogical comparison. Now, if you want to remove discussions of legends that are referenced by reliable sources then I think that you need to take the issue to a higher level than this talk page because, as I have intimated, it would affect a swathe of articles. I really do not think that you would come out on top in such a debate, nor am I sure which would be the most appropriate forum in which to propose it.

As far as your other points are concerned, I am pretty sure that you have been told previously that you need to provide some reliable sources for your statements. However, if you have not then please consider this to be your notification of that necessity. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that you will come up with some technicalities not to remove the negative legend here. I just wanted to prove that the article is biased against Nairs and in that sense, it is now clear to anyone who reads this. Regarding the other issues, I’m not providing but questioning the authenticity of the statements in the article since it is not cited. Are you asking for reliable source for that too..

Vyasan —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC).

You have not "proven" anything. And this is Misplaced Pages, so we operate according to the policies of Misplaced Pages. If you do not like them then your options are either (a) try to get them changed, or (b) go somewhere else and write whatever it is you believe to be correct etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the legend from source Calcutta review Volumes 74-75 (year 1882) notable? I don't think this is notable.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The legend is referred to elsewhere & I can track that down next week. There was a peak of interest in documenting Indian folklore between around 1860-1890 - see William Crooke, for example - and although I did not add that particular statement, I do not see anything wrong with it. If necessary, it could be modified, ie: something like "According to X, writing in the Calcutta Review in 1882, ..." You need to understand that the real issue here has been let slip by Vyasan, ie: it seems to be perceived as somehow having "negative" (V's word) connatations and, of course, we are not allowed to say anything that is less than puffery for our dear friends from the Nair community. TT, I would encourage you to read the extensive archives before wading in here: it has all been said before. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the contributor of that information was probably MatthewVanitas, since he did most of the military stuff etc. MV is still around, so perhaps consider bringing him into the discussion? I have no opinion right now regarding whether it is suitable for inclusion other than to say what I already have: it is sourced, it has definitely been mentioned by other people, and the real objection here is not the red herring of its being a legend but the fact that it makes the Nairs look bad. To the latter of which points, my response is, basically, "diddums". - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There are thousands of legends from mythology and folklore finding place in 'reliable sources', plus works like Mahabharata or Ramayana or even Keralolpathi would suffice as 'reliable sources' for their own legends. Further the legend in question does not contribute anything to the narration of the article. I suggest it be removed than make this article a display of random legends. I dont find Sitush's objections valid, religious or mythological articles shall have legends, they are in context, rather the articles are about those legends.Legolas95 (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The inconsequential legend being questioned is removed. Hope nobody has any objections.Legolas95 (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly not "inconsequential", per the concerns of Vyasan. I've been away for much of the weekend - did anyone enquire of MatthewVanias as I suggested? - Sitush (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that no-one did drop MV a note. I have just done that thing. - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am seeing quite a lot of brief mentions regarding this incident and also more generally regarding Nair participation in duels and of suicide squads known as Changatams. The problem for me is that so far I can only see snippet views at GBooks, which is a frustrating issue in the UK. I will keep digging, obviously. - Sitush (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, i am not sure what you are trying to get at from those searches, that it is more than a legend? Does it contribute anything to further the narration of the article? I dont see why it should be there be it a legend or not, we certainly are not recording any random event from ever since that has something to do with a Nair. And as a legend, it certainly shouldnt be there. If you want to hear other editors and contributors on the point, fine, we can discuss it, but such random pointless legends should stay off the article untill its purpose is made clear.Legolas95 (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What the searches can reveal is that it is not an "inconsequential" legend because it is one that is recounted by multiple independent reliable sources. The last four words are our test for notability. - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If the notability is still not clear, better to remove the legend.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 13:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there any chance that you could lay off stalking me, TT2011? Especially since when you do intervene your comments are pointless. I have already demonstrated that the notability is clearly there - the legend is mentioned by several sources, and although I do not like snippet views the very fact that it is mentioned, regardless of context, is sufficient to determine that this is not some whimsical fiction created by one reliable source. I will keep digging, obviously, but there is no reason to remove this aside from that of protecting the vanity of the Nair community. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have sources then mention the sources. Where have I removed it till now for you to claim some special personal attention? Have I deleted the legend? Present the source with material or the legend goes. Also add the sources at the mentioned legend. I think it is quite normal. Please try avoiding personal accusations. If there is an admin watching this page he needs to stop Sitush for this nonsense and put an information message at Sitush's page.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 16:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Duh, it is already sourced. You can GSearch if you want to find more, or you can AGF that I have done that thing. I do not like linking to snippet views and therefore am digging around for better views etc. Try "portuguese nair duel" or some similar search string. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"If you were to narrate a 'legend' in wikipedia, there are many other legends regarding Nairs which also needs to be mentioned. Apparently adding only this particular legend in which Nair lost to Portugese is exposing the editors intent here." We do not know the editor's intent. It is just as well possible that the editor in question knew of or came across the source for the general and the king, and decided to add that material because it was in that source. It is possible that the editor was unware of the other legends, or wasn't familiar with them closely enough to compose material on them he/she felt was articulate enough, or that he/she didn't have sources for them. Please do not make assumptions about editor's intentions without evidence that excludes other possibilities, as this is a violation of Misplaced Pages:Assume Good Faith. Because Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, and articles often represent perpetual works-in-progress, editors are encouraged to add information that they have available, piece by piece. They are not required to add an all-or-nothing comprehensive list of all relevant information to the article if they don't have sources for it.

"How can a legend be verified..?...A legend, though in a reliable source is unreliable as even in the reliable source it is mentioned as a legend." Sources that pass the site's Source Reliability policy support that a legend exists. They do not need to verify that the events of legend occurred in reality. This source, for example, supports the existence of the legend of the Rütlischwur. Sitush also gave other examples. That's not the same thing as saying that it confirms that legend's factual historicity.

As for the passages that are unsourced or poorly sourced, you can find sources for them, fact tag them, or remove them, or if it is felt that they might be sourced in the future at some point, move them to the talk page. If you feel that the article is biased, then single out the passages that exhibit a non-neutral wording, and change them, or quote them here so they can be discussed. Is their wording not supported by a reliable source? Or are you saying that undue emphasis is given to some point, either by virtue of wording or by its coverage in the article? Nightscream (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes either remove the legend or it or put more sources. For me it looks like fanboy story for the Portuguese in medieval times, who were notorious in India for anti-Hindu iconoclasm, etc. during those times of Imperialism.

Also, does my behavior in this discussion look like I am stalking user:Sitush? I can count 2 messages over a period of perhaps 9 days, if not counted incorrectly and 2 more today.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 16:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that you may have misunderstood what Nightscream says with your "either remove the legend or it or put more sources". As for your other point, you cannot stalk on one article, but you are following me around quite a few. I suggest that we take this latter contention away from this page - feel free to continue on User talk:Sitush. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No I really did not find the legend notable that is why I asked how notable it was. What I came across was some weird information, some weird duels. About following, I have nothing special to mention. A list of quite a few pages where I am following user:Sitush could be helpful.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 17:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, does this mean that the phrase of yours that I quoted referred to Nighscream's "Or are you saying that undue emphasis is given to some point, either by virtue of wording or by its coverage in the article?" - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I almost just removed the legend...but figured I'd comment here instead. For me, the issue revolves around WP:UNDUE. I'm sure there must be hundreds of legends relating to the Nairs. Including one particular legend isn't appopriate unless that legend is somehow particularly important to their story, which we generally measure by looking at how the legend is discussed in reliable sources; for instance, it's pretty clear that the alleged link to the Yadu myth is pretty important to the Yadav story, and of course the Jewish people's link to the Jehovah myth is pretty important (please note that when I use the word myth I do not mean to imply anything negative or that any of these are necessarily untrue, only that they fall into the category of "unverified/considered unlikely by historians"; I have my own myths I follow as well). But if, for the moment, the only reporting we have of the link is in one journal from the 1800s, we should probably remove it per WP:UNDUE, unless, of course, that journal article has been itself re-reported in historical analysis. Of course, should we later discover more sources documenting this legend, we can always re-add it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Working off the results of my GSearches, the connection seems to be James Tallboys Wheeler. I have no more faith in him than in, say, Edgar Thurston or H. A. Rose - well-intentioned pseudo-academic headcases, all of them, but widely used on Misplaced Pages, especially when it serves a glorifying purpose. If I had my way, I would deny the use of such British Raj sources almost everywhere.

I've said earlier (18:18, 4 May 2012) that I have no particular opinion regarding whether it is suitable for inclusion and this is because my research is hampered by the snippet view issue & I am struggling to find a way round it. My own issues have been regarding the reasons that were being given for proposed removal, which seemed primarily to be based on vanity, and because I know very well that there is a selective tendency (positive and negative) when it comes to statements given in caste articles. I am also not at ease in having to deal with the fallout from what is taking on the appearance of being a problematic series of good faith contributions by a single person, but that is something for another talk page. Almost every objection made in the last year on this talk page has revolved around contributions by people who have since moved on. More often than not they appear to have been correct but I am beginning to lose the will to live: there are better things to do with my life than this almost constant dealing with vanity issues. Perhaps I need to delve more into the sections of this and other articles that previously I left to others in good faith, but I probably cannot be bothered. In the absence of the original contributor, and with the restrictions on GBooks etc that I face & they do/did not, I bow to the consensus. WP:RX etc cannot assist in situations such as this. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Popular legends are still legends. If you are to take popularity, i am sure you can find many more. Your judgement on the vanity of Nairs is not a reason to keep the legend in the article either.

Seems you are bit carried away by the series of vanity driven objections and its true that there have hardly been any constructive suggestions to improve the content or readability of the article than make whirlwind of caste status etc Legolas95 (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"Popular legends are still legends" - no, that is utter rubbish in Misplaced Pages terms and I have explained this previously. If that were the only objection then I would still be opposing the removal. My agreement is based on source issues. As for being "carried away", my response is also "no" - I am somewhat cynical, but you have highlighted why that would be so. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Mind you, we have gained an article ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Matrilineality

Nairs historically followed matrilineal system of inheritance (Marumakkathaayam). Since there are only a handful of communities which practiced matrilinal inheritance in modern times and Nairs were particularly known in anthropological circles for the practice, I suggest 'matrilineal inheritance' be specifically included as a subsection under Historical Practices. There might be enough material already in the article, if not we can include more. Legolas95 (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Erm, have you read the "Tharavad" section? - Sitush (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but what I was saying was to explicitly include Matrilineal inheritance as a subsection under historical practices, as it was one of the more noted aspects of Nair life. Also a joint family system and matrilineal inheritance are two distinct things, one doesnt follow from the other.Legolas95 (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I realise what it was that you said, and there is certainly nothing objectionable about changing the existing section heading to read something like "Matrilineal inheritance and tharavadu". However, what additional points do you envisage being made regarding the mode of inheritance? - Sitush (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To the editors of this article.

First of all I would like to congratulate the editors for all their contributions and for doing a great job in cleaning up this article. The article is a lot cleaner than it was last year when I checked it. I have a few questions though and would appreciate a response. Why has a very credible source been removed from this article completely? I am talking about the encyclopedia britannica reference for nairs, here http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/407129/Nayar. Their entry is a traditional view on who the Nairs of Kerala were, and this article although well written contains POV against Nairs. The evidence of this is, have a look at the ezhava article it talks of both negative and positive aspects of their community, whilst the Nair article paints a mainly negative side by not even talking of a: their martial heritage b: their lineage. Instead it talks about their marriage customs, and acts as if they have no recorded history and their history is murky. Can you find any article on wikipedia about a community which starts off talking about marriage customs? I've looked, I cant find any. Remember the Misplaced Pages terms of service clearly state that no original research is allowed. Yet this article contains some of that, which would be considered an infringement of wikipedia terms of service. Truth is neither good nor bad, it is multi-layered and contains both good and bad, thus to eschew the good and only talk of the bad or vice versa can never be deemed as factual or truthful. Whoever responds to this message, if you fail to address the main points it will be obvious that I was right about the POV so stay on topic and explain why a very credible source like the britannica article was deleted and lesser known sources were used. Could it be because the britannica article actually said something good about the Nairs? Once again here it is http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/407129/Nayar

It isn't my intention to offend the hard working contributors. I'm just a curious soul who wants answers to the above. For anyone interested, I am not Nair either, I do however believe in fairness and treat other communities and people the way I wish to be treated. Instead of having one rule for one communities article and another rule for another.

Thank you 77.100.152.52 (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yours is a really nice, thought-through comment and I thank you for it. One of the systemic issues with Misplaced Pages is that it prefers secondary sources to those that are considered to be primary or tertiary. The Britannica falls into the tertiary category, and if I am honest even a fair few of the "EB" links (where "EB" is intended to mean that the content has been checked by an editorial board) seem to be distinctly non-scholarly. As a child, I was always taught that Britannica was it, but as a graduate student it became quite clear to me that things were not so simple. That was in the days when the web was just kicking off and I am afraid that, if anything, the Britannica web presence is less worthy than its recently discontinued print version.

Regardless, any tertiary source of merit should cite the sources that it uses, and so it should be possible for you to track down the origins of the statements made in the Britannica article. That would be our way forward because it would mean that we are using secondary sources. It is complicated, I know!

Can you be more specific regarding the elements of the article that you regarding which you have concerns? We can always revisit them. As far as the marriage thing is concerned, the subject of Nair marriage and inheritance systems etc is probably the primary reason why the community has received so much attention from the academic community, and as such the weight needs to reflect this. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

My revert of Wm Logan information

I have just reverted recent contributions that added a bunch of stuff from the pretty hopeless Malabar Manual written by William Logan in the 1880s. The article already contains the opinion of much more modern sources regarding the various subcastes etc, and Logan is known to be unreliable. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please justify your POV that Logan is unreliable. You cannot just make edits based on your POV.

A S Menon stuff

I have just reverted some additions concerning the thoughts of A. Sreedhara Menon. The guy was clearly a notable academic etc but the entire issue of migratory patterns involving Dravidians/Proto-Australoids etc has long been a bone of contention, the contributions were poorly written and Menon's opinion seems to differ considerably from the other sources that are used. Can the page number(s) be provided? Can anyone see Menon's work in full and provide a couple of pages either side of those that were cited ? Can we justify inclusion of the content on weight grounds or is it too tangential? Obviously, I can sort out the phrasing etc and would do so if the other issues can be cleared up. - Sitush (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Why reverted?

Why reverted my edits?

• Thank you for sorting out phrases. The contributions were not so poorly written. I think you accidentally also removed some content. Please restore all contents after sorting out phrases.
• Pls note that additions were not the mere "thoughts" of Mr. Menon.
• The entire issue of migratory patterns involving Dravidians/Proto-Australoids etc has long been a bone of contention. That is why I am referring from Mr. Menon who is one of the most authentic writers of history in South India.
• I used no other sources
• The page numbers can be provided
• You can see the book in all libraries, bookshopes etc.
• It is not too tangential
• We can easily justify inclusion of the content on weight grounds

So can I revert your edit? (Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC))

No, you should not revert. Instead, you should discuss. Please justify your comment that Menon is "one of the most authentic writers of history in South India". Sure, he was a professor but he had trouble getting some things published, did he not? You also need actually to address my other points, not merely restate them or give a vague "you are incorrect". Plus, can you find other sources to support Menon's view? Are you aware just how contentious this might be? And what real relevance does it have to this article? - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I never said "you are incorrect".
• Everyone who knows anything about historical writings in Kerala knows Mr. Menon. It hardly need any citations. You can read about him in the page A. Sreedhara Menon and there are plenty of authentic external links.
• I can't really understand the phrase "had trouble getting some things published". Please explain.
• Pls explain your "other points", I can try to justify.
• These points have real relevance this article. It shows the original migratory patterns followed by people in the region.
• Yep. I am aware how contentious this might be.
• I don't think a Misplaced Pages article about a clan in Kerala need more citation than from Mr. Menon.

So can I revert your edit?

Its really disgusting to note that how the editor Mr.Sitush makes comments on one of the most prolific historians of India. How can someone find the works of unaccomplished historians like Cyriac Pullapilly as ‘reliable source’ and question world renowned historians like Sreedhara Menon. Mr.Sitush, please try to understand that Menon is the most authentic historian of Kerala and his works are the basis of all academic studies in Kerala and the world over, ignoring such works only would depict Misplaced Pages in dim light and diverge the topic from reality.Coming to your argument that, the statements removed from the article has no relevance is totally wrong, as it answers lot of questions like the uniqueness of Nairs from that of other communities in Kerala and remove the confusion caused by your ridiculous ‘hill tribe’ origin theory.

(User:Vyasan) 18:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC))

• So can I revert your edit?(Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)).

As a Professor of history , a Padma Bhushan for Literature and Education , an editor of Journal Of Indian History and Journal of Kerala Studies ( whose books on Kerala social and cultural history of Kerala are referenced by academics), Prof Menon is a “notable academic” . Mr. Sitush has accorded due respect to him in that phrase. If I understand correctly Sitush’s disagreement is not on his credibility as a Kerala historian but the on credibility of one of his claims regarding “migratory patterns involving Dravidians/Proto-Australoids etc”. Human failing among geniuses are not uncommon (including Prof Sreedhara Menon). Filtering putative erroneous theories of this genius historian should not be taken as a personal disrespect but rather as the way towards improvement. I hope Mr. Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας will take it in that spirit. VS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.130.214 (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

To the poster above: I agree for the most part with your post, albeit it contains some cognitive biases. For example you state that " human failing among geniuses are not uncommon " then surely this works both ways and human failing among normal editors can also occur especially in regards to the fact no editor here no matter how eloquent and well versed they may be has anywhere near the level of historical knowledge that Professor Menon had, yet people here selectively choose citations that support their viewpoint and any other credible citations which disprove their agenda is postulated as " not a modern enough source ". This is whimsical in itself because this is not an article on scientific discoveries where modern sources elucidate things in a better way, when it comes to history it is often older references which stay true to the original source of events. Misplaced Pages clearly states that it is not a place for original research yet this article has several portions which can be deemed as original research which stray away from the conventional view of the Nairs, ie. " hill tribe theory ". This is accepted in the article yet the conventional view from a far more credible author is rejected? Selectively choosing things from eminent historians/professor to suit your agenda is like a student ignoring their chemistry professor and choosing chemicals to their fancy and adding them together, what happens in the end? An erroneous concoction and a giant explosion! This is not to impugn of denigrate any of the editors here because in all sincerity this article is a lot cleaner and better written due to their great efforts, all I am stating is the extent that editors here eschew and reject credible sources whilst using less credible sources is turning into POV whether this is intentional or not, is not my place to decide. This is further clarified in the wording of many statements of this article, for example instead of just writing " The Nairs were classed as a martial race by the British, but were de-listed after rebelling against them with Velu Thampi " Instead of this, the editors have decided to write " The Nair were historically involved in military conflict in the region. Following hostilities between the Nair and the British in 1809, the British limited Nair participation in the British Indian Army " Historically involved in military conflict? For centuries the conventional view of the Nairs = regarded as a warrior clan and the dominant group that guarded Kerala from Invaders, this is validated from a plethora of credible sources and this is turned into " involved into military conflict " whilst original research like " hill tribe theory " has its own entire section haha. By no means am I stating this article should paint a rosy picture of the Nairs, I'm against that, all im saying is it should be a balanced & fair article. There is a world of difference between " involved in military conflict " and what history showed the Nairs to be.

The Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels used what he called " weltanschauungskrieg " German for worldview warfare. He stated in essence you can control public opinion by re-framing events using ONLY sources that back up his agenda and ignoring everything which disproved it. This is exactly what this article does, whether intentional or not. The first section of the Ezhava page has " The Chekavar, a warrior section within the community, were part of the militias of local chieftains and kings. There were also renowned Kalari Payattu experts among them. " The Nairs had a higher proportion of kalari experts/warriors than their ezhava brothers & sisters yet nothing is written about that in this article. 77.100.152.52 (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. The whole article is a POV of one person who is hogging the article. People who have complained have seemed to be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.254.189 (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Complexity of the revert issue

1. When it comes to “Human migration and the sociology of race, we begin to enter the realm of science. A survey of Kerala history by Prof Menon was published in 1967 (by Sahitya Pravarthaka Co-operative Society) when anthropological genetics was still premature. Migrations of human races from one part of the world to the other can be accurately understood only when the ongoing Genographic project (international) and The Indian Genome Variation Consortium (national) is complete and the data is compared with DNA from archeological biomaterial that formed the basis of speculative theories (such as in the case of Paleo-mediterranean forming the main element of Nair population of Kerala). Prof Menon’s speculation in his book has been based on the obsolete classification of Indian races by Guha’s classification of 1935. Modern or recent genetic studies (if available) should be the basis of authenticating “migratory patterns involving Dravidians/Proto-Australoids”. The inertia of Mr. Sitush to revert the edit of Mr. Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας may be based on this reasoning and may not be because he discredits the credibility of Prof Menon as a historian or is engaging in " weltanschauungskrieg ". We must assume good will of another editor unless otherwise proven.

2. According to a 2009 study (Reich et al. Reconstructing Indian population history. Nature 461, 489-494, 24 September 2009) modern Indian population is composed of two genetically divergent and heterogeneous populations which mixed in ancient times (about 1,200-3,500 BC), known as Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI). ASI corresponds to the Dravidian-speaking population of southern India, whereas ANI corresponds to the Indo-Aryan-speaking population of northern India. ANI-ASI mixtures have also been reported. Further, the geneticist PP Majumder has recently argued (Current Biology, Volume 20, Issue 4, R184-R187, 23 February 2010) that the findings of Reich et al. (2009) concerning Indo-Aryan expansion into the Indian subcontinent are in remarkable concordance with previous research using mtDNA and Y-DNA. Therefore speculative reasoning of racial-milieu of Nairs of Kerala by Prof Menon in 1967 may not be accurate to capture historical migrations that contributed to the genesis of Nairs, atleast at this stage.

3. A modern editor can (at times) find discrepancies in certain isolated observations/claims of earlier scholars primarily due to novel data available subsequent to the original work or greater data-accessibility that electronic libraries offer today (that was not available for the original author) or due to subsequent anthropological/genetic or archeological reports.

4. How facts are stated in the Nair article in Misplaced Pages has been/is /should be independent of how Ezhava article editors has deemed it fit to project themselves in their articles. Misplaced Pages should not be a place for comparative peagentry of communities or races.

5. Although I agree that the present article has scope for several improvements as you stated, we must admit that Mr. Sitush’s effort has cleaned the article of unnecessary POV (for instance kshatriya-peacocking) of earlier editors and warded off a few meatpuppets. However, I do admit that reaching consensus can very often be challenging. One of the major conflicts while editing articles representing community/race/social groups etc arises from inherent differences in self- perception between individual editors about their community/social group. This in turn arises due to difference in opinion about what citation sources are considered credible/or biased by each member-editor or which external articles has influenced the editor’s view. Editing the content of this article may become less-conflict ridden if we first try to reach a consensus on which of our present citations are credible by consensus and then modify the article based on these “agreed-references”.

6. Legends, ballads, folklores, mythology etc are often difficult to ignore in articles of castes or communities as they may be heritage intangibles of the community. However in such cases, it could be explicitly stated whether it is a legend or ballad etc and a primary text should be cited avoiding as much as possible secondary text references. I am not sure what Misplaced Pages policy is in such situations. Someone who knows Misplaced Pages policies better than me in this regard, please feel free to educate me.

7. Even in the face of conflict of views between editors or ego-clashes (I admit it can be very difficult for us sometimes), we must avoid personal attacks or belittling of fellow editors as they may be counter productive for the article.

VS

P.S: Of course, I do agree that it works both ways and human failing among normal editors can also occur, we must find a way to work it out.

Firstly, this article has got many disputed citations or no citations whatsoever in many sections. It would be a superfluous argument to point errors of well accepted historians while the article itself is not able to maintain such high quality levels (it is still rated as B). There are many flaws in this article which is hard to comprehend as mere 'incidental'. Any neutral reader who reads this article would get a feeling that this article is biased. For eg. Nairs are most famous for their war history than their marriage system. However, the editor thinks otherwise and appended this on top of the article (and there is absolutely no citation for this paragraph at all)

In the section Portuguese era "During this era, the Portuguese popularized the term Nair, referring to all of the locals who fought along with them as Nayari or Nayar, irrespective of strata or caste" There is no citation for this whatsoever, just an assumption. Almost all the books on this subject clearly states that changing strata/caste was regarded as blasphemous. The caste was considered as GOD given and revoking/changing would amount to nothing but capital punishment.

Most of the citations from Cyriac Pullapilly are based on his assumptions. He is not a well accepted historian who maintains almost the same standards of Sadasivan (who was cited extensively and later removed). His assumptions on the origin of caste and common heritage of Nairs and Ezhavas are totally wrong. Ezhava's occupation, status, inheritance etc were totally different from that of Nairs. It is only certain mercenary clans with similar status that got assimilated into Nairs like thevars,,rajputs, bunts etc. Even they maintained certain customs and were classified

The hill tribe theory confuses the readers to an extent where they start thinking that Nairs have Portuguese admixture (since Nairs are different from the normal dravidian folks). The article fails to give any clarification on this.

Last but not least is the collage with famous faces, this was ruthlessly removed by stating that “these are few good looking faces” while almost all other caste articles have one. Besides, the editor has diligently painted the place with most annoying pictures. Each article may be unique but at least the pattern should be same across, else it amounts to double standards.(User:Vyasan)

I partially understand your concern Mr. Vyasan with regards to the sentence in the Nair article “they may have been at that time a hill tribe who occupied the Western Ghats that bordered the area”.

1. The reference provided for this paragraph in the article is David Murray; Gough, E. Kathleen. Matrilineal Kinship. University of California Press (ISBN 978-0-520-02529-5. Hill tribe hypothesis by Glough and Murray in their work Matrilineal Kinship) was only a speculative suggestion based on their reading of the book (The zamorins of Calicut: from the earliest times down to A.D. 1806 by KV Krishna Ayyar in 1938). You can find that they have referenced Aiyer 1938 in the immediately succeeding sentence. If you carefully examine, the hill tribe hypothesis appears to be similar to the race-identity speculation of Prof. Menon because even (Glough and Murray) state, - “most plausible suggestion” !! before they present this speculation.

2. The same is also the case when we examine the wordings of 1931 Census of India - Volume.28, Part.1 we see from the sentence construction there that it is speculative too. The usage there is “were probably the fore fathers”. Therefore do we need to revisit the issue of Hill tribe hypothesis by Glough and Murray being speculative in the light that we are avoiding race-identity speculation of Prof. Menon on such grounds ? Should’nt the hill tribe speculation be avoided from the article ? These are questions you could discuss with the editor of that corresponding section and convince him for reversal by stating the above facts or through a consensus.

VS

P.S: Independent to whether the correction of such a speculation is made or not through consensus. For those that may be interested to know why did scholars like Gough, Murray ,Aiyar etc take this speculative line ? What would have made them to make such a speculative tone ? To understand the wordings of 1931 census one must retrace the prevalent geographical terms at the time of these authors. Traditionally, Dravida (कर्णाटकाश्च तैलंगा द्राविडा महाराष्ट्रकाः,गुर्जराश्चेति पञ्चैव द्राविडा विन्ध्यदक्षिणे) classification of land in the Tamil language was into five geopgraphical types (thinai) 1. kurinji (mountainous regions) 2. mullai (forests) 3. marutham (agricultural lands), 4. neithal (seashore), 5. paalai (wasteland). Kurinji was a generic geographical nomenclature for lands that were hilly or mountainous in terrain and was equivalent to the Malanaadu (in the three tier geographical classification popular in Kerala namely – Theera desham/coast, Idanaadu/midlands and Malanadu/hills). Kurinji tribes simply means tribes inhabiting mountaineous region or in other words tribes of MalaNaadu (the hilly regions of Kerala, especially the Malabar region). The authors using the nomenclature of traditionally used geographical classification simply speculates that tribes that inhabited Kurinji/hilly regions may have been the ancestors of Nairs. A pure speculation – so this is why they use speculative language like “most plausible suggestion”. If you are unhappy with a speculative section being included in the article , you may provide Pt-1 enumerated above and try to reach a consensus with the editor of that section. It is also possible that the editor has an alternate citation for the statement which is not speculative. I am unaware of it so far.

I am not reading all of the above, sorry. Much of it seems to be your own research or to be based on sources - such as Sadasivan - that have been rejected both here and at other articles. My eyes glazed over after a while & I suspect that the same would apply to other readers. Feel free to write shorter, more-to-the-point comments, and to take a read of WP:TLDR. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur w/Sitush--the statements above are a mix of sourced and unsourced claims. Could we, perhaps, take one point at a time (like we did below w/Glough & Murray), investigate that, and then figure out what to do? That seems like the most productive approach. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've requested the Ayyar book. It may take up for a week for it to arrive, at which point I will scan and post. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That is brilliant, thanks. I was going to ask at WP:RX but am having a peculiar sort of week both on- and off-wiki. - Sitush (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Pls see this point - a minor correction

In the section History > Military History > Travancore Units ~ it is said that "The Travancore Nair Infantry was formed in 1704 for the defense of the Maharajah Marthanda Varma." The point is, it was not for the defence of Marthanda Varma. He was born only on 1706 AD and became king in 1729-1730. Formation of Nair Infantry was an outsourced paid service provided by Ettuveetil Pillamar and Madathil Pillamar to the King Rama Varma who was maternal uncle of Marthanda Varma. vekramaditya —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we would need a source to support your point. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Unsourced claims have no value here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur with User: Sitush and User: Qwyrxian that such unsourced claims hold no value for the Nair article.

VS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Any better references for Hill tribe origin than Glough & Murray (speculative !!!!)

Those of you who may have read Glough and Murray, you would have already seen their wordings “most plausible suggestion” in their work . A speculative tone for hill tribe hypothesis, yet it finds its way in to the article !!!. Don't you think the concern of IP 77.100.152.52 and User: Vyasan on the hill tribe issue in the article is genuine ?

VS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk • contribs) 00:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the significance of the "VS" that appears just prior to the bot-added signature? Vyasan also used that pairing of letters at the end of their posts. Please forgive me, but this article has a long history of sockpuppets.

There is nothing wrong with using a most plausible suggestion if it is supported by reliable sources - it is their opinion, and if more than one such source supports it then the omens are good in the Misplaced Pages sense. Are you querying the reliability of Gough etc or are you challenging the manner in which the article portrays it? - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed the sentence from the article before seeing your response, Sitush, but I do feel that I agree with the above users. If Glough & Murray merely cite is as spculation, we're better off removing it, unless there is corroborating evidence in other sources. My opinion is that it's much better for us to say less that is more certain than to say more that might be true. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Mr.Sutish, you better hone your 'investigative' skills a little more. I don't know who VS is and my attempt was just to point out the blunders in the article. It’s up to you to consider it or not, I’m not here all out to get it done. After all, as an editor, the onus lies with you to keep this article nearest to truth. As a master in Misplaced Pages etiquette, you could have checked some ‘reliable source’ before calling my sock puppet.Vyasan —Preceding undated comment added 06:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, that's not how Misplaced Pages works at all. You are an editor just as much as Sitush is (with the difference being that Sitush has more experience in how the project works). There is no more onus on Sitush than there is on you. As for the sock puppetry, I'll point out that Sitush didn't accuse you; rather, he was trying to explain, I think, why it is that we don't respond to every single request, particularly when they aren't accompanied by reliable sources--we have had many many editors who have been blocked from Misplaced Pages, who return every so often to try to make changes that aren't based on sources but are instead based on their own personal opinion. As such, it becomes too difficult for us to have to re-argue the same point every few months. That being said, in this case, I agree with your suggestion to remove the sentence, and have done so (though I could be convinced to re-include it, possibly under different phrasing; my main concern would be how authoritive Glough and Murray are and thus how much weight we should accord their speculation). If we focus on individual concerns, step by step, rather than big broad claims about massive problems in the article, I think we'll be able to move forward more effectively. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I do have a problem with the removal. While I can understand concern regarding the speculation regarding their origins, this does not alter the important fact that there is no evidence of Nair inhabitation in the area. The point is that there are some people who like to claim that the Nair were indigenous/Dravidians etc despite this lack of evidence - we have seen it happen on this very talk page. Kathleen Gough had problems in her academic life because of her politics (Marxist, during the Cold War period etc), but she was a highly respected anthropologist and is frequently cited. I'll dig into the Murray source. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Vyasan, by the way, is topic banned from this and related articles in all namespaces. They should not even be contributing to this talk page. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

How is that some claim Nairs are the Dravidian settlers and Izhavas are immigrants or whatever, a concern of the article? Are there any documentation of any of the present day castes inhabiting the area? As the questions of caste identity and origins of caste identity are speculations, i dont think your concern is worth having.

The issue is of using an introductory survey (mostly citing legends, opinions and less reliable documentation from before)in an article which deals with some specific topic for including a statement as supported by 'reliable sources'. For example in the Origin of Caste System section, citations from Pullappally are from his quotes of William Logan and similar sources deemed unreliable by WP standards here, in the introductory survey of his article. As long as it is not original research published in peer reviewed journals, such quotes from the journals dont carry any more weight than those from the original sources. Legolas95 (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Speculations and opinions of individuals can be included though, as so and so speculates or is of the opinion that, etc, but the question is how many and which ones, is there any criteria? Are we to judge/rank the scholarly genius (or speculative capabilities) of various authors?Legolas95 (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

User: Legolas95 , you have raised a very valid and pertinent question for the article vis a vis “Are we to judge/rank the scholarly genius (or speculative capabilities) of various authors?” Kathleen Gough, Fuller, KM Panikkar, Prof Menon are all scholars in the field who have made conclusions (based on field work) and speculations (based on piecing together what fits their respective observations) on Nayar caste. However how can we judge/rank, speculate of Fuller to be more relevant than Gough ? or of Gough more relevant than Menon or Panikkar ? My first thought was that we could use how often the speculate gets citated by peers. Those among us who work in academic research, may already know, that we do often find “self-citation bias”, “collaborator-citation bias”, “politically motivated citation bias”, “journal- ranking based citation bias” or sometimes even due to close mindedness or egotism of the researcher etc. How valid a hypothesis or a speculation finds citation from peers may in many cases have no reflection on how “correct” that speculation is. A classical case of bias in anthropology had been brought forward by John Orten “Bias in Anthropological Inquiry: A Case Study (Anthropology and Humanism Quarterly Volume 5, Issue 2-3, pages 17–20, June 1980)”. So I came to square one, and honestly I am wondering about your question myself. Your question is very valid and pertinent and it continues to baffle me as well, I hope some other users could propose a good idea in this regard.

VS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk • contribs) 23:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We already have "a good idea". In fact, we have several. WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS are examples. Let's not get bogged down with the philosophical historiography stuff. Although I could happily bore you for months or even years in discussion regarding that, it simply is not appropriate here. The policy links also answer the point by Legolas, but somehow I do not think that they will ever be convinced. We work to a system on Misplaced Pages. It is not a perfect system and I doubt very much that anyone considers it to be. But it is how it is and it has developed, and continues to develop, in accordance with what is perceived to be the general wishes of those who contribute to it. If you do not like it then that is fine: you can either find the appropriate policy page & try to cause change or you can simply go somewhere else that is aligned more closely to how you think things should be. For that matter, you could start your own blog or wiki or whatever. No-one here is stopping you from doing so. - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the book in question...but could we include just the statement that there is no evidence of Nair inhabitation at that time? Am I correct in understanding that that part is less speculative in the source? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That is what I was proposing. I've done some digging re: the hill tribe bit but the entire issue is a nightmare unless serendipity intervenes - too many authors called "Nair" or "Nayar", and too many clashes involving them and irrelevant subject areas. - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be misleading. The questions of caste identity or origin of caste identities are still matters of speculation, and its unclear whether such identities or names could be used in a meaningful sense back then. Better would be to include, there is no reference to Nairs, as in Gough. Legolas95 (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If it may interest you , User Qwyrxian: can find the “most plausible suggestion” directly on Page 303. The speculation is on Page 303-Paragraph 2 –sentence3 .

User Qwyrxian , User Sitush, User Legolas95, I concur with the opinion that it may be more neutral and safer for us to say “there is no evidence/mention of Nairs at that time” based on Page 303-Para 2- sentence-1 of the same book.

Although… our intended “neutral point” can pose a problem if any existing users may have objections based on the “wobbling” with the “placement of centuries” in Glough’s description as the same Paragraph continues (especially as the contents of the copper plates are quite famous among Kerala academics and historians). But I suppose, we can take it up then “ if and when” it arises based on the merit of the objection . ..and need not worry about it for the time being :-).

VS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@VS I wasnt raising the question in such a broad or technical sense, but for a specific case of including speculations and opinions of authors. I think for the purposes of the article we can presume original research or analysis in peer reviewed journals are credible, only that if there are contested positions all be allowed for. And if the literature on bias in Anthropological Studies you mention has any specific comments pertaining to the subject matters of the article, that can be included as well.

That wasnt the main point I was making though, but of including quotes from introductory surveys in articles as statements backed by 'reliable sources' and of citations from Pullappally in Origin of caste system section. Would like to hear comments on that too from the editors here.Legolas95 (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with Gough, Murray or Pullapilly as sources. They are all respected academics, published by respected presses etc and peer reviewed. Now, if you want to counter their statements with some other view provided by other reliable sources, then that is a reasonable course to take. Removing them because of your own opinion regarding their statements is not: we merely need to ensure that we reflect them accurately. According to them, there is no evidence of Nair inhabitation, it is possible that (as with other groups) they came down from the hills etc.

Pullapilly, in particular, has been attacked time and again across a range of Misplaced Pages articles but, so far, no-one has found a reliable source that disagrees with him. Just because people do not like what he says does not mean that it is wrong. Articles such as this attract readers and contributors who have preconceived ideas regarding what is (usually) their own caste and we really do need to avoid undue influence from such preconceptions. One of the reasons why this article & its talk page is so lengthy is because it has been necessary to cover all the bases and to counter the POV of various waves of "caste warriors". To be honest, I would be astonished if after all this time, effort and discussions there is any need for major changes to existing content unless/until new research appears. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Either you didnt read what I wrote before or is trying honestly to push the discussion in the wrong direction. Citations from Pullappally are from his quotes of William Logan etc, where he surveys the existing literature. That cannot be taken as a statement from 'reliable source' and has no more credibility than the of the original source. Its like money laundering! You cannot take any statement in any journal and declare it to be objection proof, context matters WP:RS.

Gough/Murray says 'there is no mention of Nairs', you take the liberty to phrase it as 'there is no evidence of Nair inhabitation'. Theories form Pullappally's citations are another possibilty, why do we have to pick one?

It is not required to redirect any discussion/objection as coming from 'caste pride' or sensitivity. Sure there are many coming from that direction, but thats not the reason why they are to be rejected. Anything coming from any intention are to be included if they confirm with WP guidelines. You dont have to make a call on the motive. Plus your presumptions on 'Nair vanity' etc have seen you take equally adamant and unreasonable stands at the opposite end. And I dont think an unnecessarily long and unreadable article which cites 90% of its content from couple of sources is the best it can reach.Legolas95 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Gough says

There is no mention of any matrilineal caste like the Nayars in the Chera kingdom. When and whence they came is uncertain. The most plausible suggestion is that during the Chera period they were a matrilineal hill tribe occupying the Ghats under chiefs who owed a tenuous allegiance to the Chera kings. They may have descended to the Kerala plains as invading barbarians about the fourth century, when the Chera kingdom collapsed (Ayyar, 1938: 43).

Do we want to work off that or not? Is it acceptable to use as a source a relatively modern academic who in turns sources to older studies, but presumably has the benefit of intervening works etc if such things exist?

Is there a valid alternative theory of origin/early history? Is there anything wrong with citing the most plausible theory, if the source does not make any attempt to discuss the alternatives? Do we trust the modern academic to have used their judgement? Or do we refute the entire notion of "standing on the shoulders of giants". If the latter, is there any point in writing an encyclopedia that, by definition, depends upon those shoulders? Obviously, the same applies for Pullapilly. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The “most plausible suggestion” is speculative and is unacceptable to most users in the talk page as evident from this discussion. The consensus evident from users who have commented on it find hill tribe theory “speculative” based on the choice of words Glough herself has used. The neutral point that is acceptable would be avoiding speculative theories such as “hill tribe” theories (be it however giant that shoulder be) and stick to less controversial sentences such as “There is no mention of Nayars in the Chera kingdom”.

Pulappilly is definitely questionable as an authority on “origin of caste system in Kerala” however as user Qwyrxian very rightly pointed out earlier, one-at-a time, in small steps. One may initiate the Pullapilly credibility discussion as an independent topic to know the views of all users. I think it may not be right to discuss it under the “hill tribe” issue. The hill tribe theory is speculative and unacceptable to multiple users. Sentences such as “To be honest, I would be astonished if after all this time, effort and discussions there is any need for major changes to existing content unless/until new research appears” !!! is shocking and should be avoided. The article is definitely better in comparison to previous versions thanks to the effort of many users including user: Sitush. However there is definitely a lot of scope for improvemenent even in the present article. I can take it up as another topic one at a time, but not here, as it is out of context to hill tribe discussion.

One of the salient features of Wiki is that it facilitates dynamic change, such that it negates immutability and quite often promotes a deviation from authoritative writing . I quote, "If you do not like it then that is fine: you can either find the appropriate policy page & try to cause change or you can simply go somewhere else that is aligned more closely to how you think things should be. For that matter, you could start your own blog or wiki or whatever. No-one here is stopping you from doing so".

VS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And I ask again, if the comment regarding plausibility is made by a respected academic who very wording ("the most plausible theory") implies that they have reviewed the various theories then why should it not appear? Provided that it is made clear that it is just that, the most plausible idea. If there are other major theories that has been discussed then they could be mentioned also. I have presented the entire quotation above because Q has indicated that they could not view it, although they may choose to keep out of the discussion because it is a content dispute. My queries above relate as much to Pullapilly as to Gough, We have gone many months without need for substantial change, and suddenly two people (& a known problem user) turn up wanting changes to all sorts of stuff and in agreement with each other: please forgive me if I find that somewhat surprising, hence my comment about being astonished etc. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

From the citation provided by Glough for her speculation (in Paragraph2 of Pg 303) it is self-evident to a reader in anthropology, that she has not reviewed the various theories. This is because the only reference she provides is of Ayyar, 1938: 43 to support her “most plausible suggestion”. Had she reviewed multiple theories she would have would have provided more references than Aiyar. This is why the speculative hill tribe theory is unreliable and should not appear . You are forgiven :-) no problem….:-) I can empathize with your "reaction" because you have put in a lot of effort for in preventing disruptive editors from the Nayar article. I do very much respect and appreciate your efforts and can understand your reaction in the light that you have had to face a lot of “caste warriors” also in the past. But you must assume good will of a new user, my interests are to keep the Nair article to good standards as much as you may want it too. But we must strive to reach a balance between “preventing disruptive editing” and “being authoritative”. Pullapilly credibility issue has the potential to become controversial. It is better not to stir it up for now. Once we start discussing it publically, the tendency that the Pullapilly topic may be “hijacked” to attack you is greater….this may be counter-productive to the Nayar article :-).

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Vettakkorumakansnehi, your analysis of the quality of Glough's work goes beyond what we can do in Misplaced Pages, and falls under WP:OR, in my opinion. We can't say that "Scholar X's work isn't reliable because she didn't cite A, B, or C, which are widely known in the field". That's you applying your specialist knowledge, and making an argument about what is or isn't correct. If that is your primary objection to Glough's speculation, then it doesn't hold weight here on Misplaced Pages. Also, regarding your discussion above about mutability and the like, yes, WP is mutable, but once an issue has been discussed many many times, and a consensus has been reached, then it really is time to move on unless new evidence is presented.

At the moment, I think that it is best to re-add the statement that says something like "there is no evidence of Nairs (to use the modern name for the group of castes) in the area during this period.<+Gough reference>." So far, I don't think anyone has really objected to that, is that correct? I am also coming to believe that it may be correct to re-add in the hill tribe speculation, but first I want to establish that no one actually objects to this position. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Drat! I wrote a reply, hit an edit conflict, copy/pasted and somehow screwed things up & lost it. My response was, however, pretty much per Qwyrxian but probably less well phrased. I really do need my replacement keyboard! Sorry, - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Could it be that Ayyar discusses the issues in more depth? And that is why Gough does not - she only has to cite Ayyar to make that point. Can we get hold of a copy of Ayyar's study? I realise that it is quite old, but that comes back to the "modern academic citing old academic" idea, regarding which I feel that I am on fairly safe ground. - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

User Qwyrxian, yes, you are right regarding the sentence "there is no evidence of Nairs in the area during this period.<+Gough reference>." is acceptable and is not under dispute.

However, it is not recommended to re-add the "hill tribe speculation" as the objection for that part remains. The primary objection to Hill tribe theory is the speculative language (the most plausible suggestion) of the citation and remains unacceptable . Reinstating “hill tribe” theory therefore could be considered only if an alternate citation that is not speculative and is unequivocal in affirming the “hill tribe origin” is provided. Presently no user has provided an alternate reference where unambiguous and unequivocal conclusion of hill tribe theory is presented. Hence that part of the content dispute remains.

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush's position also comes under WP:OR, that they might have weighed other theories and picked this one etc, it is presented as a speculation not backed by any documentation or analysis and we dont have to take it as implying one thing or another. And if included should be as their speculation. Also what is cited from Pullapally are also plausible theories, i am sure you can find many variants.Legolas95 (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sitush is dodging the Pullappally issue persistently, i think we need to discuss it in more detail, may be later.Legolas95 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not OR'ing anything. This is the only theory that I know of and I have pointed out that it seems likely that there are others. I have also asked whether anyone knows of the others etc, and noted that Gough cites Ayyar. We do not exclude one thing just because something else might exist. Nor am I ignoring Pullapilly - I have mentioned him time and again. Now, please assume good faith: comments such as "they might have weighed other theories and picked this one" suggest that you think I am engaged in some sort of subterfuge and it is not so. - Sitush (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Summary of discussions of users on the hill tribe issue reveals:

1. "there is no evidence of Nairs in the area during this period.<+Gough reference>." is acceptable

2. Dispute/objection of users on "hill tribe speculation" remains (based on speculative language of the cited author herself).

3. No alternate citation where unambiguous and unequivocal conclusion of hill tribe theory has been presented to bring about consensus on “hill tribe” theory inclusion.

Finally few requests to all of us as per wiki guidelines:

A. It is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other use

B. Let us all kindly strive to be polite and civil to each other WP:CIV even though we are unable to reach a consensus on inclusion of hill tribe

C. Also, Argumentum ad hominem is strongly discouraged during negotiation.

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've re-added the "no evidence" part. I used the same Gough reference as at the end of the paragraph, but since I don't have the source, perhaps that is the wrong page. Any who has it can correct the page. I don't have time to deal with the hill tribe issue now, though I do think that Sitush's suggestion of getting the original Ayyar is a good way to proceed on the issue (though it may not solve it). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks..Saw your addition..looks fine to me. If we manage to get Aiyyar, we can first examine and discuss the "wordings" used by him, in the talk page. If all users find it non-speculative in its statement (by consensus here), it should not be a problem. Meanwhile i will also check if anyone has conclusively proved it (although i doubt it).

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

First, Vettakkorumakannehi, could you start indenting your posts as others do? The idea is that you add one more colon (:) than the person you are replying to at the beginning of each of your new paragraphs. That makes it much easier to understand the structure of the discussion. Second, I do want to clarify that I think you may have misunderstood my position. I don't mean to say that it has to stay out merely because it's speculation. We include speculation in articles all the time; heck, we even include pure opinions. The question is whether or not that speculation is due. In this case, the main question is what are the qualifications of the person who wrote the article--that is, is that person's opinion important enough to include. Technically speaking, every time any academic ever makes a claim, it's "speculation", because no academic is printing "fact"--they're all presenting their best interpretation of the data that they have. If the particular point is explicitly called speculation, then the key is that we have to make sure that WP doesn't state it as a fact, instead, saying something like "Author X believes that the most likely reason is because ...." You can't say that we will keep it out until conclusively proved; if that were the case, we should probably erase everything in the article that is about history older than 100 years, because all history is speculation and unproven. I do think it would help shed a light on things if we say Ayyar first. If we can't get that, we'll need to see if there is consensus for a wording that state's Glough's opinion as an opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Without wanting to see us drawn into precisely the historiographical issues that I previously mentioned are well within my ability to bore everyone with for a very long time, let's just stick to the basics. Firstly, Misplaced Pages is pretty much always based on verifiability, not truth. Secondly, there is no such thing as truth: everything is a hypothesis. I heartily recommend Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as a relatively modern guide to this, It really might useful if we could locate some of the "less plausible" theories, purely in order to give some sort of balance, but this is not a reason to exclude what is considered to be the "most plausible" by one or more academics of good standing. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As said earlier, the speculative nature is unacceptable as long as it is not verifiable using alternate reliable sources with conclusive and less ambiguous wordings. Therefore let us first see what conclusive alternate citations we can find on it and how convincing they are to facilitate a consensus between disagreeing users. There is no productive consequence in discussing this further before such an event.

I have gone through the history of the talk pages and observed that we have on several previous occassions denied inclusion of content on grounds of ambiguity of statements, unreliability and lack of consensus and rightly so . I think such standards should be continued to be maintained to prevent the article retrogressing into a bundle of intelligent "plausible" speculations . But, I also see from the history of talk section that it appears that many times neutrality and consensus have not been reached for improving the article due to vanity-driven assumptions (such as the article is already close to perfect now, it hardly needs any change!!) and unwarranted POV driven muscling. There are several issues on which the present article needs to be improved, however that is a subject I would prefer to treat seperately,individually and through consensus.

VS

P.S : I am not only aware of Kuhn’s work but also criticism against it for having gone too far with the "humanizing" the scientific process and blurring the demarcation between scientific and non-scienctific enterprises :-). Thanks anyways for the recommendation.

Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not going to get your way here on the grounds of ambiguity. There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about "The most plausible explanation is ..." Nor are you likely to do so on the grounds of "alternate reliable sources": yes, we need to see what Ayyar actually says, but it is almost certainly going to be Ayyar + Gough's appreciation of Ayyar. Nor are you going to help things along generally if you misrepresent people, as you have misrepresented me with your "vanity-driven assumptions"/"close to perfect" comment. Actually, I am not seeing much that is constructive in your comments: lots of words that mostly go round in circles, but little that usefully advances the discussion. So, do you know of any sources that deal with this issue or not? If Gough is so speculative etc then surely someone in the last umpteen years has raised the issue because, after all, the Nairs are one of the most studied communities in India? If you have read all of the archives then you will be well aware that Misplaced Pages is not censored and also that your opinion, even if you are an academic working in the field, is of no significance. Unless you come up with something a bit better than semantics, the statement is almost certainly going to reappear in the article. JanetteDoe is getting hold of a copy of Ayyar & that will be useful, but unless Gough has totally misrepresented that source there will be no reason to exclude the Gough assessment of it, nor am I entirely sure why it is suddenly causing two or three people such grief. - Sitush (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"the statement is almost certainly going to reappear in the article" !!! - oops. The phraseology could have been, I donot see "if there is a consensus among users" on what they percieve as ambigous/unambigous semantics (based on reliable alternatives), why the hypothesis cannot reappear. :-)). There is no misrepresentation of you here, i was simply stating facts. Why should you feel you have been implicated !!! I am not here to "get my way here" as you put it !! but to work with all users collectively towards "improving the article". Kindly remeber that I am not against you but with you towards improving the artcle.

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I really cannot understand your last post above, but I rather get the impression that you might need to read WP:CONSENSUS. Unlike in the real world, Misplaced Pages's consensus is not about counting the number of raised hands etc. In theory, one person can be opposed by tens of people and still carry the day. That is why I asked whether you actually had some useful information. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Aah, I see. And who might this one person be ? !!. Thanks, i will definitely go through WP CONSENSUS as per your suggestion.

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Time and again i request removal of adding up snake worship as being worshipped as mere dravidian custom

Snake worship is indegenous to kerala and especially among Nair's. I'ld like the focus to be on Nair's and not classifying it as a dravidian custom. I dont even find that mentioned in the reference.

Moreover i'd like to add some references in some time. I'd like to know if they would be classified as secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.204.31 (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Time and again, you are told why you will not get your way. Whether your references would be classed as secondary sources or whatever rather depends on what they are - you'll need to let us know. - Sitush (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Suggestions invited for improving etymology section of the article

User: MatthewVanitas has rightly pointed out on 9 April 2012 that the etymology section is too short to be a standalone section as-is, unless we can restore more of the etymology theories. I was also happy to note the optimism of user:Sitush to the above suggestion and of it being “possible that those who were warring & doing stuff off-wiki have gone away”. So here is one possibility:

1. The present citation to “unsatisfactory credibility” of Nair etymologies has been referenced in the article to Pg 38 of “The book of Duarte Barbosa” by M Longworth Dames (Asian educational services). So I examined Page 38 of this citation. On careful scrutiny of page 38, we find in the foot note section of this page “None of these derivations can be accepted satisfactory”. Citation based on the footnote of a M Longworth Dame’s translations of a travalogue may not be the most valid reference available to us to assert that most Nair etymologies are of unsatisfactory credibility !!!. (M Longworth Dames was not an authority on Nayars of Kerala or Dravidian phonetics. He was a civil servant in Punjab commission whose excellent proficiency in Portuguese languages lead to his acclaimed translation of the travel literature of Duarte Barbosa who was a Portuguese scrivener of Cannannore factory in 1516. Also, M Longworth Dame’s erudition of oriental languages was limited to Baluch and Pashtu languages and not to Malayalam or Tamil or Sanskrit)

2. There exists an alternate acclaimed historian and researcher of Nayars whose conclusions on etymology of Nayars is more aunthenticated in peer reviewed publication. He is the oxford educated Kavalam Madhava Panikkar. His publication on Nayars are greatly respected in anthropological circles to this day and his work "Some Aspects of Nayar Life" (The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 48: 254–293) has been cited 17 times in the present Nair/Nayar article !!. Therefore, I assume, the present editors of the Nair article clearly consider him as an authentic source of reference.

3. KM Panikkar’s published conclusion on Nair etymology after extensive research of Nayars as well as linguistics of Dravidian and Prakistic language (in collaboration with the erudite linguistic/phonetic expert in Dravidian languages Don Z. Wickerma Singhe) was that :

(A) In Pg 290 of "Some Aspects of Nayar Life", Panikkar strongly discredits and dispels the vanity-driven notion that “Nayar” is derived from the Sanskrit word Nayaka, and additionally makes the observation that:

“As such a derivation flatters the national vanity of the community it has been accepted without question”

(B) He then goes on to prove the results of his research by stating in Pg 290  ;

“ It seems unquestionable, on the other hand, the word Nayar is the same as Nagar”

(C) Further in Pg 291 he states:

“The laws of philology also support this view. I am assured by Don de Z. Wickerma Singhe that the change from G to Y (as from Nagar to Nayar) is very commonly met with in Dravidian and Prakistic languages”

(D) Finally on Pg 291 KM Panikkar concludes:

“ The word Nayar, therefore, is , without a shadow of doubt the same as the word Nagar, which means serpent-men”

I am genuinely surprised that this unequivocal conclusion of KM Panikkar on the etymology of “Nayar” (whose same work has been cited 17 times in the article) does not get representation in the etymology section due to our own warring !!!!. If we are able to negotiate through consensus, we still have a chance to improve our etymology section. Alternate suggestions with proper citations are also most welcome.

Reference:

I have provided the link to KM Panickers complete article as PDF below for those of you who may have not have read it and intends to counter check the veracity and authenticity of the above quotes.

http://ia600606.us.archive.org/33/items/SomeAspectsOfNayarLife/SomeAspectsOfNayarLifeCopy.pdf

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not even reading that. See WP:TLDR. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

From a quick scan and summary, you seem to be saying

• We already cite Panikkar
• Panikkar says Nayar derives from Nagar
• Can we include this, please

Response: yes, we cite him, even though he is quite an old source etc. As per the archives, this is because he was a Nair and it helped to counteract the caste warriors who thought that the stuff on marriage traditions etc was demeaning. On etymology, please see for example this version of the article. It shows that precise etymology but notes some doubts concerning it. This and other stuff was taken out but, yes, could be reinstated. All of it, not just a cherry-picked "most plausible" (ahem). - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Saw the version...what is your opinion on the reinstatement ? If i understood correctly, you prefer a word by word reinstatement of that version. Am i right ?

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I just grabbed a diff and have not counted them, but it is not about which is "more suitable". IIRC, there were more listed at one stage (or the section was longer by some other means) but I might be getting that confused with another article. The really tricky one was Sadasivan, which caused no end of arguments: it would require rephrasing to actually match whatever it is that the guy said. He certainly didn't say what we did, but I cannot rephrase it because I generally fall asleep when reading mythological nonsense, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If my understanding is right, you and many others users disapprove of Sadasivan. Is it right ? In which case, we could reinstate the version you suggested minus the Sadasivan part to avoid warring ? what do you say ?

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any particular opinion regarding the guy: he seems to attract vitriol and praise in equal degree. There were various charges about him being a Hindu-hating Buddhist or a Nair-hating Ezhava etc, but they seemed to come from the Hindu Nairs who already had their cards marked here for other reasons. I don't understand this particular bit of Sadasivan but I did find another source that seemed generally to have said the same thing. The problem was (a) members of the Nair community misread what was said in the article and went ape-shit, for a prolonged period that involved many blocks etc; and (b) a couple of uninvolved people reckoned that what was said did not actually match what Sadasivan said & that it therefore needed some tweaking. I cannot recall having any substantive involvement in writing the content of that bullet-point, precisely because mythology just does not do anything for me: it bores me, and when people actually believe it, well, it just proves to me the gullibility of the species. I may have fixed a typo or a grammatical error etc but that is likely to be all. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In case of Sadsivan, he relied heavily on the etymological interpretation of Nair as described to by the scholar Kanippayoor Shankaran Namboothiripad and as well as a 1952 letter of Kampil Ananthan (historian from Ezhava community) to Narayana Panicker. The dog-people issue was based on a Sanskrit equivalent of Naya - “Suna” and Kampil Ananthan used in Sanskrit - suna-eva-vritty (dog like loyalty exhibiting serviles for Nayars) and ratified by Kanippayoor (Pg 331). This along with the dog totem anecdote from Kerala-jaathyachaara Nirnayam was popularised by Sadasivan in his book and that hurt the emotional sentiments of many caste warriors. However, this interpretation is a fringe theory and that is why it should not have been acceptable in the article but the caste warriors warred with emotions and messed up things…this is what I understand from my reading.

To come back to the main topic at hand . Why don’t we then reinstate the version you showed me minus Sadashivan interpretation ? Do u think that could be a viable solution ?

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, why would we reinstate something that explicitly says "most of them have been described as of unsatisfactory credibility"? VS, above you're arguing we can't include something described as the most plausible explanation, why are you here arguing to include something that is called by a scholar as likely unplausible? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Kindly refer Point-1. I have explained it there.

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

But as my diff shows, Panikkar and the Padmanabha Menon/Krishna Menon/Visscher trio also discredit the things. I admit that they are still pretty old sources. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

User:sitush, you have raised a very valid and genuine question. The answer to your question lies in the careful examination of a simple detail. Carefully analyze the reference in your diff. Krishnat P. Padmanabha Menon; T. K. Krishna Menon; Jacobus Canter Visscher ( History of Kerala: a history of Kerala written in the form of notes on Visscher's letters from Malabar) is a book published by Delhi based Asian educational service and has not gone through an Scientific-peer-review process. Where as K.M Panicker’s conclusion on Nair etymology is published in "Some Aspects of Nayar Life" (The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 48: 254–293) after going through a Scientific-peer-review process . A scientific peer reviewed research article can be credibily refuted only by another scientifically peer reviewed process. Hence Panicker’s article gets eminence over Visscher’s letters.

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not appreciate being patronised like this. I am neither stupid nor a child. You keep moving the goalposts here: it would be nice to know what it is that you want the article to say instead of engaging in all this time-wasting chicanery. I for one have more pressing matters to deal with than playing mind-games. So, a short and sweet proposal, please. (Preferably without verbiage such as "eminent", "Oxford-educated", "erudite" etc, - credit us with some sense). - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Appreciation of a valid point is not equal to patronising

2. Individual choice of words is not equal to chicanery or verbiage

3. Pressing matters – everybody has them

4. Mind games ! - gives the impression of Argumentum ad hominem- I donot know what you are referring to !

Focus of discussion

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

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

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

4. Do we agree on the above ?

5. Which of the above are negotiable and which not for u  ?- so that we can translate it in to a viable solution ?

ahem....I've tried my best to communicate in the way you want :-))

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

User VS, peer reviewed doesn't translate as unequivocally accepted by scholars in the field or backed by the publishing house. As Panicker himself points out, 'the generally accepted derivation is from 'Nayaka' meaning leader' (see for eg: Dr Gundert's Malayalam - English dictionary lists all the terms 'Nayan'(lord), 'Nayar', 'Nayanar' (hon. plurals of Nayan), 'Nayma' (lordship) as etymologically related to each other and to Nayaka.), he is just putting forth his position. But I think its reasonable to include both the positions in the etymology section. We dont have to provide one answer to any question, thats not WP policy. I dont know why Sitush is bringing up Sadasivan and dog story again, neither myths nor Sadasivan have been found to hold much credibility for our purposes.Legolas95 (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Good to see that more Users are coming forward to participate in the discussion-this gives a better view of what is acceptable/negotiable/unacceptable and helps brainstorm a consensus. I do partially agree with User: Legolas95 on the Gundert-Malayalam dictionary explanation. When we read Panicker, he states that although “he” does not consider that Nayar came from Nayak, this etymological interpretation seems to have been “accepted unquestionably” by the Nayar community itself. This is the reason I have made Pt-3 negotiable. If other users such as you prefer the inclusion of Nayak-theory , I have no objection to it. I am willing to compromise on this.

In net effect, you and I therefore agree on the “content” to be included on the etymology. Only the reasons why X or Y theory may be acceptable to each of us may be different. So I think it is a positive sign. Don’t u think so User: Legolas95 ?

User:Sitush only made a passing remark on Sadasivan evoking extreme opposite reactions from readers ..thats all. I donot think he wants inclusion of Sadasivan either. And I have a good feeling that the reason behind it would be exactly like mine – Sadasivan’s Suna-theory is a fringe theory and hence unacceptable for wiki + avoiding this may also avoid warring of editors.

If you want I can make a skeleton proposal the wordings of the etymology section that I think may be acceptable to both you and User:Sitush. We can then modify this frame to reach neutrality. Is that ok ?

VS

PS: Academically, a scientific-peer-reviewed publication in a journal (as in the case of KM panicker's publication) and simply peer reviewed article represent two different levels of quality. Since that is not relevant presently, I will not go into the details of it.

Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Does every edit here have to go through User:Sitush's approval? This is not an attack but he/she seems to be controlling this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.155.131 (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

the origin of caste is total crap

What the hell is this. Such a big article full of nonsense ???? It's better to cut short this article into a small one including only those details which don't have any issues from any sides. You don't need to have such a detailed article full of confusion.

182.48.204.96 (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The article is a complete mess and there is a lot of contradictory information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.230.254.189 (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The article on Nairs is a mess now

The article is a mess now and reads like a long collection of comments on whether information is available or not. Also, a lot of cited information that was present earlier has been removed and replaced with hearsay. Some parts of the article contradict other parts (for example a part of the article says that it is not clear if Nairs existed before the arrival of the Portuguese while another part talks about how Nair "vassal" chieftains were witnesses to agreements during the time of the Perumals).

The article is very poorly written and seems like a cleverly-disguised attack on Nairs because it repeatedly makes unsavoury comments about the Nairs. A certain person seems to be hogging this page and not letting others make changes. You can see from the huge number of edits by a single person and the second highest number of edits are only half of his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.155.131 (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Origin of caste system?

Why does the article on the Nair community need a generic speculative section on the origin of caste system? Isn't it better being in a separate article? Otherwise the origin should be related to evolution of the Nair caste.

Instead it has become an excuse for adding Swami Vivekananda's comment about the general situation of casteism in Kerala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.155.131 (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP addresses, you are causing disruption

This article is not messed up. It is improving. This is not the first time that the anonymous users are adding useless threads and deviating the users from live discussions. It is true that some part of the article are still nonsense/non-relevant, but you should not deviate the attention of users by adding useless threads. Think about the topic under discussion and participate in the discussion. I shall suggest to continue to the previous discussion about etymology, thereafter we can discuss about origin of caste system. Pprasadnair (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Those are not discussions but exercises in asking for permission from User:Sitush, who seems to be acting as the judge, jury and executioner along with User:Qwyrxian

Discussions are not useful when the de facto owner of this article User:Sitush refuses to even read half of what is posted here under various excuses. This is a personal issue as much as an issue about the facts under discussion. An article that is turning out to be slander on a whole community is controlled by one anonymous user. Yes, I am anonymous too but I am not acting as an arrogant gatekeeper of this page.

Also, people can discuss anything discussed in the article. There is no rule that one can only discuss topics of interests to page-hijackers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.144.44 (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is written very poorly. It is scatterbrained with pseudofacts that contradict at times. Also, the article is much worse than it used to be. I will be more than happy to compare the older versions with the current version. It is a mess now.

Also, I don't see Pprasadnair anywhere in the discussion before. I decided to intervene as a reader seeing how horrible the article has become. If wikipedia wants to close off as a shop for a few privileged users then so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.144.44 (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

More on the writing. Who writes an article like this? "....These people lived, and continue to live, in the area which is presently the Indian state of Kerala. Their internal caste behaviours and systems are markedly different between the people in the northern and southern sections of the area, although there is not very much reliable information on those inhabiting the north."

This is worse than a school-essay. 117.231.144.44 (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, how markedly different are they? They sure are different to the Nairs themselves but are they different enough for those from outside the community? Even Christians of the same denomination have slightly different rituals across the state of Kerala. Does that mean that such small difference must be highlighted so prominently? But the most interesting part is that such a claim is being made without any real affirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.144.44 (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Credibility of sources

The first thing to figure out is which sources are credible and it is unfair to leave it to the judgement of one or two people here.

So Logan is not credible? Neither is Sreedhara Menon? What about KM Panikkar?

Why does the article emphasize on Portuguese sources? Is this a new form of Orientalism, where eastern sources are not credible anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.144.44 (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Story of Antonio Fernandes Chale

The story is interesting (and something I myself have known from before though it's not a famous one). But why is it being given so much prominence here? It serves no real purpose. If the author wanted to prove that Nairs fought on the side of the Portuguese, just a mention of it and a citation was enough. Why go on discussing a personality when other more important Nair personalities have not been discussed much in the article? The section on the NSS doesn't even mention Mannam.

Antonio Fernandes Chale can have his own page but can someone explain the relevance of the story here? Did he have such a huge impact on the history of the community?

Also, why is this sentence "During this era, the Portuguese popularised the term Nair, referring to all of the locals who fought along with them as Nayari or Nayar, irrespective of strata or caste." still there when a citation is needed at a time when cited issues are not being allowed on to the main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.144.44 (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As a user I am present for more than 5 years in wikipedia. I have made no edits in Nair article, but all the 19 archives I have read through and been seeing all changes in the talk pages and article. So I am aware of every mutilation and integration happening here. You are now representing your opinion with cited sentences in the article - that is what we require for the improvement of the same. All the points you have presented here is valid, I agree. Actually now the Nair article is getting attention from two privileged users, ie. sitush(rollbacker) and qwyxrian(administrator). As per the information available from the archives, both are not belonging Kerala or associated regions. Still they are trying to help to improve the article. I have a humble suggestion to you to register as a user, and please be little more friendly while pointing out problems in the article. Pprasadnair (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

They definitely are not improving the article but instead describing a community that is completely in variance with what is understood in Kerala. It's like a completely imaginary community if you read from the beginning till the origin of caste section. They are not even allowing common viewpoints backed by authoritative people to be presented.

Compare this with the Ezhava article and you can see the difference. Here, repeatedly, information is presented in a very bad light concerning the Nair community. Random stories are highlighted as long as they put down the community. Earlier the article had many errors including the claim of Kshatriya status etc. But now, it has become long set of comments collected from a narrow set of authors.

I have lost hope now. It's not just an editor but also an administrator who are trashing this article and perhaps inadvertently slandering a whole community with tall tales simply because they were thrown out by their favourite sources. Any disagreement with their POV is smothered with wikipedian bureaucratese. Apparently, this is prevalent all over wikipedia. At least I learnt something today. Like so many others who dared to disagree with the defacto owners of this article, I too am going to give up.

"VS" is being nice but to no effect. Others have posted in frustration and got banned or left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.186.221 (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Etymology revisited

Unwarranted comments such as “User:Sitush, who seems to be acting as the judge, jury and executioner along with User:Qwyrxian…” from IP 117.231.144.44 is completely unacceptable and does not confer with WP:AG. The onus of convincing another user of the changes “you” need to the article is entirely upon “you”. If there is an issue that User:Qwyrxian and User:Sitush not being from Kerala is effecting the way in which they perceive what is relevant/ irrelevant for inclusion in the article– then it becomes all the more imperative that you convince them, because most people who depend on Misplaced Pages to know about Nairs may not be from Kerala. If your issue is that any two users may be dominating the article in an inappropriate way, then remind them WP:OWN and WP:GAME. But unsubstantiated mudslinging of User:Sitush and User:Qwyrxian is completely unacceptable. Moreover, perusing through the history of Nair talk pages, I donot see that Users from Kerala or of Nair origin have restrained themselves from POV pushing either. “Why do you see the speck of chaff that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye”. Dear Unknown IPs , as User: Pprasadnair rightly pointed out “Think about the topic under discussion and participate in the discussion”. So, the point under discussion is etymology.

Focus of discussion

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

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

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

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

Kindly state your opinion on the above 4 points by stating whether these points are acceptable/unacceptable/negotiable individually - so that we can translate it in to a viable solution. Discussions and explanations that has no direct relevance to the above 4 points are strongly discouraged under the etymology topic discussion.

VS

P.S: VS is not here for being “nice”. VS is interested in making the quality of caste related topics on Misplaced Pages representative of the respective caste, so as to enable readers to have correct information. I can agree with the same user on topic A with whom I may disagree on topic B – the deciding factor is not the User but the factual accuracy of the issue under discussion.Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

By bringing up etymology, you are implying that other issues discussed before are resolved. They are not.

One user (with only an IP address just like me) brought up a large number of issues and even described the Goebbels-like strategy used by some here. But nobody bothered to respond to him because they are too busy playing games here.

I do not know wikipedia bureaucratese enough to throw WPs and whatever. But I do see some personal traits of certain people affecting the quality of the article. The quality of writing is at about the standard of a school-essay (and the same can be said about the Ezhava article). Then, there are repeatedly unnecessary facts brought in while major facts that would have come in are simply not there. I brought up the issue of Anthony Chales vis-a-vis Mannam (for example).

I also brought the fact that the article has an Orientalist slant with a heavy emphasis on Portuguese sources, which is akin to quoting American Colonists on Native Americans.

All these issues can be addressed together. There is no need to stick to just one issue, while others have been openly dismissed with one user refusing to read comments or citations and reverting anything that doesn't fit his/her worldview.

Also, factual accuracy is not determined by consensus between anonymous people who rate the experts, with preference of course given to Caucasian sources over Native ones. How surprising!

PS: I recommend that this "4. Recommended to add – Opinion on credibility of the theories to various nair etymologies by various historians to achieve NPOV" be followed for everything in the article because the views described currently are indeed just theories. The one claiming that Nairs was popularised by the Portuguese is the most laughable, with the added implication that they created the caste or something. Anybody who knew the rigid and dangerous caste system in Kerala in those days would laugh at this kind stupidity.

PPS: I apologize for posting this in this discussion but there is already another discussion on etymology and please don't stop others from discussing topics and disagreements on other issues. Nobody is stopping you from discussing your topics of interest either. Live and let live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.206.241 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me add this:

I brought up personalities only because of the stonewalling and arrogance of certain people are affecting the quality of the article. Who says "you cannot get your way"? Is this article owned by a single person because he/she made the largest number of edits? People have made edits with citations and they were reverted under various excuses. They were pushed into frustration and eventually banned or left on their own volition. Nobody is being allowed to touch the article. Their points of discussion are not being acknowledged either.

The whole discussion is being hogged by three users 117.231.206.241 (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I support no.1 recommendation Nagar to Nayar for etymology section. Serpent worship of Nair is a support to this. This had been backed by authentic malayalam publications also.

vekramaditya —Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, Nagar to Nayar from serpent worship is the most acceptable one and Nayaka reference came later according to Nair's functions in public administration and military administration. It is not wrong to include Nayaka reference, but, I do not recommend the same. Pprasadnair (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's start over: Etymology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VS

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

I have removed your insertion of the {{3O}} template because that process is for disputes involving two people, whereas this discussion - spread over several threads - has involved far more than that number.

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

Dear Sitush, Removal of 3O is unacceptable as all other participating users have consensus- The present dispute revolves between you and me (2 editors) on evasion of point wise addressal of etymology discussion .

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

VS

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

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

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

VS

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

• B-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class Kerala articles
• Top-importance Kerala articles
• B-Class Kerala articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Kerala articles
• B-Class Indian history articles
• Mid-importance Indian history articles
• B-Class Indian history articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Indian history articles
• WikiProject India articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics