Talk:Ezhava/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Possible Solution

Why cant we have a solution here like Ahirs and Yadavs wiki pages. Although Ahirs and Yadavs come from same community, they have two different wiki pages. What i can understand is their culture and location are different and both communities are happy to have two different wiki pages. I have seen that Sitush is actively involved in both castes talk pages.

I have provided here many books (Secondary WP:RS and Tertiary RS) and Amal89 Provided Primary RS which clearly say Thiyya culture and caste is completely different from Ezhava and if you look ezhava books you can see cultural differences. Even though i wont completely agree that they are a single caste, i am ready here for some sort of negotiations with those admins who stick with the idea of Ezhava-Thiyya Single caste.

As I mentioned above, if all admins agree, we can have two articles here just like Ahirs and Yadavs.

A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.

Please understand above mentioned wiki policy WP:CONTENTFORK. irajeevwiki talk 00:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. And your reliable sources are? Plus, you cannot compare the Ahir/Yadav issue to this one, or at least not based on the arguments that you have so far put forward. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You said we can not compare Ahir and Yadav with Thiyya and Ezhava.. Why ? can you please explain !. irajeevwiki talk 19:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Because you have yet to provide a reliable source for the Thiyya/Ezhava disconnect, because other stuff exists and because the Ahir/Yadav situation is not entirely a question of distinction versus synonymity. I suggest that you read both of those articles and their voluminous talk pages if you wish to learn more about that last point - I have no intention of reviving unrelated discussions here, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, you have been saying that Caste Thiyya and Ezhava are same. What my question is why there is no content POV forking done in Ahir/Yadav pages. Why forking on Thiyya ?. Why do we need two articles for Ahir/Yadav ?. Why a rule that is unfairly applied in different ways to different castes. You are a senior admin here, you have more experience in wikipedia than other new contributors. How would you say the forking done here is as per WP:CONTENTFORK policy. irajeevwiki talk 19:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you read my reply above? Therein lie the answers to your latest query. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Rajeev please check wp:OSE Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wealth and prestige

I just reverted Sitush's addition that said, "The accumulation of wealth and of prestige play a significant part in the mindset of the present-day Ezhava community" (with a citation). I reverted it because it seems to be WP:UNDUE, though not in the sense that we normally use it. What I mean is, and I admit I'm coming to this from a rather western perspective, but isn't the desire to accumulate wealth and prestige pretty much a constant among all industrialized (and probably most unindustrialized) communities? That is, I believe the statement is true, but I also wonder for which communities it isn't true. I would imagine that there are some highly religious communities with a different perspective, but I think that they would be the minority. So I think that including this point here, at least without any context, is unduly emphasizing what is likely to be a common trait...it sounds, in a somewhat negative way (for me) that Ezhava are especially acquisitive. Maybe it's just phrasing, or maybe we need more context from that source, but as it was I'm concerned. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I was intending to expand it within minutes and got sidetracked by someone who has now been blocked. Among the points to be made was that toddy-tapping, while deemed an inferior job, was a lucrative one and enabled the accumulation of capital that has been turned into prestige - turned into "symbolic and cultural capital" is the phrase used by the Olessas. I'll re-instate it when I can build the thing in one or two edits. - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, people working in agriculture did not have this economic opportunity. People could migrate to gain capital and then get prestige by buying into symbolism etc when they returned home as some Ezhavas have done, especially in the Gulf states. And the other means to achieve prestige involved investing previously acquired capital in education (as doctors etc) and was pretty much denied to Ezhavas until recent years. The Osellas do use the word "prestige" which, as I think we both already know, plays a pretty significant role in south India. Basically, toddy-tappers and migrants have been among the drivers Ezhava relative "emergence" from their previously low status. This needs refining, of course. - Sitush (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Aide-memoire for when I come back to this: above is based on reading around pp. 38-41. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Teyyam (Teyyattam) or Kaliyattam

I was referring to this article in wiki, but could not open the reference given, can anyone please give the full URL of this reference with the page number? Please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepwalkingji (talk • contribs) 14:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theyyam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.79.165 (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any reference of Ezhava in the Theyyam page, than how come it is there in the Ezhava page huh?? Keepwalkingji (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that you have been told this before (someone here certainly has) ... WP:OSE. We have over 4 million articles and keeping them all on track is well-nigh impossible. The more so when literally hours of experienced contributors' time is spent in round-robin discussions about the same thing. The citations were tagged by me as requiring page numbers earlier this month. While there is no harm in asking here also, we need to provide time for a response and as a general rule I would suggest around 6 months unless the point is particularly controversial. We have to assume the good faith of whoever added that information. - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this will answer my question because you are not taking care of the entire 4 million articles and as you claim you are an expert in this section, it should have been an easier task to provide the reference as i really cannot find it and even i have referred the entire Theyyam wiki page, it has no reference of Ezhava, so wondering why Theyyam is tagged under ezhava, if it is a deity of Ezhava it should have ideally being mapped in the Wiki Theyyam page?? Keepwalkingji (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Where have I said that I am an expert in anything? This is getting ridiculous. No-one seems to be capable of understanding what I write. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason why you are here proves you are an expert or at least an experienced contributor and my question is still not answered " about the reference of Ezhava in Theyyam articleKeepwalkingji (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Lets relook at Primary and Secondary sources

As we have submitted n number of sources and the admins are stubborn of the fact that both are same, i would like to understand the " Primary and Secondary" source which is used to derive both are same?

Please read WP:RS, which has a long description. The short version is that a primary source is "data"; it's things like government documents, personal letters, many statistical reports like a census), etc. A census is a great example of how we can and cannot use primary sources: you can cite a census about exactly the numbers it presents, like "According to the 2001 Census of Country X, there were 2000 females and 2200 males living in city Y." That's a straight reading of the primary source without analysis. What we cannot do is is say, "Since in the 1898 Census of Country X, Group A and Group B are listed separately, therefore they have always been considered two distinct groups." That's interpretation, and thus not allowed. I hope that helps. Also, please stop calling us "the admins". Administrators have no special authority over content. All that admins do is to stop behavioral problems, with blocks and page protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Census always done by governments there fore it has to be considered as Primary Sources, SSLC certificates, OBC caste list are also fall under WP:PRIMARY). We have to rely on secondary sources which is giving backup to primary sources, thats what i have supplied above. irajeevwiki talk 23:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for calling " Admin" , What i am looking here is not an example of what is a primary source or a secondary source, i have read it in detail in the links provided earlier, now i am in search of the sources (primary and secondary) which says both are SAME, i had actually gone through the attached references in the ezhava page but the attachment was not loading properly or it was not routing me to the proper sources Keepwalkingji (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A bit of Thomas Nossiter was actually quoted above here. To he best of my knowledge, there are no primary sources referenced in the article regarding this issue and nor should there be. I'll see if I can dig out something from the other source (there are still more, but WP:CITEKILL applies. - Sitush (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

ACtually, I do not need to dig out the David Mandelbaum one - it turns out that it is quoted directly in the citation. I am not sure what your issue is here but I've just wasted another few minutes on something that has already been dealt with. I know that, for example, Google Books shows different views depending where you live but both bits of information that you requested have already been provided. - Sitush (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have provided ISBN numbers, you can buy book or borrow book from library whatever ! But please dont say that google doesnt show preview and i cant do anything, google preview wont show all pages i know, thats why i bought book and read it. I have got more books here with solid evidence but i need to finish reading. You were asking for reliable sources I have provided many here.

If Sitush is busy, i am happy to go ahead and edit it. I can make Ezhava article exclusively for Ezhava but I respect other editors here who were editing this article before and wanted to get them to edit and correct the article based on newly supplied Reliable Sources. If you start again beating around bush then I will go ahead and Edit it. Wikipedia doesnt want ONE person to look after all caste related articles, as per wiki policy if there is reliable source then anyone can edit. irajeevwiki talk 02:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Untouchability

Untouchability is illegal in India since 1950, the article informs "In turn, the Ezhavas continue to practise discriminatory aspects of untouchability in relation to very low-ranking communities such as the Pulayars, although some will work alongside such people while still maintaining a distance." (emphasis added) Could we have the exact text on which this statement is based please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Being illegal does not stop stuff from happening and, indeed, it is widely accepted that caste- and religious-related discrimination is still a major feature even in official government policy, let alone society as a whole - hence Reservation in India. From p. 16,

At the beginning of the twentieth century, as Izhavas' existing stigmatised caste identity was repudiated, and as class mobility was sought, a new group identity centred around generalised ideals of 'progress' and 'mobility' was formed and new imperatives were set: education, respectable employment, thrift and accumulation of wealth, abolition of untouchability, entry into the mainstream Hindu fold. The project has been partially successful: Izhavas have managed to gain access to education, public office and temples, all barred to them in the nineteenth century; with the introduction of universal franchise, they have also been able to project and promote their caste interests at a wider political level. While the hated avarna tag remains, Izhavas have gone some way towards re-defining themselves as non-untouchables. At the same time, new economic opportunities have significantly increased economic differentiation within the caste.

From p. 29,

Most Izhavas live alongside the high-caste Hindus, Nayars and Brahmans who until recently openly kept them as untouchables, ordering them off the road and excluding them from temples. Izhavas keep some distance from - but may still work alongside - the very lowest-caste Hindus (Pulayas and Parayas) who have, despite official anti-discriminatory legislation, remained - men and women alike - tied to agricultural and other manual labour and to a degraded status.

The "recently" is not a reference to 1950 but rather to more modern times. To put this into any more detailed context would require that I cite the entire chapter because the authors' discussion meanders throughout the thing. For example, there are statements that they do not associate the the Nayars and Brahmins, that they are shunned by those groups and in turn shun other groups. And that the arrangement of housing in villages remains segregated: Nayars live next to Brahmins, who live next to Ezhavas, etc, in a pattern that appears to form an widening circle from some central point where the significant temple(s) stand(s). Imagine the insignia of the Royal Air Force, where the inner circle is Brahmin, the next circle is Nayar and the outer one is Izhava, then add a few more circles for other groups. There is also discussion of how ritual status of Brahmans gives that group prestige even when they are feckless, whereas prestige for other groups is not so great even when they are economically successful etc. I could go on but surely you see these documented patterns in the real world? India is still predominantly a peasant, even feudal, society and the laws operate best only in urban areas. Our article on Khaps could be much better but neatly illustrates the challenge facing the government when it comes to social engineering. ... - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you need to cite a chapter to provide evidence in support of "continue", we need to have another more straight forward source, this one is no good. Please don't muddle the issue with unsubstantiated allegations like "India is still predominantly a peasant, even feudal, society and the laws operate best only in urban areas." India is undoubtedly peasant (why do you extrapolate that to feudal, isn't it unfair, a subject calling citizens feudal), I see the Khap issue as more of culture and pluralism, just like Hindus in India need to be monogamous but Muslims can be legally polygamous. Sorry. We need evidence and not wp:OR or its other derivatives. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Brahmins are feckless; (Lacking in efficiency or vitality, Unthinking and irresponsible.) How can you say such things about groups of people? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that Brahmins are feckless. And people do cite entire chapters - it is just that I do not. You have your direct quotes from the source. If you think the source is no good then that's fine by me. If others agree with you then that's even better because it will save me the effort of having to read the rest of it. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You are right about feckless, you're simply quoting the source, that makes it more dubious, such a biased attitude. Anyways I'm happy with what you've said, let us have other eyes and fingers on the job. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Yogesh, you have still misread me. I was paraphrasing the source, which talks of how 'even in a situation where a Brahmin is feckless, they are held to be prestigious etc because of their membership of that group. I'll try to find a simple sentence that I can quote if you want but I'd rather not unless you are going to push this point because I am using reconstructions of the book from various proxies into various versions of GBooks and I don't want to hit any page limit restrictions by bouncing back and forth around it before I've read the entire thing- Sitush (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't bother Sitush! Let us have others look at the issue, till then your version stays. 17:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

And apart from the above argument, your paraphrasing was I'm sorry to say: inaccurate. For example in slavery time America, even the most talented black would never have the opportunities that were available for the most ordinary white person. So the "feckless" thing is eminently platitudinous. Remember "continue" means 2013 Kerala, the place that elected the world's first Communist governmet. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It was inaccurate? Please do explain - I mean, I can see that a different adjective might be chosen from the many that are in the lexicon but the point would remain fundamentally the same. I've no idea what blacks in the US or elections of a communist government have to do with this but I worry about you stepping over the limits of your topic ban wrt the first. Don't comment about colonial history anywhere, would be my advice. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe not colonial history in this instance, but something close to it. My apologies - I really cannot understand what you point is and that makes the statement awkward to reply to. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The black and white issue wasn't about colonial America, the civil rights movement happened in many of our lifetimes. You have to provide evidence that untouchability is practiced in progressive Kerala, an almost hundred percent literate state, in 2013. Don't bother with shuffling proxies in a hurry, take your time. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Or I could say, "Writing in 2000, the Olessas say that ..." I cannot possibly synthesise content by saying that because source X says untouchability was practiced in 2013 then the Ezhavas practice it in relation to the Pulayars, so if we take your position we would need a source that says they still practice it vs Pulayar now ... and next year, we would need another source ... and the year after. Etc. Is this really necessary? 2000 is recent and you are splitting hairs, but I'll see if I can find something even though I doubt it exists. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

And out of interest, what was the literacy rate in 2001? And why does literacy affect untouchability? - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You said that you have paraphrased considerable texts to arrive at the "continue" statement, which is quite useless whatever its vintage. I withdraw for the time being. Let others look at this little disagreement between us. I call a for a consensus on the issue. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Paraphrased a text, not "considerable texts". I've given you some quotes and then you decided not to pursue others. I know that you consider it useless: that has generally been your POV when anything crops up anywhere that might appear to make India appear somehow at odds with some idealised modern world or somehow appears to make out that the laws of India do not work. No society is perfect, no legal system is: live with it. I have suggested a modification and you need to respond to that. Why will the modification not work? You are, of course, aware of UN Working Group on Human Rights' 2012 Status Report - Human Rights in India - which gives over much of its content to the continuing caste discrimination etc? - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

National Geographic, 2010. Not specifically Kerala, I admit. - Sitush (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This document is hosted by the Govt of Kerala, has figures from 2010-2011 and clearly demonstrates that there is still a need for special law courts etc to deal with the caste discrimination (Prevention of Atrocities Act etc). The courts bit is around pp. 8-9 but the entire thing demonstrates how ongoing work is needed. The problem is that, as with many documents hosted on Indian government websites, it is neither signed nor dated - we have no idea who actually compiled the thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is a primary source, completely useless. "The main causes and nature of harassments/atrocities arc social harassment, sexual exploitation, insult, intimidation and humiliation outraging the modesty of women causing UfY an insult of annoyance, giving false evidencc etc." No mention of untouchability, . Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sitush?, all of a sudden government is trustworthy? Earlier you were saying Indian and Kerala governments cannot be trusted, and that they don't deal with reality. I haven't seen any caste discrimination in India or Kerala lately. To a small extend, there might be class discrimination especially in matters related to marriage, which is common all around the world. Rich marry rich, poor marry poor. A poor article based on poor sources, what else can I say. Amal89 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Amal "I haven't seen" is not right, remember verifiability and not truth. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read my edit summary for the addition of the govt document, where I specifically say that it cannot be cited. It is presented as an example for this rather weird discussion only. I also raised the problem of veracity at the end of my commentary about it. Is everyone suddenly incapable of reading what I write? - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

And, Yogesh, read what the article says - "the Ezhavas continue to practise discriminatory aspects of untouchability" is not saying that they practise full-on untouchability (which in Kerala used to extend as far as unsee-ability). - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• "They practice discriminatory practises of untouchability", (they've given up practise of non-discriminatory practises: whatever they were?) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You have somehow managed to misread it yet again. Start over, please. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

And that the arrangement of housing in villages remains segregated: Nayars live next to Brahmins, who live next to Ezhavas, etc, in a pattern that appears to form an widening circle from some central point where the significant temple(s) stand(s). This made me laugh, I mean, What???? Allright, Based on the article's assumption that thiyya and ezhava are same, example, Sree Muthappan temple (a temple mentioned in this article); thiyyas are the custodians of the temple, pooja done by brahmins, nayars not at all involved but allowed to pray. Thiyya elects the brahmin from a pool of brahmin poojaries. Another example, vadakan paatu-putholam veedu, thiyya local rulers, soldiers mostly nayars and thiyyars, ministers nayars and thiyyars. Where is descrimination/untouchability here? One more example: Kalaripayattu, the martial arts founded by the thiyyas, thiyyas train nayar and brahmin students. And this is like for the last 150 years or so. Everything I said here, you can verify for real and also through any secondary sources.One question - Is this article worth all this trouble? I know, you will tell the same 'Gimme sources'. But don't you also feel that the sources this article is based on are also not reliable? Amal89 (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, Amal89, I am quite content not to continue reading this source if people consider it to be unreliable. It was supplied by Irajeevwiki because they think it supports Thiyyas being distinct from Ezhava. Now what do you think of it? Given your purpose here, the words foot, yourself and shoot come to mind. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush: At 2.00 am, a person is not at his most alert. I meant to write text, "texts" was a typo. My bad. We have a specific statement, "continued ... untouchability", "caste discrimination is another story", (I prefer to duck under your allusive bouncers). Sitush you are trying to defend the indefensible (imo), let us step back and leave others to opine on the subject, for the moment. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Funny that Amal mentions Kalaripayattu, the current version of the article mentions it being done by Nayars and Thiyyas, but interestingly enough if I go back a year and some, the article says "Nayars and Ezhavas". The new version retains the same footnote but says "Tiyya" instead. I checked the Luijendijk source, it explicitly says "Ezhava caste (or Tiyya)". So I put it back in as "Ezhava (Tiyya)". I might need to go track down who it was who removed the word "Ezhava" and inserted "Tiyya". There seems to be quite the effort to disassociate the Tiyya from the Ezhava on Wikipedia, I might have to go poke my nose around on this one. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, If Irajeevwiki has given that( as you said), well, and from what I said, I don't think how is it that I am opposing him. From my explanation, isn't it obvious that there is clear distinction between thiyyas and ezhavas, as pretty much all things I said in it proves that. This article said that ezhavas practice untouchabilily and maybe it could be right, I don't know. But thiyyas never practices it. Proof? that is what i have explained. Which clearly shows that thiyya and ezhava are not same. Please don't try to twist the facts. And Matthew, you cannot take everything from thiyyas : God, culture, dynasties, arts(theyyam, kalaripayattu) and give it to ezhavas. You might be able to win here. But it's totally not worth it. It makes no difference in the real world. Thiyyas shall and always will remain distinct from ezhavas. It just proves how ignorant some people are. Truth, you cannot bury it. Sooner or later, it will come out. And that day, Oh I wish, I could see you guys for real :D for all your persistent efforts to associate everything of thiyyas to ezhavas, I might be able to give you a consolation prize :D.
Amal89 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As has been explained to you many, many times: I/we are not out on some quest to destroy the Tiyyas, you're apparently just upset that we aren't allowing you to just write whatever you believe to be correct without proper sourcing. I am most emphatically not "taking" kalaripayattu away from the Tiyyas, I am noting that the source explicitly says "Ezhava (Tiyya)", a distinction which other editors are apparently attempting to obscure. Again, to be clear: I am the one faithfully sticking to published sources, the "other side" are the ones trying to cheat the system because they care more about their cause than they do about keeping Wikipedia neutral and an accurate summary of reputable published works, not what a bunch of anonymous blokes on the internet emotionally demand to be true. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Amal89, I am beginning to think that I should request the software developers to include a button in the edit window so that I can insert a standard message, viz. "You appear to have misread/misunderstood what I said." You are claiming that the info about village organisation is wrong yet it comes from a source that Irajeevwiki wants to use for the "Thiyya are not Ezhava" argument. One of you thinks the source is unreliable, and the other does not. - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Amal, this is not the end of the world and truth is going to come out one day and that day is near very near...MatthewVanitas you have been asking for reliable sources, how many sources we have provided, did you have a look at the sources, sources have been agreed and accepted by Sitush and now he is coming up with a lame reason of not having time to update it...! I hope others are also watching this Keepwalkingji (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

When the "truth" is reported in a reliable source then we can use it here. Irajeevwiki has provided two possible sources recently but both Yogesh and Amal89 now appear to think that one of them is not reliable, although I think it may be ok if the context is valid. As for your allegation of my "lame" excuse, well, please assume good faith. You really, really do not understand the amount of crap I am dealing with and you vastly underestimate my integrity. - Sitush (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Now Government documents are trustworthy for Sitush. This is what i said Sitush has got his own rules and laws here. He dictates rules for caste related discussions. if you have your own ideas then this is not probably a place for you. Please dont make Wikipedia a soapbox. You have to start your own website to publish your ideas. irajeevwiki talk 02:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No more arguments

It has been fairly obvious that some of these admins have taken this thiyya thing personally and because of which civilized and/or neutral discussions are no longer possible. It is a matter of pride for them to accept they are wrong and so they won't. It is also obvious that, no matter what proof we give, they won't be considering it as reliable. I request, all those who have been arguing with them to stop it as this is totally not worth it. We have better things to do. A wise man once said, 'Don't stoop to their level. If they want to deal with you, let them raise their level'. Right, this is not the end of the world. One Wikipedia article will make no difference in our life-style, culture or anything. Let them have this victory, if it means so much to them. And to the 'other side' , Congrats! You Won! Happy? :D Amal89 (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The timing of this makes this sound a bit like "you can't fire me, I quit!". The fact that a Wikipedia article not going your way is a very healthy attitude though, embodied in an essay I agree with a great deal. If sockpuppets are found on that investigation, thing will probably give this talk page more breathing space to work on improving the article. Assuming you are not evading a block, you are always welcome to introduce new information here on the talk page, but stepping away from an argument is a skill that comes with the realisation that not having your way is not the end of the world. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Everyone here thinks I'm an admin. Does that mean I am doing something wrong? Yes, that query is deliberately ambiguous. - Sitush (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, I am not running away. I shall wait until the sockpuppet investigation. It always is a wonderful feeling to see your opponent pissed. And about stepping away from this argument, I just happen to remember this quote 'Never wrestle with a pig....'. No, sitush you are not doing anything wrong, this article is perfect and soon will be nominated to Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. Amal89 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Rajeev and Amal, would I or you be able to write with the same authority on some obscure English subject, the way Sitush is able to contribute to Indian subjects. See his level of commitment to Wikipedia, the number of articles he edits, the many sources he comes up with when he is confronted with an argument. I also understand that he isn't in the best of health either. On the other hand I don't say that the situation is perfect, far from it. I have gone on record at AN/I with the statement that caste articles are rubbish, therefore I've no interest in them. The only reason I am editing this one is that I don't wish a few more potentially good editors being slaughtered. Patience and hard work are old fashioned words, but they come to my mind. I am sorry for being pedantic. Please don't edit war or attack editors personally, even in retaliation, the only outcome of doing so would be being blocked or banned. Please study Wikiepdia policy carefully, collaborate constructively on a variety of articles, that would result in you and your edits being taken more seriously. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there is an ongoing SPI, SPI's are not trustworthy, they were tried against me many times, one came positive, which was then accepted as false-positive. Friends don't be wp:SPAs that would be a good prophylactic against such ills, I'm sure each one of us who has converged here has other varied interests, editing those subjects would establish an unique identity. Yogesh Khandke (talk)

Yogesh, we all came here (including you) with the purpose of making this article better. But unfortunately, we are being accused of sockpuppeting. This attitude of admins and others clearly shows how unwilling they are to have any 'good' discussion with us. I did not even once try to edit this article. There is no longer good faith here. And as far as my knowledge on human behavior goes, they won't let this article change even if we provide clear reliable sources. Why waste time fighting over an useless cause? We can try, but if people are unwilling then it's time to let it go. Anything we say, if you observe, is only 'bruising their ego', and taken as an insult to their intelligence, which forces them to come up with an explanation that opposes/pity our view (no matter what our view is). Perhaps you are right, there are far better articles out there that requires our help. Amal89 (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That is the way to take it, move to another article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeing editors that disagree with you as opponents is the core of the problem. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh. If Sitush got any issues with editing Ezhava article based on reliable new sources then let him keep the article as is. But why the POV Fork is there. It is unfair and it is stopping other contributors to create articles here. Thiyyar has been forked to Ezhava. I have supplied reliable sources here and still not ready to remove for Forking of Thiyya.. !!! That is not right and it is against wikipedia rules. I know sitush edited may be thousands of articles but i have looked only Ezhava article and found many serious errors and i have no idea to look other articles written or edited by SItush. May be he is senior Editor here, he might have thousands of books in his shelf (he said that before), thats not what we need here in wikipedia. We need articles to be written based on Reliable sources. This Ezhava article has been written based on biased political writers and i wouldnt worry about asking for editing it again. irajeevwiki talk 08:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, you have been taking about Sitush contribution to Indian subjects, please browse through this talk page which he again playing a major role http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nair and see the comments made by the contributors against Sitush:) :) and you still belive he is a valuable contributor?? I earlier thought wiki is a reliable source but SORRY to say..i don't trust it any more and let me see what we can do in cyber crime against defamation Keepwalkingji (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Irajeevwiki, I really think you should consider contributing to whatever language wikipedia is native for you. You've been told at least twice that POV fork is not the correct word (by its definition, a POV must refer to another article, and there is no article at Thiyya), and you've been told dozens of times that what you think are reliable sources aren't...all you're doing now is wasting people's time. Keewalkingji, please explain what you mean by your last sentence. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

keepwalkingji, Giving this to cyber crime - will only block the link to this page from India. It will still be there but no Indian user will be able to see it. I say, let it be there, let the world see this foolishness. And when more users come, let them keep on accusing them of being sockpuppets. Amal89 (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks to be a breach of WP:NLT. DeCausa (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Friends I had warned you, now we have the firing squad activated. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Amal89 is now indefinitely blocked for making legal threats -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC) (see below) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Let us sort this out Qwyrxian. under what circumstances you are ordering me to use a different language other than english here. I have been told by another contributor that "Thiyyar" has been forked to Ezhava [[1]] take your time to read that. And i would like to ask you.... whats wrong with my english here.... Kindly mention which reliable source you think is not reliable to you !!!! Many times i have raised issue here that "Thiyya" has been redirected to Ezhava, I know there is no article called Thiyya here, but if you type THIYYA in wikipedia search it is redirecting to EZHAVA. I will definetely take this issue seriously that you have told here that sources i have supplied is not reliable but Sitush telling that is RELIABLE... Whats wrong with you guys and why you guys wasting my valuable time here. irajeevwiki talk 09:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Rajeev I'm answering a question that you asked on your page, Thiyya redirects to this article. Unless you find consensus to do so, it would be impossible to create it as a separate article. See when you type "Thiyya" in the search window, you land at Ezhava. Under Ezhava is a horizontal line, under the line is written "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" under that you will find in round brackets (Redirected from Thiyya), if you click on Thiyya page, you are taken to the Thiyya page that has a link to Ezhava, if you click on view source you'd find the following text: #REDIRECT [[ezhava]], the page is locked so to edit it you need to appeal to an admin on its talk page: Talk:Thiyya, looking at matters as they are it would be difficult to achieve unless there is a consensus here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Yogesh, being a new user I am still learning wikipedia terminologies but i didnt say anything wrong there. I said article THIYYAR has been forked to Ezhava But Qwyrxians comment still doesnt make sense to me. Why did he ask me to use a different language to contribute in wikipedia. Is it a clear form of bullying WP:BULLY and WP:PA He has been targeting me ever since i started the discussion here. He said POV Fork is not the correct word , can you please explain Qwyrxian !!! I repeat THIYYAR (not THIYYA) has been forked to Ezhava and please fix it so that a new article can be published here exclusively for Thiyyar. And also kindly tell me whats wrong with my ENGLISH irajeevwiki talk 10:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Also Kindly explain why

BOOK : Social Mobility In Kerala (Modernity and Identity in Conflict) Author : Fillippo Osella and Caroline Osella Publisher : Pluto Books, LONDON ISBN : 07453 1694 8 (Hardback) ISBN 07453 1693 x (Paperback).

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rMRw0gTZSJwC&pg=PA265&dq=Dowry+tiyyas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AnZXUeD2CNCSiAec8ID4Bg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tiyyas&f=false

Is not reliable to you !!!!!! irajeevwiki talk 11:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

On looking at this book, it doesn't seem to be clear on whether the castes are the same or different. For example, on page 195 of the text, the authors translate the title of a Kumaran Asan poem as Thoughts of a Tiyya (Izhava) boy. Which suggests to me that the authors don't think they are different and perhaps the text pieces you've found merely point to a difference in nomenclature between the north and the south (of Kerala). --regentspark (comment) 15:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

zeebedee, Oh, I am sorry, which legal threat where you referring to? I was kinda suggesting keepwalkinji not to give a complaint to cyber crime. And ya the block sucks, its easy to circumvent it. "Amal89". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.130.159 (talk) 09:58, 2 April :2013 (UTC)

Hi Amal89, I sincerely apologise for my mistake - I clearly wasn't reading and thinking properly. I have unblocked your account with an apology in the log. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

@irajeevwiki. You need to listen to what people like Qwyrxian are saying to you. It's clear from looking at this talk page that you are not doing that. He's not bullying you, he's trying to explain to you aspects of how Wikipedia works and you're not listening because you are being so argumentative.

"POV fork" means something else. Read WP:POVFORK where it says "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a 'POV fork'." What you are talking about is a "re-direct" which you think should be an article and not just a re-direct. DeCausa (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply DeCausa. But I'm sure that I'm talking here about POV Fork, There was an article in Wikipedia called THIYYAR, that has been deleted in 2012 April and thiyyar has been forked to ezhava. Please look this [[2]] Because Sitush claimed that the article content of deleted thiyyar was same as ezhava, he believed that thiyyar and ezhava are same caste. Now we have supplied new books which prove that these two castes are separate. What I'm requesting in this talk page is, since sitush's claim is illogical and no longer valid, there is no point of keeping thiyyar as fork of ezhava article. So kindly remove it.

Other query is about REDIRECTION. Thiyya has been redirected to ezhava, yogesh explained me how to fix that. I will follow his instruction.irajeevwiki talk 12:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry irajeevwiki, but you still don't understand what "fork" means in this context. Thiyyar (with an "r") has not been "forked to" Ezhava, it has been deleted as it was considered to be a "fork of" or "forked from" Ezhava. To say that the non-existent article has been "forked to" something simply doesn't mean anything. In adition, Thiyya (with no "r") has been redirected to Ezhava -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Zebedee, it was creally un-understandable. Now it is clear. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear friends, it has been a while since i am watching all these discussions. Irajeevwiki, you have done a commendable job in finding all those references and putting it up here, but feel sad that all those hard work has become like a line drawn on water. Anyways i can try to get my grandfathers SSLC certificate which is pre-independence, i hope Thiyya caste must be categorized under FC there. Its a known fact that pre independence Thiyyas were categorized as FC and later when Kerala State formed they were made under OBC for administrative purpose and from there onwards we started loosing our identity to Ezhavas.Rammanohar83 (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned I am saying Sorry for that post of mine on defamation Keepwalkingji (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

RELIABLE SECONDARY REFERENCE BOOK GIVEN BELOW....

EZHAVA AND TIYYA CASTES ARE SEPARATE

BOOK : Social Mobility In Kerala (Modernity and Identity in Conflict) Fillippo Osella and Caroline Osella Publisher : Pluto Books, LONDON ISBN : 07453 1694 8 (Hardback) ISBN 07453 1693 x (Paperback)

Thiyya is completely distinct caste, SNDP merged Thiyya to Ezhava… THIS IS THE PROOF.

Page number 189 Last Paragraph.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rMRw0gTZSJwC&pg=PA265&dq=Dowry+tiyyas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AnZXUeD2CNCSiAec8ID4Bg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tiyyas&f=false

Tiyya caste unified with Ezhavas during formation of SNDP. Formation of the SNDP created conditions for unification within a state wide caste of hitherto endogamous regional groups such as Izhavas, Chovans and Thiyyas., but also for the articulation and projection of an essentialised collective identity, albeit moulded in the image and aspirations of the izhava elite.

This is the evidence that SNDP was behind uniting Ezhava and Thiyya for political gain and it is clear that these castes were distinct.

Also on Page 95

The SNDP has been by and large successful in unifying formerly endogamous regional groups (Tiyyas, Chovans and Izhavas) into a state wide caste. While marriages between Travancore Izhavas and Malabar TIyyas are rare, they do occasionally take place, as love marriages needing little rehabilitation or as sought for alliances between wealthy elite families.

Admins…...What else you want me to provide to prove that these castes are separate. As i always claimed, these castes were united by SNDP for political gain. The culture, ritual, physical appearance completely different and i request all admins please understand this. This book is not Primary reference. This is Secondary reference and kindly change your stand and let us fix the article.

Many admins claimed that there are some secondary reference available which say these castes are same. Those books were written based on SNDP's decision of uniting them for political gain, but in reality they are different.

Cultural differences include Dowry, Rituals etc. Kalamezhuthu pattu is Ezhavas "serpent worship" ritual. Muthappan is Thiyya God. There are many many differences between these two groups.

I request all admins and contributors involved in this discussion to refer the book and take necessary actions to remove POV Fork of Thiyya irajeevwiki talk 01:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Endogamy and exogamy among clans within a caste are tricky issues: many clans are exogamous but caste-endogamous, but this is not universal and indeed we even see hypergamy in south India. One source does not make a summer, of course, but thanks for digging up this one. I am pretty sure that I have read it previously but I take a wander through it again. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sitush. I bought this book from online and read it before commenting here, which took couple of days for me and i am sure you guys wont ignore it like you did with other books. Wikipedia has to publish truth based on secondary reliable source books. irajeevwiki talk 02:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I, for one, have not ignored any source that has been proffered here and I have also read a lot more than probably anyone else involved in this long discussion has done. I resent your accusation. I said that I will look at it and I will, but I reiterate that I am fairly sure I have seen it previously - I'll check my notes for that tomorrow but, regardless, will go through the thing again. I rather think that I have a copy among my 5k-6k of books. - Sitush (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I can only see small snippets of that, but the few sentences I can see would seem to support the insertion of language like, "Social anthropologist Filippo Osella said that the Ezhava and Thiyya used to be endomaous regional groups, and that they were unified by the SNDP as a political action to create an 'essentialized collective identity'." But I'd like to know, of course, what the surrounding paragraphs say; if Sitush has the book, I'm comfortable waiting. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If I had a copy, I cannot find it. I used it for the Nair article a couple of years ago. I've found that I can reconstruct it using various proxies and will read it that way. As a first point, the word "Tiyya" appears only on p. 195 and "Tiyyas" on pp. 95 and 189, which means I'll concentrate on the chapters titled Working for Progress (pp. 73-116) and Mobility and Power (189-219). I'll have a quick dig around the rest of it. Irajeevwiki, for GBooks issues please see User:Sitush/Common#GBooks. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not snippet preview Qwyrxian. If you click on that page you can see preview of the whole page and even you can flick through pages. I am reading second book from the list i have been supplied. Second book also saying the same thing. See below

ANOTHER SECONDARY REFERENCE BOOK BELOW (WP:RS)

Book : State Formation and Radical Democracy in India Manali Desai Publisher : Routledge, OXON, OX14 4RN. Published in USA & CANADA Master ebook ISBN 020396774-7 ISBN 10:0-415-40769 (hbk) ISBN 10: 0-203-96774-7(cbk)

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=60m9znJQmmkC&pg=PA66&dq=narayana+guru+tiyya+ezhava&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GahXUaq3Kcq8kQX63IHgBw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=tiyya&f=false

Page 66 Second Paragraph

Among the SNDP's demands were the right for Ezhavas to use public roads, admission for Ezhava children into schools and representation in the services. Their primary tactic was the use of memorials or petitions to the government. Members were asked to give up superstition, wasteful social customs and practices and follow an austere path. A similar movement arose among the low caste Tiyyas of Malabar, who were also traditionally toddy tappers and distributors. Same page last paragraph

The later Ezhava and Tiyya movements emphasized self help and economic self reliance, which in principle stood directly contray to the principle of class based organisation and mobilization against a definite class antagonist.

Page 67 Second Para

Members of the Ezhava and Tiyya caste associations sought to erect their own temples.

Two different castes united under a banner called SNDP. But they are completely different castes. irajeevwiki talk 03:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Irajeevwiki, I thought we explained before (though maybe I'm remembering a different article), but Google books is not the same for everyone. Depending on exactly where you are (among other factors), it's entirely possible for one person to see most of a book, another person to see selected pages, and still another to see only snippets. So I believe you when you say you can see the whole thing, but I can't. As for your second source, we can include information from that, though I'm not certain we can use it to say what you want to say. But it still seems useful in a section describing their attempts to gain social mobility. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I am curious to know after reading all the text above as to what is acceptable and on what basis is the books written by well known scholars being disregarded . In almost all the references here the Thiyya and Ezhava separation is clearly justified . Regional difference is what leads to being a separate community . Malayaless and Tamilians and Kandadigas are all South Indians ..but are they the same .. dont we have a different language and custom due to regional differences .. so the regional difference is a point to be noted . Only thing common for a Thiyya and a Ezhava is the toddy tapping . Other than that there is nothing common among Thiyya and Ezhava . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineethsat (talk • contribs) 14:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please look at the article. There are numerous, high quality sources that say the two groups are the same, with just different names in different areas. Luckily, people are finally now, after months of prodding, producing good, reliable sources that say the opposite. So now we can start including the alternative opinion in the article as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you guys have ever really lived along with a Thiyyan and a Ezhavan .. you will notice the differences in the way of life and the mentality of the 2 castes . Ezhavas used to call the Nair Nambiar caste as Thamburan / Thamburati .. but Thiyyas never used to . Thiyyas dint bow down to the so called upper caste as the Ezhavas did . In this modern day world I dont intend to be discriminatory But calling a Thiyyan as Ezhavan and including Thiyya as a sub caste of Ezhava is disrespecting a entire community . If the claims that state both are same are true why is it that Ezhava is given priority and Thiyya made a sub caste under Ezhava . Is it the distance to the capital . The 14% reservation given by the Government to Thiyya and Ezhava has been garnered by the Ezhava and the Thiyyas have little share in it . This is all due to the political alliance of the Ezhava to SNDP and their vote bank politics . The Ezhava community is based more in south kerala and Thiyya in North Kerala . South Kerala was under kings rule till we got independence . Where as North Kerala was under direct British rule and that has uplifted the Thiyyas to great heights Also before the British rule none of the kings ever had total control of North Kerala . it was due to the autonomous nature of the Thiyyas of the Malabar that nobody could ever gain control of the region fully . These are the facts any old timer would agree to . So I kindly request the admins to do more in-depth research before publishing such claims . Thanks and Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineethsat (talk • contribs) 04:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Vineethsat, just assume for the moment that I am a notable person and that someone has created an article about me on Wikipedia. I turn up at the talk page and demand that they remove all references to me being a man because I am a banana who just happens to wear a hat when I go outside. My government have agreed with me but won't help me get a job not because I am mad but because the oranges are conspiring against me. I realise that this is completely facetious but would you change the article based on what I say? - Sitush (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sitush , when the regional differences are so vast , the customs traditions and even the physical characteristics on a average make it clear that Thiyya and Ezhava are different . Then how can someone claim that they are one . Thats the reason I said people who have lived among both the communities will openly agree to the fact that they are not the same . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vineethsat (talk • contribs) 09:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Why the POV Fork still there, remove it so that Thiyyar article can be published. I wanted to show evidence that you have been asking to me to produce that these castes are distinct and i have produced here WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, WP: TERTIARY references. I have no idea to edit Ezhava article. I have created an article for Thiyyar and it is in limbo just because of this POV Fork and Redirect of Thiyyar created by an admin.

Please remove it so that at least i can show the world that there is a different caste existing in this world called Thiyyar with a completely different culture from other castes. This is the proposed article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thiyyar. irajeevwiki talk 23:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Irajeevwiki, I realise that this must be frustrating for you but there is no deadline. The world is not going to stop turning, as far as I am aware, just because some issue relating to Ezhava/Thiyya drags on for a while.

I am not sure whether anyone else is checking the info that you have provided in this thread but I do appreciate that you have gone to the effort to dig the stuff out and that, yes, the first one appears to be reliable. I've not looked at the second one yet. We all have real lives to lead and then, in our wikipedia state, a few of us have a fairly big "workload" (it is voluntary, but hopefully you understand what I mean). For example, I have over 1600 articles on my watchlist, many of which attract vandals, inexperienced contributors etc on a daily basis: those all need to be monitored as well as any talk page issues that arise. Right now, I am involved in substantial discussions relating to Iyengars, Chamars, Ramdasias, Ezhavas and various other communities and the backlog of reading material is getting bigger by the day. It is currently several thousand pages from books and articles, and I do like to do my own research and expand/create a few things from time to time also.

On the other hand, without wanting to blow my own trumpet, I do have a certain respect within the Wikipedia community for my efforts to dig into these sourcing issues and to appraise them: that respect has been hard-earned and while I am by no means always right and have no more right to judge than anyone else, I'll guarantee you that if you mention a source here then I will do my utmost to examine it.

I can do no more and go no faster. And, for various reasons, I probably do more in that aspect of developing Wikipedia's caste-related content than most can manage. Obviously, anyone can do this stuff in theory but in practice it can be less easy or even palatable - we all have different abilities and resources etc. It will be great if others comment on the sources that you have found but, for example, Qwryxian - whom I respect greatly - has already said that they cannot even see this stuff. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I know it is not very important for you but I believe wikipedia is source of knowledge to many people.

Google any word, and there is a good chance a Wikipedia article will be the first or second search result. Moreover, many of the results lower down the rankings are likely to be sites that mirror Wikipedia. Wikipedia is unavoidable. For this reason Wikipedia is frequently the first thing people read when, for example, they wish to find out about a political party during an election. Although it ought not be the final stop for someone seeking information of this kind, its ease of access frequently does make it the first and last source of information for many people. Some people will tell you there is no deadline, because all errors will be corrected in the long run. That may or may not be true, but most people won't keep revisiting the article every week as it gradually improves. They will only read one version of the article: the one that is up there right now. It is for this reason that if an article contains false or unverifiable content, you should correct it as soon as possible. As per WP:NOW. irajeevwiki talk 04:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The difficulty is two-fold. Firstly, WP:DEADLINE is far more often referred to by experienced contributors than WP:NOW. Secondly, WP:NOW is primarily an ideal, as is evidenced by current developments on this particular article. Unless other experienced and reasonably au fait people come in here, or until Wikipedia starts paying people to work full-time on research for articles and tells them to prioritise this one, well, you'll just have to wait. And there is zero chance of the WMF going down the paid-editor route.

For what it is worth, you can see that I have already begun to use the Osella source. Please take that as a sign of my good faith, otherwise I may as well not bother. It is a reliable source but it is a tricky one to incorporate here because it is primarily focussed on a study of a particular village, the name and location of which has been intentionally obfuscated by the authors in order to protect the identity of their study subjects. The authors have also wrote a shed-load of papers on the subject that are available to me via JSTOR, many of which post-date the book and may well include revisions of their opinions in the intervening decade. I'll have to go through those at some point, although mentions of Thiyya within them appear to be very few at first glance. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where on earth we live in...its HIGH TIME...first you have been asking for reliable source, after providing reliable source which is acceptable, now just giving a lame reason of not having time to update is not FAIR Keepwalkingji (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

What if the Thiyya article is started in user space? All the sources etc. then can be verified. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

hi Yogesh this is the proposed article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thiyyar how do I move that to user space. Thanks irajeevwiki talk 12:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to put it in user space. You can keep it there and try to improve it, try to see the deletion discussion too. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've created a page user:Yogesh Khandke/sandbox Thiyya perhaps you could add to it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yogesh, I have edited this page. Hope it is ok irajeevwiki talk 15:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No probs. I however thought my version was more helpful. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The last time I looked at the AfC draft, the sourcing was useless. Indeed, it was mostly stuff that has already been rejected here for various reasons. We are going round in circles, I think: some people are following policy and others do not like that. Using those sources - such as the ridiculous DNA "study" - elsewhere is not going to suddenly make them reliable.

I am sure that I have said previously here that the solution is for those who are keen to see a separate article for Thiyya/Tiyya/Thiyyar to add policy-compliant content to this article. If it should turn out then that there is an overweighting or some sources appear that clearly indicates a significant number of academics etc consider them to be different, then the Thiyya content can and will be forked. My gut feeling is that this contrary information verifying clear distinction is simply not out there but I am as willing as anyone to see this article improved and to examine proposals for forking in the event that stuff is found.

Going the route that you suggest is potentially wasting energy/time on a new article and denying the opportunity to improve this one, ie: a lose-lose situation. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Principally, we seem to agree. The glitch is that we don't know whether a source and the statement based in it, is good until we see it. Where would that be presented? That is why I suggested user space. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear irajeevwiki, the thiyya article need to be expanded and explained more before publishing it, my personal opinion is, let us not give much importance to the DNA test thing by Dr Shyamalan, about the origin of Thiyyas. Let it be mentioned but not in the way it is mentioned now. We need to add sections for famous Thiyyas, life style, how it developed and the current statistics if available online. Now the article look a bit raw, but can be polished into a gem. May i ask, a few years back we had a Thiyya article which got deleted and later the searched got redirected to Ezhava article, any idea who was the author of the same article, i remember it was a well written one, if we can get him that would be great. I think i can help in developing this article with the help of a few friends here in wikipedia.Rammanohar83 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you Rammanohar we will edit and remove the DNA section. irajeevwiki talk 19:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Yogesh' approach has a slim chance of succeeding, and yours has - frankly - next to none. Why don't you ask Yogesh directly in what way he sees a possible way forward? Mine have so far pretty much failed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Martin: What would work and wouldn't? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, what I am pretty sure of, is that working from the draft Irajeev proposed will be a fruitless endeavour. If you would choose the route to start off a separate article for Thiyya, making sure it is uncontroversial, or at least as uncontroversial as possible, and constantly asking for the input of others that don't have to agree with your point off view might come to a successful conclusion. The pitfalls along the way would be the uncompromising battleground mentality that is visible here too. I'm afraid the article would be written as a validation of identity, with the intent to proudly wear on ones sleeve. That's going to hinder consensus building so much, that I'm afraid that that too will fail - but of that I'm not 100% sure. I also fear that a new article may again be used as a pov fork, using it to present everything that has been rejected here. In that regard keeping all content related to thiyya here would be a better idea, until there is sufficient material here that has consensus to spin out to its own article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I think I understand your reservation. How about using a neutral name The separateness of Thiyya debate? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible IMO, yet establishing notability might be the trick there. The old beast of systemic bias rears its ugly head, yet with the amount of dispute, it does become very very hard to let go of even a hint of insistence on WP:RS and WP:NOR. Sitush, Rajeev, Q, what do you think? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Yogesh's subpage summarizes our Wikipedia dispute well. However, when we start hunting around for references that imply equality or separateness, we're well along the way down the synthesis and OR path. I'd prefer to see a scholarly source that explicitly states that the equivalence of Tiyya and Ezhava is historically disputed first. --regentspark (comment) 14:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Personaly, I don't mind popular sources, as long as they are not used for Synth, but sourcing for the dispute itself seems even harder to find than sourcing for Thiyya issues. I'm happy with any effort to combat systemic bias, but when the sources are only there to be left to be interpreted by our editors, the OR/SYNTH path is completely open. Add to that the many, many irreliable sources on the issue, and I agree it's a hornest's nest. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

In the thread "Real world dispute" below, Yogesh has included some news sources which I think fairly clearly state that there is a current on-the-ground political dispute about it. I don't see a problem with including a short section on that in this article. DeCausa (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. This looks like a new movement and probably, as others have indicated below, explains what's going on at this article. I agree that a section on the dispute in the article is not a bad idea. Thanks YK for digging up those references. --regentspark (comment) 15:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

We've had the section 'Dispute between Thiyya and Ezhava' for quite a while now. Does it currently need further expansion? I think it caputures the main points well, though a mention of the call for a boycot off the SNDP Ezhava-Thiyya Malabar meet by the TMS might be ok? Or are we skirting WP:NOTNEWS to closely then? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Martijn Hoekstra, are you challenging senior admins like Anthony Bradbury, Howdy! and Yogesh Khandke. I was told by Anthony Bradbury that The POV aspect is merely a matter of removing comments relating to your, or other, opinions from the article.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Kindly refrain from WP:WINNING. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. WP:IGNORE. irajeevwiki talk 01:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Rajeev I ain't an admin, I'm just another editor, actually less of an editor than most others, I have a topic ban which is huge, "Indian history and colonialism broadly construed". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

RSN APPROVES RELIABLE SOURCE

Got a reply from Editing Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (section) WP:RSN

• The Osella book is a reliable source. Pluto is an established, respected academic publisher. The authors are recognized experts in the relevant field, and have been extensively published. Content disputes, or how to resolve differences between two different RS sources, however, are not something that RSN can address. Fladrif (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Now Qwyrxian you have to admit that you were wrong in judging a reputed publishing houses book is non reliable.

Read below the communication here [[3]] irajeevwiki talk 22:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop being so nasty and hasty, please. I've already explained that you misinterpreted what Qwryxian said. I've already explained that the source was reliable, although the fact that one person says so at WP:RSN is actually confirmation of nothing in particular. The problem is not whether the source is reliable but whether it says what you claim it does, and there are growing doubts concerning that. You will have to be patient, as I have also previously said. - Sitush (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

What the person at RSN said - and you ignore here - is that RSN is not the place to resolve content disputes. Guess what I told you before that response appeared? Yep, indeed. - Sitush (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Retract. There's a blip gone on somewhere: the quote is now there but previously it was just a link. - Sitush (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, the only people here who appear possibly to have doubted the reliability of the Osella work are Yogesh and Amal89, both in the Untouchability section above. - Sitush (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hello! I didn't doubt Osella's reliability, (whoever they are), my issue was with Sitush's inability to support his statement that "Ezhava's continue to practise untouchability", (emphasis added) with a quotation from the original. He said he paraphrased many pages of text to do so, which I think makes the source not right for that comment, he ought to provide a more straight forward source or drop the allegation. (Also Rajeev please don't use uppercase and please use proper indenting while contributing to talk pages) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I request you to read this Sitush WP:AVOIDYOU You shouldn't have used the word nasty, I resent that remark. irajeevwiki talk 01:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Irajeevwiki, I don't think I ever rejected the source; I was simply saying that I wanted someone(s) more than you to actually read the source--not just one sentence, not a paragraph, but at least a few pages to understand the context. We need to know this in order to understand how to incorporate the information in the article. Given your statements so far, and the positions you've taken on this page, I'm not willing to trust that you 1) understood the text completely and 2) are representing the entirety of the author's position. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough Qwyrxian, could we have the text verbatim, with the statement you intend to base on that text please Rajeev? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere above, I mention that Thiyya are referred to only three times in the entire book (using a search). I am reading the entire book to check that search and to find other info. RegentsPark refers to one of those times, which is definitely not clear regarding the distinction between the groups. For the line that Irajeevwiki cites, I have the entire chapter as a series of screenshots, bar a few pages towards the end where the writers have most definitely moved on to other things. Alas, it is a lot of screenshots: at least 2 per page, sometimes 4. For the sake of some peace and quiet, I'll skip the rest for now and just read that chapter later today. I've already ascertained that most of the book subsequent to the introductory chapters refers to studies within one unidentified village (ie: names changed to protect the study subjects). - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, if the name Thiyya is not referred many times in a book, does it make thiyya equal to ezhavas? what we need to look into is what it is written in the book, the matter rather than it is referred many times or not. From what i have understood after reading all these discussions, any book which refers Thiyyas and ezhavas as different is not reliable to you and the books which states they are similar even if it is not a profound author, you find it reliable. What kind of double standards is this?Rammanohar83 (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) The page 265 text is an elaboration note for the following text (on page 75) Much SNDP-inspired history give prominence to Izhava military skills and the feats of Izhava chivalric heroes such as Aromal Chegavar, Unniarcha and Aromal Unni, protagonists of well-known folk songs (note-17), their exploits captured in popular films, supporting, to some extent, the idea that the authors equate Tiyya and Izhava. The page 95 text quoted above, for example, states that these endogamous regional groups have been unified into a state wide caste, giving further credence to the view that, in modern times, they are the same caste. The page 189 text does state that there are "occasional eruptions of plurality", but the Tiyyas are not explicitly mentioned as being a part of these eruptions and the "occasional" qualification indicates that this is not a major issue and is better addressed in the context of the larger caste grouping. My understanding, albeit limited by what I see on this page, is that the Tiyyas and Izhavas are a caste grouping that is identified by their historical toddy tapping profession but that the two come from different geographical regions (Malabar versus Southern Kerala). This geographical distinction does perhaps lead to differences in their history but those are perhaps better covered in regional histories rather than in an article on castes, particularly since the main historical distinction appears to be the dubiously supported Kyrgyz origin one. --regentspark (comment) 09:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Regents Park kindly understand that there are many books have been published in the past after SNDP Merged Ezhava and Thiyya. Based on the reliable source i have supplied. Thiyya is completely distinct caste. Please dont bring confusion here again. Aromal Unni and unniyarcha are from North Malabar, where even now you cant find any ezhava living there. You didnt even mention from which book you got all this info from and there is no ISBN number, No google link. Just trying to mess up this discussion by adding more comments into this talk page. irajeevwiki talk 10:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

When you say Unniyarcha and Aromal, they are heroine and heroes from the ballads we have been singing since childhood and you are talking things based on some unreliable sources. irajeevwiki talk 10:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for being unclear but I thought it obvious from the section title. The book I am quoting is the Osella book (the reliable source you have supplied). The Aromal and Unniyarcha extract (equating them as heroes of the Izhava) is from that book. Hope this helps clarify things. --regentspark (comment) 10:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Having read pages 95, 189 and 265 of the Osella source, I agree with RegentsPark. It seems quite clear it is saying that the Tiyyas and Izhavas are now considered the same caste and that the formation of the SNDP "created the conditions" for this. Specifically, it says on page 95 "Although some regional differences exist (for example between South Kerala Izhavas and north Kerala Tiyyas) internal subdivision of endogamous regional groups into exogamous "Illams" (houses, localised lineages...) has completely disappeared." (I've added the bold emphasis) That seems to be saying that the differences between Tiyyas and the Izhavas constituted an "internal sub-division of an endogamous regional group" which has now disappeared although "some regional differences" still exist. DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

These things makes people confusing, whole world is getting confused about Aromal and Unniarcha and other characters in Northern ballads, many people thinks they are from padakurupu family which is utter nonsense, and here in this case calling them Ezhava is another propaganta story created by SNDP trying to equate Thiyyas with Ezhavas. Apart from this toddy tapping profession what is there common between Thiyya and Ezhavas? does Ezhavas have centuries old kavu or family temples to worship? does they have theyyam's/Thira, does they have 'anchadi' for each family which panan's resit during family temple festivals? All thiyyas can be traced back to 8 illams, can any ezhavas trace back to these illam's or does they have any illamas to where all ezhavas can be traced back which make them similar to Thiyyas? So let us leave Aromal and unniarcha and northern ballads aside, dont try to ezhavanize it please Rammanohar83 (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Regents park and DeCausa.... SNDP Is just an organisation who doesnt have any right to merge two castes. Castes are not somethings like an organisation can merge.. They are cultures, Am i talking to someone who understands what i am saying here ???? irajeevwiki talk 10:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The source (Osella) doesn't say quite what you say it says. It says the SNDP "created the conditions" for it, not that it somehow was able to compel it. You haven't read it properly. But that's not important. The point is it says they are now considered the same caste. But what are you now saying? Do you want to use this source or not? DeCausa (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

And can you please read Wikipedia:Indentation and indent your posts properly. DeCausa (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

DeCausa, from what you have written and after reading the source, what i could understand is SNDP created 'conditions to merge' two different communities which is 'now' considered one. That itself is the proof that these two communities were culturally and historically different and is being considered one only recently, thats what we all are saying here, nothing more or less.Rammanohar83 (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the other reliable sources don't make the point that they were once separate castes, as far as I can see. So, at most, that is a point that might be made along side the more generally accepted view that they were always one case. Secondly, there is ambiguity in the source (which might be explained by reading the entire chapter). I agree that the text implies that they were once not "one". But then on page 189 it also clearly implies they were "internal subdivision[s] of [an] endogamous regional group" It may be that the authors are referring to the period after they became "one", but it's unclear. I suspect that the problem is this these are only fleeting references in a book where the difference (if any) between Ezhava and Tiyya is not a major point in the book. DeCausa (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Real world dispute

According to the Hindu Vellappally Natesan of the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDP), considers Thiyyas to be the Ezhavas of Malabar, and there was no need to drive a wedge between members of the same caste, on the other hand Puthukkudi Purushothaman of the Thiyya Mahasabha disagrees with Natesan, there are calls from the Thiyya Mahasabha(TMS) to recognise Thiyya as a separate group.[4], so this isn't a sourcing dispute but a real world one. The Thiyya Mahasabha according to the Oman Tribune are is a newly formed entity, set up with the purpose of establishing the separateness of the Thiyyas.[5] These two articles refer to a convention propsed to be held in Kozhikode in Feb. 2013. The SNDP alleges that the TMS's demands are politically motivated. A court case has been filed to establish the separateness of the Thiyya.

So in the context of Wikipedia and this discussion all I would say is that Thiyyas would need gain recognition as a separate group in the real world before that happens on Wikipedia. I'm sorry Rajeev, Amal and co, we can't have Wikipedia take the initiative by creating a separate article for Thiyya. All it can do is mention the dispute in the Ezhava article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is something that needs pursuing, if suitable sources (presumably news sources) can be found. If there is a real world current (political) dispute on this - and the number of SPAs here would suggest that this is the case - then there should be a section on the existence of the dispute in this article. That makes perfect sense to me. If it builds up into a substantial section, then there may be an argument (in due course) for a separate article on the dispute. DeCausa (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a state government order that Thiyyas have to mention their caste as Ezhava.[6] The said order is being challenged in the Supreme court.[7] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Aha! I've been wondering what on earth has being going on on this talk page! All is clear: they're trying to use this article as part of the campaign. There's probably enough in what you've produced to mention the dispute in the article, IMO. DeCausa (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarification, the legal action has seemingly never been mentioned since. We were discussing this above - see Talk:Ezhava#Thiyya_legal_action_against_state_govt. Furthermore, I think that the Oman Tribune source that Yogesh links would need some more work if we were to use it. Someone would need to get a hard-copy to figure out when the thing was published. There appear to have been two bouts of news stories concerning the Thiyya Mahasabha (which may or - more likely - may not be a significant group of people): one of those was in early 2012 and the other in early 2013. Coincidentally, both sets of stories were followed by lively campaigns for a separate article for Thiyya on Wikipedia and there was a hiatus in between that roughly corresponds to an absence of any reported actions by the TM. I know we are supposed to assume good faith but this stinks of attempts to manipulate Wikipedia to assist an off-wiki purpose, as I have been saying on and off for the last (tedious) month. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke, would you agree to use any other surname, to be added to your name instead of 'Khandke' (dont know whether it is your caste name) with any other names? another example, any random nair guy, xyz nair will never allow himselves to be called xyz panikar or Pilla. Here the case is simlar, non of the thiyyas are not comfertable to write caste name as Ezhava which an exception of a very few SNDP followers which is very less in Malabar anyways. Also state govt cant impose such a rule because both Thiyya and Ezhava are numbered differently in govt records, so the supreme court verdict will be surely in favor of Thiyyas.Rammanohar83 (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

None of that is relevant to us here in Wikipedia. Please read WP:RGW. We are not here to right great wrongs, we can only reflect, for good or ill, what the weight of reliable sources say about a topic. DeCausa (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

DeCausa, they've been told that multiple times, but they steadfastly refuse to listen - I'm wondering if we might have to start issuing blocks to deal with all this disruption and try to persuade them to go fight their political battles elsewhere. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Rammanohar: Khandke isn't a caste name, I don't know its etymology. I understand you completely, let us all wait for the supreme court verdict. Having said that I would oppose blocking anyone for polite disagreement. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly there is no SNDP vs TMS dispute here, as there are no one opposing the "separate Thiyya" camp, I mean no one using off-Wiki/ wrong arguments. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Polite disagreement is one thing, but it is clear now that this is part of a political campaign. Tendentious argument and refusing to listen when told about Wikipedia's requirements is horribly distracting to those who are honestly trying to develop the encyclopedia, and is therefore disruptive. The discretionary sanctions available to admins are there for dealing with exactly this kind of situation, and I will use them if necessary. If you want to help prevent that, I think trying to get these people to stop and to take their political campaigning elsewhere would be a great help (and I do appreciate your efforts to help so far). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Where is the evidence for that? (Political campaign) How can I make these people stop, other than by trying to explain how Wikipedia works. I've appealed at the India Notice Board for help. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, in response to your earlier reply to me I read through the entirety of the page (haven't done that till now since I've only been looking in over the last couple of days). The brick wall WP:IDHT despite repeated explanation of policy by several of you, plus the knowledge that there's a RL campaign out there makes me think that continued discussion is pointless and it needs to be handled another way. DeCausa (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Me? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just praising your effort to calm things really, not blaming you in any way and I certainly don't mean to make any demands on you - I'm really just wondering if a combination of careful explanation from someone they might see as being more on "their side" coupled with the overhanging threat of caste sanctions might help to cool things down. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is still disputed and not yet solved, so why the caption saying so is removed?117.204.80.228 (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It is still disputed. So, I have restored it back. Someone have removed the banner without adding anything in the talk page. This should be prevented.Athira45 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Converts

Do the converts call themselves Ezhavas?[8] Is there anything in the article about non-Hindu Ezhavas, in the contemporary context? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is does not merely concern the "contemporary context". It concerns a community called Ezhava etc from the Year Dot onwards and the environs in which they exist(ed). Some Ezhavas converted to Islam, some to Sikhism, some to Christianity ... and in sufficient numbers that these are noted by reliable sources. In addition, reliable sources indicate a Buddhist element that may even pre-date the Hindu. However, if a community then becomes known by another name - Mappilla in this example - then content relating to that community subsequent to the change of name needs strong justification for inclusion in this article. Given that the Mappillas in some contexts somehow acquired a "higher" social and ritual status than members of their former community (as also did the Christians, by the way) then that point is worth mentioning: something caused this and although I could hazard a guess as to what that was, I've not yet come across a decent source that explains it. .- Sitush (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

All articles including the present one are written with reference to the present unless stated otherwise. This article begins: "Ezhava's are ..." just as another begins, "Cossacks are ..." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that point is specious, sorry. Article such as this are not confined to the present, have history sections etc and the use of the present tense in the opening sentence simply reflects the fact that the community is extant. I remain confused after re-reading your original query: you ask if there (is) anything in the article about non-Hindu Ezhavas - have you not actually read the thing or is there some subtlety to your query that I am not understanding? - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

When we write an article, we write it based on the present, we do write about the subject's history but we qualify it using sections like "History" etc. There are many castes that are both Hindus or Muslims or Christians, like Kolis or Rajputs, or Darzi actually numerous other ones, do we have Muslim-Ezhavas or Christian Ezhavas, if you think we do and have evidence, please present it, otherwise we should have the article state: Ezhava is a Hindu community belonging to Kerala, an Indian state. Am I clear? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV banner

I noticed that the NPOV banner is placed back at the article. I wonder which issues are still open that are disputed in this article, and what the suggested changes are. I know there is the opinion Thiyya are not Ezhava, but I think this article already discusses that in quite a balanced manner. What are at the moment the proposed changes to make this article less POVy? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that anyone believing that the NPOV template should stay needs to remember that the "When to Use" description for the template says: "An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant." See Template:POV. I agree that, based on the discussion of sources on this page, the Thiyya/Ezhava issue is discussed in a balanced way in the article. DeCausa (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. And given the details of the person who reinstated it - see here - it seems possible that it is block evasion (I won't name names but it isn't difficult to surmise who this may be). Is a "confirmed proxy" the same as an "open proxy"? I get confused with these various types. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• I make no comment on the validity or otherwise of the NPOV tag itself (I am keeping away from opinions on actual content), but I have reverted its re-addition purely because it is a pretty clear case of block evasion. (I also note that the IP is one of the ones that was active during a similar Thiyya/Ezhava dispute last year.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove the banner until we make a conclusion. Athira45 (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to put it back while you discuss it, that's fine - you're not a block-evading sock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly a personal attackWP:PA. I am a new user here! Is this the way you invite people to a conversation?Athira45 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand. Would you rather you were called a block-evading sock? - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted Athira45's reinstatement of the tag. They have now been confirmed as a sockpuppet. Unfortunately, experience suggests to me that we could be playing whack-a-mole for a few days yet. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected

As the article is already coming under attack from socks of recently-blocked editors, I have semi-protected it again - this time for six months. So any of you blocked editors who are watching, please make a note of the results of your actions - escalating protection of the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Marriage systems

I'm re-reading Kathleen Gough's various contributions to a book called Matrilineal Kinship (full details are in the article citations). This relates to an attempt to uncover some of the regional differences that have been referred to in various threads above. She says of the Ezhava/Thiyya in central Kerala that "they had a double unilineal kinship system with localised patrilineages. But in North Kerala, as in parts of Travancore, they had a matrilineal system very similar to that of the Nayars". Nayars = Nairs but can anyone convert her summary description of the central Kerala system into plain English? My brain is hurting. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Use it as a quote. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This definition of double unilineal descent from Britannica may help. It seems to be an unnecessarily obscure way of just saying the kinship system was both patrilineal and matrilineal with it being solely patrilineal in some localities. Sociologists! DeCausa (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it means you inherit immovable property from your father's family and movable property from your mother's pre-marriage family, so it means you could inherit your mother's father's car and your father's father's house. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be your mother's mother's car?! DeCausa (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me think, I don't think so, this is only about males. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It sounds pretty much indecipherable to me. If ambilineality was meant with double unilineal kinship, it would probably just been said. So maybe the line of your mothers father, and your fathers father? and what on earth are localised patrilineages? I'm going to try the reference desk. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

If you look at our Kinship#Descent rules article it seems that ambilineal and double unilineal (called, I thin, double descent there) aren't the same thing. It looks as though ambilineal means both lines have the same role and you can chose either. With Unilinial the two lines have roles but they are different (eg as Yogesh has pointed out above, different types of inhertance property). DeCausa (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Another quote came to me indirectly: "In the area of Travancore north of Quilon, Iravas followed pure marumakkattayam, or matrilineal, law; in the south, half a man's property went to his children and half to his sisters' sons. If an Irava were converted to Christianity, he took with him only what he could prove were his self-acquired property and possessions; all else belonged to his family. Even if the senior male of an Irava family in north Travancore were converted, the position was the same. Although he was the manager of the family property, he did not own it. At the same time, the matrilineal system provided a loose, flexible marriage tie, or, as the missionaries thought, no marriage at all." from from p. 47 of Robin Jeffrey (1974): "The social origins of a caste association, 1875–1905: The founding of the S.N.D.P. Yogam", South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies: Series 1, 4:1, 39-59 doi: 10.1080/00856407408730687

I'm still having problems understanding the implications (I'm good at programming, somewhat good at math and physics, and anthropology is a long way from my comfort zone). First, I need to figure out who is where again. If someone can sublimate something meaningful out of this in to the article, I'd be quite happy. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 April 2013

Ezhavas had sub castes, these sub castes were derived on the basis of the Occupation or the status they held in the Society.

The main sub castes in Ezhavas are Chekavar, Panicker, Kavuthiya & Thandan. The used to have surnames like Panicker, Chekavar, aashan, vaidyan, thampan. Chekavars were the pioneer of Kalaripayattu, epic say that lord ayyappa practiced in an ezhava kalari. Sri Kottakkal Karanan Gurukkal (Guru to C.V.N), Renakeerthy Chekavar( Cheif of Travancore Army),Mokkad Kesava Panicker (Military trainer of Ettu veetil Pillamar). Panicker surname was used by chekavars and other elite class ezhavas of merchant class and other families holding pivotal positions. Thandan sub caste were coconut tree climbers and people who made their living from toddy.

Untouchability prevailed for ezhavas of lower sub castes like Thandan, kavuthiya etc, whereas sub castes like Chekavar and panicker enjoyed good privelages and earned respect.

Kabilkarthik (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thiyya

The contention of writers about Thiyya and Ezhava as one caste is not correct. Thiyyas of Malabar were in existence thousands of years before the Ezhavas came to Kerala. Ezhava, Thiyya and Billawa have been brought under on group for the purpose of reservation. Except that Thiyyas has no connection with Ezhava which is a different caste. Thiyyas has entirely different culture, ancestry based on illams, Kavu, Gothram, Kazhakam etc. Ezhavas of Travancore has no such traditions and culture. Thiyyas is not Ezhava and not a sub caste of Ezhava, but it is a different caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmrn97 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If you type "Thiyya" or variant spellings - Tiyya, Thiyyar etc - into the search box that is towards the top right of this page (titled "Archives") then you will see that this subject has been discussed extensively on several occasions. No-one, not even those from the Thiyya community, has yet managed to produce reliable sources to support the claim. Indeed, I think that the conclusion last time round was that the claim was politically motivated, relating to demands for changes to reservation status etc. Wikipedia does not exist to promote or denigrate events or desires taking place in the "real world" but rather to summarise the available reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC

The comments of Mr Sitush are very strange. He had relied upon various documents pertaining to post-independence era as listed in the citations. The Malabar Manual written by Willian Logan gives us the correct position that existed hundreds of years ago and is considered as very authentic documents in Kerala. The Malabar Manual clearly states that the Thiyyas of Malabar considered themselves as higher caste than Ezhavas, which itself is enough to prove that Thiyya was and is a different caste and it is not part of Ezhava Caste. The history has been written in this Wiki by manipulating and twisting. The intention of Mr Sitush for assiduously attempting to describe Thiyyas as Ezhava should reasonably be suspected and whether he is doing so at the behest of somebody. He does not deserve to be treated as a historian.The Thiyya community is being insulted in this page by the writer by describing it as part of or sub caste of Ezhava.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmrn97 (talk • contribs)

The fact that people in Kerala find The Malabar Manual to be a reliable source does not mean we have to. Millions of people, for example, consider either the Qu'ran, Talmud, or Christian Bible to be not only reliable sources but the very foundation of existence...but we would never do so here on Wikipedia. The simple fact is that while the colonial authors are often reliable for their opinions or for the general opinion of British invaders/colonizers, they are not reliable for factual information, because they didn't do the standard academic work of fact-checking, gathering multiple types of information, etc. Sitush is not working on behalf of anyone, nor is he claiming to be a historian--he's simply working to make sure that this article follows Wikipedia policies. Please read WP:RS, which explains what Wikipedia requires for something to be a reliable source; if you can find any sources that meet those standards, please introduce them here and we can figure out if/how to get them into the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide the so called " Reliable article" which says " both are same" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepwalkingji (talk • contribs) 12:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Please read the article. They're in there. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2013 (UT

Many individuals have, in the post independence era or very recently, written many articles about history. Different individuals have described differently while writing history. Such articles /books are not at all relevant. When the majority of Thiyyas of Malabar (except a few who recently got enrolled in SNDP for their individual choice) always considered Thiyyas as different caste and our forefathers for generations considered Thiyya as a separate caste, how can the write conclude by quoting certain writings, that both are same community?. It is not such a thing that should be decided based on writings of any individuals as quoted in the citations. The observations about alleged short-coming in Malabar Manual is also not correct and the views are without any basis. Till independence, Malabar was part of Madras province. There were no Ezhavas in Malabar then. Ezhavas were descendants of those came from Ceylon whearas Thiyyas were here thousands of years prior to that. As I said, the culture of both itself indicates both are different. The life of Thiyyas were based on Illams, Thara, Kazhakams, Perum Kazhakams etc and the Kavu. Poorakkali and Kalaripayattu (Chekavars) pertains to Thiyyas. Poorakkali is performed by Thiyyas of Malabar in the Kavu whereas Ezhavas have no such ritualistic art. If Malabar was not merged into Kerala, the Thiyyas would not have been brought in thesame OBC group with Ezhava and those propogating for Ezhavas would not have been able to insult Thiyyas of Malabar in this way by wrongly describing them as Ezhavas. The caste system is in the minds of those who observe it for centuries or for thousands of years and their culture and traditions as quoted above and it should not be decided by quoting the articles/books written recently by any individuals. Thiyyas Caste has exclusive traditions as mentioned above. The DNA test has already been conducted which proves that the Thiyyas are not Ezhavas. Please do not insult Thiyyas by describing them as Ezhavas. Ezhava and Thiyya are two different castes but both have been brought under one reservation group inthe OBC. Schedule Caste list has several castes. That does not mean that all those castes are same. Similarly, just being in the same reservation Group, it does not mean that Thiyya is Ezhava. Wikipedia is being misused by certain people to insult Thiyyas. The management of Wiki may intervene and stop this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmrn97 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for verifying what I already assumed: you're not actually interested in learning how Wikipedia works. We always go by what reliable sources says. We never' go by what people "have thought for generations" or by what a random editor says on a random talk page without verification. If you are not interested in building an encyclopedia based on reliable sources (which is how all encyclopedias work), I suggest you find another website to work on. As a side note, there is no "Wikipedia management"; I'm, in fact, the closest thing, as an administrator here on Wikipedia. Technically, Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization in the US, but they have explicitly given editorial control over the encyclopedia to its users (excepting very basic legal issues). And Wikipedia policy is now and always has been that we provide only information which is verifiable in reliable sources. The best thing you can do now is take a look at these links, and read a little bit about our policies. Then, decide if you want to be a part of this community. You don't have to, but, if you want to, you have to be willing to follow our policies. Until you start producing reliable sources, there is nothing more to discuss here. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. You always go by what reliable sources says.. Many articles are written by individuals prejudicing the interest of Thiyyas and with the sole intention of describing them as Ezhavas. So, such articles are reliable sources for you. As I said earlier I would like to place on record once more, before quitting this wiki page which is being misused against the interest of Thiyyas, that your contention is totally baseless and We the Thiyyas are Thiyyas only and Not Ezhavas and it is for us and not any other persons with vested interests, to decide which caste we are. So, the Majority of Thiyyas of North Malabar consider ourselves as a Separate caste for generations and not part of Ezhava caste. Any attempt by any sources to treat them as Ezhavas will not succeed since the Thiyya is Thiyya only and not Ezhava. Agents of Ezhazva organisations are out to insult Thiyyas and make them exinct as a separate caste and make them as Ezhavas with the sole intention of increasing the strength of Ezhavas in Kerala. Since this page is being found misused, and I find no use in arguing with those prejudiced against Thiyyas, I hereby quit. Let your wiki continue to rely on the so called reliable sources.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmrn97 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 

Its not about quiting its about how lousely this is managed, feel shame about Wiki as an Knowldege database!! Government records are not accepted, writings and researches by famous authors are not accpeted..Dont know what they will accept..and keep saying " Reliable source" I think its time to have a look at the defination of reliable source.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.221.52.104 (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to look at the definition - it is here. I find it interesting that, yet again, there is a sudden surge of interest in the Thiyya issue on this talk page. Let me stress that Wikipedia is not going to be bowed by people coming here in concert due to requests that are made on other websites or in community publications etc. You are wasting your time unless you have constructive proposals for the improvement of this article and those proposals comply with Wikipedia's policies. What is worse, you are wasting the time of people like me and human nature dictates that eventually you will simply be ignored. So, please either come up with some useful proposals or cease echoing pointless complaints. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)