Ricky81682 (talk | contribs) Archive 2 |
Ricky81682 (talk | contribs) m →Constant Vandalism In Ezhava article: grammar |
||
Line 211: | Line 211: | ||
:::Removed editprotected request. Work out some neutral language and it will go in. Don't argue about which version is better. Make your request explicit and clear; complaining about the intentions of other users (and calling their edits vandalism) is not helpful. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 01:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC) |
:::Removed editprotected request. Work out some neutral language and it will go in. Don't argue about which version is better. Make your request explicit and clear; complaining about the intentions of other users (and calling their edits vandalism) is not helpful. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 01:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::: From the note on my talk page, it looks like someone wants to something like "Ezhavas have historically |
:::: From the note on my talk page, it looks like someone wants to something like "Ezhavas have historically had no position under the Hindu caste system, like dalits" with some sources. First, where? It seems like "Historically, they never found a place in the four-tier caste system of Hinduism" in the intro could use those sources and then more could be added in another section under "Culture" (relationship within Hinduism)? Thoughts? Oh, and Vvmundakkal, please see [[:meta:The Wrong Version|the Wrong Version]] which applies to your argument; everyone see it, it's pretty clear. If someone wants to add something (especially when you guys *know* it is going to be controversial), for the sake of peace, discuss it first on the talk page. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 05:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Poojari == |
== Poojari == |
Revision as of 06:07, 21 October 2007
Doubt
It was just now that i noticed that some information i had added was deleted. Quite some time back, several months maybe, i had added information on the subcastes of the Ezhavas. Could i know y that part was removed? Manu
- Subcastes no more exists in Ezhava community. The new generation is not aware of such a division and not interested.
- Well this is hardly about interest. In an encyclopedia u need to add as much info as possible and not mention just what "interests" the "new generation"..Manu
- Manu is correct. Information about subcastes should be given. The List of Ezhavas should be made into a new article to prevent this article from becoming too long. Please make sure that names which do not have a link or that cannot be referenced are removed. Kshatriyan 04:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Manu, Do u have any reference on Ezhava Subcastes? Panikkar
- Yes. It is from the Travancore State Manual by Nagam Aiya. If you want i can give the information here and it can be added to the article as suitable Manu —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:50, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
Happy Onam to Ezhavas the world over. long live the name of Sri Narayana GuruKamalalochanan Vaidyar 14:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, the list of famous Ezhavas are a little too extensive to include other community members as well ;-) I know for sure that Kavya Madhavan is a Saliya And KPAC Lalitha is a Nair.User:Lambodharan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.16.20 (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Selected List of Famous Ezhavas
Kavya Madhavan is not ezhava/thiyya girl.She is from Saliya community —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajithmkm (talk • contribs) 08:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- "In Kannur, many Saliya families identify themselves with Tiyyas" - A sentence taken from "Saliya" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.95.171 (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge proposal
The Origin of ezhava caste article should probably be merged into a subsection of the Ezhava article. It is an un-necessary fork. The Ezhava article already has a "Theories of Origin" section. This article can be condensed and merged into that section. --vi5in[talk] 16:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- No Merge. The ezhava article itself is very big article. Origin of ezhava caste article is also big. if we merge it would be very difficult to maintain the merged article. Also Origin of ezhava caste article is in the process of expanding.
Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 05:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there needs to be a merge. I have moved pertinent information from the Origin of ezhava caste article into this article. A major part of the Origin of ezhava caste is badly written and is unsourced, uncited, and full of OR (see WP:NOR). The language is completely unencyclopedic. For example, sentences such as these:
- ...The Nairs trace the source of their knowledge of Sanskrit, Martial arts etc to the Aryan Brahmins, but ezhavas had all these already from their Buddhist traditions. May be Sri Narayana Guru believed this...
- ...is not a caste of Hinduism, it's a community which was made a part of it by force or some other strategies. Some says that the ezhava Buddhist priests and monk leaders who decided to join the Brahminical religion where allowed to join the Brahmin community. Who knows maybe the Nairs and the other 'Savarna Hindus', were also Buddhist or even ezhavas itself who joined and Hinduism and got the patronage of the Brahmins...
- ...As a single community the ezhavas are the majority community in kerala, most of the Christians and Muslims were actually belonged to this community who for the need of freedom and social status got converted. Most of them hided it and claimed lineage from biblical places and high caste roots in kerala for keeping their place in society. The Hindus, Christians, Muslims of kerala looks very much alike in their appearance. Truth is that we most of the Keralites are of Aryan-Dravidian-European mix origin and no Brahmin, no Kshatriya, no Nair, no ezhava can claim that purity of caste or race...
- A lot of this is just Original Research, and worse, editorialization and commentary. There is useful information in this article. I have taken what I can and incorporated it into the "Origins" section of this article. There is also a no cohesive structure to the article and a lot of conflicting claims and sections. This is why the article should be merged into this one. --vi5in[talk] 20:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have performed a selective merge. I've taken useful information from Origin of ezhava caste and added it into this article. I do believe it reads a whole lot better than before. Before closing this merge proposal though, I would like to solicit some additional input. --vi5in[talk] 19:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Support : The two articles should be selectively merged.This will reduce data redundancy.
ARUNKUMAR P.R (talk · contribs) 06:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Recent Edits
These are the changes I have made:
- Cleaned up the opening paragraph and removed spelling, and grammar mistakes.
- Removed Ezhava reference from Moplah rebellion. The Moplah Rebellion article itself makes no mention of Ezhavas.
- Added tags for cleanup.
- Moved main article templates to their correct places (beginning of section). --vi5in[talk] 15:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Made some more edits:
- Cleaned up some paragraphs (especially the Toddy Tapping and Arrack Brewing).
- Added fact tags to some sentences and OR tags to one section.
- Corrected a few spelling mistakes (many still remain). Reworded sentences.
- Removed POV and Weasel Words.
- Removed irrelevant sections (Social Stratification was simply a section that listed temples with Ezhava involvement)
- Reorganized sections (moved Sree Narayana Guru section to Social movements. Cleaned up Religious Conversions section). --vi5in[talk] 06:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- More edits:
- Cleaned up list of Ezhavas
- Removed redundant information about Sree Narayana Guru.
- Made sure the lists were lists and not interspersed with sections of text. The lists have links to the appropriate articles anyway.
- Merged small subsections into their parents.
- Reordered some sections to enhance article flow and cohesion.
- Removed references that were either 404'ed or unreliable.
- Corrected grammar and spelling (more needs to be done!). --vi5in[talk] 09:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
List of Ezhavas
I have created an article List of Ezhavas so that this article will not become to long. Please make sure that all names added to the list has a reference. Malayaliyan 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
There was a Big list of ezhava's here few weeks back..it has been removed by someone. It was good know each other..Being a big community , most of the time, ezhava's miss to know each other and kill each other for political parties..If someone has the old list, please publish it in Wikipedia again..
Fair use rationale for Image:Sathyananthikkad.jpg
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f7/Nuvola_apps_important.svg/70px-Nuvola_apps_important.svg.png)
Image:Sathyananthikkad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 07:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Other factors that design caste structure
It has been a long time since I came here. Other preoccupations.
I have the feeling that castes and connected things are not entities separated from other features connecting to a person in this society. Yet, to discuss about them would take the discussion to a wider ambit of subjects. This may not be liked here. In my posts, I did allude to many things which from an immediate perspective did not belong to the subject matter here. Even though a debate on Kalari wouldn’t be objected to. There are other things more closers to the society here than Kalari.
So I have kept an article on this link[1], which can have connection to my earlier posts here, but may at the moment may seem not connected to the subject matter. Actually it is very much connected. --218.248.68.63 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC) --Ved from Victoria Institutions 14:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ved036 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ezhavas untouchability to upper castes.
This article seems to make Ezhavas look greater then they actually are in my personal opinion. But some facts have been conveniently not included such as the untouchability to upper castes such as Nairs and Brahmins. Lot of comments concerning the Nairs dislike of being called sudras but the Nair community mentions that they were considered sudras to the Kerala Brahmins, but historically the real sudras (servants and labourers), both in profession and officially , are the Ezhavas and not one mention of that in the article describing Ezhavas.211.30.222.155 14:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that’s because modern day Ezhavas have come a long way and many would like to forget the past. (Just like the Irish/Jewish immigrants in America would rather forget the treatment they were met with in the hands of English/Germans). At the same time Nair article boasts about the past and calls them selves as 'martial nobility'. But the reality today is that they have no more influence in kerala or anywhere else in this planet. Keralone 00:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Some people didn't dare to touch us. That's not our problem. Ezhava hatred is very evident in your writings. Panikkar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panikkar (talk • contribs) 12:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- True, everyone wants to paint a golden past. Nairs claim they were royals. ‘Martial Nobility’ is a forgotten past and today there is nothing called a ‘Martial Nobility’ anywhere in the world. However in the past, they were warriors, no denying that FACT. Ezhavas also want a piece of the warrior cake. Ezhavas were primarily farmers, though not all were toddy tapers as some people try to prove here. They were also physicians and traders. However, the claim on ‘Vadakkan Pattu’ is absurd. Vadakkan Pattu per say is myth and imagination. The ‘Chekavars’ were not that great warriors as depicted in the third rated movies made on them. They were skilled warriors who fought for the feudal lords. Also there were many others like Thacholi Othenan who were not Ezhavas who featured in these imaginative stories. However, a strange thing about the Ezhava page is that they refer to other communities also in this page and call them as Sudras etc which is totally unwarranted. Because, if you refer about other castes, then probably you will also get exposed on the pathetic side of history like untouchablity etc. So better to remove such statements. Also should understand that the truth cannot be concealed for ever. As mentioned by Keralaone, even if the Jews and Irish conceal their slave past, even Keralaone knows that they were slaves some point of time in the history. So better to do justice to the FACTS. It will manifest one day even if you try to conceal.Lambodharan —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Lambodaran, Untouchability existed between all the castes. Nair was not allowed to touch a Nambuthiri, An Ezhava was not allowed to touch a Nair, Pulaya was not allowed to touch an Ezhava.. and it goes on.. So all except Nambuthiris were untouchables to someone in the past. Referring other castes is not only with Ezhava page. I have seen this in other caste related pages (more in discussions). I don't want to get into the details. Every caste had warriors. It cannot be that all in a particular caste were warriors. that too in the case of a large community. There were castes in the past who had 'kula thozil' like washerman, barber, Asari, Ambalavasis etc. But these communities were small in population. Large castes such as Ezhavas and Nairs didn't have a single occupation. Most of the King's soldiers were from Nair caste which no one denies. But it had representation from other castes too. Panikkar —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Lambodaran, as a person who has seen the world and one who believes that all mankind are some how related, all the slave talk of the past is of nonsense.
For me “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players”. So Nairs have played at higher level in the past, so? Why are they not playing now?
What is important is what we are today and where we are heading. I can see that some people go freaky when called 'Sudra', I wonder why? What’s there in it? Majority of the people in South India are dark and are of so called Sudra/dravidian origin. So what’s the big deal? I suggest clean up of the Ezhava article to remove any references to other castes, so that no one is offended. I am sure Ezhavas can still be of proud people without them.Keralone 21:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"I can see that some people go freaky when called 'Sudra', I wonder why? What’s there in it? Majority of the people in South India are dark and are of so called Sudra/dravidian origin. So what’s the big deal?" Sudra, Dravidian and dark are not synonymous. Sudras are slaves, altough sometimes slapped on foreign communities (from a Brahmins perspective) to give the Brahmins more power over the foreign communties, such as Jats of North India. Dravidian refers to different but similar communities who natively speak or historically known to natively speak Dravidian languages and is factually proven to not refer to a separate race. Majority of people in South India are dark and majority of people in North India are slightly less dark. Nairs technically WERE not Sudras in profession they WERE unofficial kshatriyas so to speak, though most Nair communities WERE untouchable to Namboothiris, although some Nair communities such as the Kiriathil Nairs WERE untouchables to nobody, and the Malayala Kshatriyas and Samanthans WERE originally one of the more powerful Nair feudal families, and some Ezhavas WERE historically warriors and tradesmen despite the majority being historically servants, so there are always exceptions. However Nairs should not be referred to as Sudra Nairs in this article as it is largely misleading and irrelevant. The Ezhava and Nair articles are historical and everyone understands this, the playing field is rather level in these modern times with either community possibly overall more financially better off then the other. "As per the Census in 1931 of Travancore, number rich business people among the community was better compared to Malayali Sudra(Nairs) and Nanchinattu Sudras(Vellalas), even after being denied government jobs.", I doubt this sentence, however it is again misleading and rather irrelevant, and if true it only refers to the Ezhavas and Nairs in Travancore a small part of Kerala. This is similar to if the fact "For the vast majority of Kerala history Nairs were far wealthier and influencial than the Ezhava communities until the Land Reforms Act" appearing on the Nair article. Both articles are historical and not relevant to today, however the Nair article suggests this(Nairs WERE a martial nobility) whereas the Ezhava article contains this comparison, perhaps due to group insecurity, which is totally unnecessary. B Nambiar 10:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
http://books.google.com is very useful some times if you want info on something useful for supporting your arguement as someone has used in this page itself.I hope this will clear ur doubts. http://books.google.com/books?q=Nair+Sudra . http://books.google.com/books?q=Malayali+Sudra . Its a known fact that ezhavas were never part of chathur varna. So theye never fall within any layers of chaturvarna. See wiki is not the page add content with no reference. You can see from this Nair woman goes everywhere thus, uncovered and unashamed. from the book found here [2]. So thing we cant add and some details we can add. in 1931 servay, there was no reference of Nair and vellala, but called Malayali Sudra and Naanchinadu sudra. The page scanned and added in SN director from Koumudi publications page number 86. The english books say same thing with ref to Nair. 124.125.229.64 11:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
A touchy lot for sure but I see that Ezhavas did not belong in the caste system, therefore they are Dalits "In the Indian caste system, a Dalit, often called an untouchable, or an outcaste, is a person who according to traditional Hindu belief does not have any "varnas"", perhaps in the city of Travancore in 1931 "number rich business people among the community was better compared to Malayali Sudra(Nairs) and Nanchinattu Sudras(Vellalas)" but why the comparison?, is it necessary to the article? I must ask again. If the line will remain in the article than the many cited Nair/Ezhava historical comparisons that obviously favors the Nairs shall be included in the Nair article. I mean why the cherry picking, selectively including probably the only source which ever found Ezhavas better of, so to speak, than the Nairs, why not also add the fact that the Nairs were much more better off for most, if not all, history of both the communities existence than the Ezhavas overall. Nair woman goes everywhere thus, uncovered and unashamed. Im not sure what this is suggesting? perhaps poking fun at the Nair traditional dress? most dress in Kerala those days was similar so it would reflect Ezhava dress as well to some degree. Well some clothing is certainly better to none or rags which a number of poverty stricken Ezhavas in the past wore, in my opinion. But maybe its the poor grammar, but please illustrate me with what that comment suggests as I am not quite sure. And please do not keep the comparison line as it is misleading and irrelevant as I said earlier. B Nambiar 11:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Prostituion was common among nair woman for many centuries. If you search this in net you will find that. They did prostituion with Brahmins and Khatriyas. There Many nairs stuill follow the same traditiona custom. We all know about Latha Nair, Riya pillai, Arunima(Goa) all follows the tradion. Can you add same thing to nair article in wiki(Just like dalit phrase)? Because for that also you find references in google. 124.125.229.64 11:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting sambandam is prostitution? or actual prostitution? If you are suggesting sambandam then it is already added in the Nair article, and is not prostitution, but if you are suggesting a small number of Nairs engaged in the prostitution career then please direct me to the reference as I have never heard of this before, and we'll see if it authentic and deserves to be included in the Nair article. The names mentioned are not known to me. If your claims are factually warranted like the "dalit phrase" then I shall raise the issue in the Nair talk page and add it "Just like dalit phrase". B Nambiar 11:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ezhavas are not Dalits. SC/ST are called Dalits. Ezhavas come under OBC now and soon they will be be known as Forward caste. No comments on Sambandhan now. It would nice if user Nambiar refrain from unneccessary edits.
- Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE BRAHMANS
- Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE KSHATRIYAS
- Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE VAISYAS
- Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE SUDRAS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.95.171 (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE BRAHMANS
- Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE KSHATRIYAS
- Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE VAISYAS
- Some Ezhavas WERE/ARE SUDRAS "
Ezhavas were/are none of the above as they have no varnas, so i don't know how you thought those claims would be supported. Dalits does not necessarily imply SC/ST, however it does imply a descriptive term to communities of no varnas as I have stated many times previously. Why cant people acknowledge this? especially the user Tulu war who has reported me and refused to reply to my explaining of the facts behind my edits to him/her and has constantly reverted my removal of the rather pathetic POV comparison. B Nambiar 12:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- As per Manusmrithi 'varna' is defined based on a person's quality. Even a Christian / Muslim can be categorized under this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.58.6 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, no doubt that was the original intention but the caste system according to most of Indian history and the most widely accepted view is that it's designated by Brahmins to Hindu communities and hereditary. B Nambiar 04:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism By User:vivin
Please read/refer the sources
Abt Guru
Refer Sree Narayana Guru
More details
- http://books.google.com/books?q=Prophet+Narayana+Guru
- http://books.google.com/books?q=Saint++Narayana+Guru
- * http://books.google.com/books?id=L3sZAAAAMAAJ&q=Sage++Narayana+Guru&dq=Sage++Narayana+Guru
Abt Billava
Even before Guru built temple from Billava community, they accepted guru as their spiritual leader. Also Third statue of guru had built in front of Gokaneswasara temple in Mangalore. U can read here also. [[3]] Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 06:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Vandalism eh? I had no idea that cleaning up terrible grammar, spelling mistakes, and blatant POV was called "Vandalism". May I remind you to look at WP:NPA and WP:OWN? As far as the "prophet" thing goes, I take back what I said earlier. That reference looks pretty good. Oh, and a warning. If you call edits that you disagree with as vandalism, you're going to get blocked. Just a friendly reminder. Try to argue constructively. --vi5in[talk] 08:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
B.Nambair, I agree with you. there is no need to have comparisons in either Ezhava or Nair pages.Keralone 00:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Ezhavas == Dalits?
References:
Your views please. I have two references which say they are. --vi5in[talk] 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- If I make a site and write saying Nair==dalit... Can it be a reference? Come on grow up. Your intentions are rotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.58.6 (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Nairs are not Dalits, and were never known to be Dalits. If you make a site claiming Nairs are Dalits, it would have little credibility as there will not be any factual or referential basis for such a claim. Ezhavas are Dalits because they have no varnas i.e outcasts in the Brahminical caste system imposed on Kerala communities, as the definition of Dalit is a community which has no varnas, and there are references as well to support the fact. In some ways Ezhavas share historical features with other Dalit communities in India. There is no need to be insecure about past caste system status as it does not imply much in modern times. B Nambiar 05:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Vivin, I don't see any difference between a book and a site. Both are reflections of author's opinion. Just to make you understand I am giving you this link. http://www.sndp.org/Html/BiographyByDrSOmana.html. It says under caste system in kerala Until recently Malayali Brahmins practiced the most heinous sociological crime of keeping women of a certain section of the Hindu community as concubines, without having the obligation of a responsible husband or father. If I want I can make this as reference and malign the article which you maintain daily. But I am not interested.
- Well, there are differences between a book and a site. Almost anyone can make a site. It takes a certain amount of dedication and effort to write a book. And although a lot of people can, a book still has more credibility than just some website made by some guy. Listen, I'd appreciate it if you didn't bring this "caste-based" garbage here. I am not interested in your veiled threats. I know you are talking about the Nair article (which, incidentally, already mentions sambandham). Perhaps you automatically assume that by virtue of me being a Nair, I am out to malign you people. I honestly don't care. I'm here to build a good article, and I will go out of my way to do it. I have met this kind of opposition before, that too from overzealous Nairs who weren't too happy with some perceived "unfavourable" information in the Nair article. So please don't accuse me of bias. I do believe I have more than a decent measure of objectivity. I am almost certain that if I post a reference that portrays Ezhavas in a favourable light, you will not have any problem whatsoever with it. In fact, there are a lot of references in the article already, that are like that. If you are honestly so concerned about the references, why don't you say that those are "opinions" as well and remove them? Let me tell you what is really happening. You have double standards. It's that simple. Your threat is ample evidence that you aren't here to improve the article at all. Also, please don't change the title of my discussion. That's very immature. Finally, why don't you get a username instead of editing anonymously? All you seem to be doing is making potshots and not providing any worthwhile arguments. --vi5in[talk] 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
At the unsigned user, what you are saying is essentially that references reflect the author's opinion, which is true, but that this makes it invalid, which is absurd and means that the wikipedia system which is supported by references is wrong according to your views. As for the threat of, which i understand as, showing sambandam in the Nair article, well that is already included and no one denies that. At least the Nair article is more accurate than this Ezhava marketing campaign that poses as an article. B Nambiar 05:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Along with just sources, the sources need to be reliable. See WP:RS. In this case, I'd generally say that books are inherently more reliable than website (the most cost involved in getting it published means some more review), but still, there should be more support if possible. If there is in fact an argument about something, make both sides clear. State "blah says this; in contrast, blah2 says this." It is possible to neutrally describe other people's arguments, even if it looks like a bunch of books says this, a bunch of people with websites argue this. That's neutral (and works much better). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No Ricky81682 if you study the arguments closely you will find a pattern of argument where users state Ezhavas are Dalits with references and the opposing side instead question the users motives and try to insult with references to Nair sambandams which personally is uneffective and has already been included in the Nair article, instead of disputing the statement of argument. Therefore there is really only one side of the argument relating to Ezhavas Dalit status and so is not really an argument concerning it but rather a user versus user as a result of the statement. B Nambiar 05:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Constant Vandalism In Ezhava article
It has been noted that there is constant vandalism of Ezhava article By User:Vivin and User:B Nambiar.The User:B Nambiar has been blocked for the violation of 3RR. User:Vivin have been removing sourced content from the article. User:Nishkid64 have put protected tag to the version which has removed many content by the User:Vivin. please find the same here [4] and [5]. please find the User:Vivin has removed many content from the article. Vvmundakkal 17:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont care about vivins intentions. we all know why these mongers are frustrated. Keep your head high Ezhavas!Keralone 23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes Ezhavas!!, hold your head high and battle and collude to make and maintain the article POV, misleading and misinforming, after all no Ezhava really wants the article to show the actual representative truth do they?. I guess there are some flaws in wikipedia that no one can do much about. B Nambiar 05:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I honestly believe that you people are confused about the definition of "Vandalism". Typical vandals don't provide a description of their intentions. I have regularly described my edits and why I did them. This article is in dire need of improvement. The grammar and spelling are terrible. The tone is inappropriate. There are a lot of peacock terms and weasel words. In addition there is also a lot of Original Research in this article. Previously, the article contained information that didn't even describe the Ezhava caste. For instance, there was a whole section called "Social stratification" that merely gave a list of temples that had some sort of Ezhava involvement. I understand people have some sort of "caste-pride" issue here. I've heard this before. I faced the same sort of opposition in the Nair article and eventually I was able to fix that. My intentions are honest. I really have absolutely no agenda. I'm just trying to make the article better. I am quite aware that I may be stepping on a few toes by including material that is "unflattering" or by deleting information that is "overly aggrandizing". But this is an encyclopedia. And that's how things work here. Hope you understand. --vi5in[talk] 02:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is obvious from this request to move this page to the perceived "good" version that certain parties here have absolutely no interest in improving this page. In fact, the only interest is to present their POV. Let me remind them that protecting a page to a certain version doesn't automatically mean that the version is endorsed. I have described my changes here many times and invited people to participate. However, none have done so. My edits have been consistently reverted and labeled as "vandalism". If you honestly want to improve the article, why not talk about the changes here? Our aim is to build a quality encyclopedia. --vi5in[talk] 04:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Removed editprotected request. Work out some neutral language and it will go in. Don't argue about which version is better. Make your request explicit and clear; complaining about the intentions of other users (and calling their edits vandalism) is not helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- From the note on my talk page, it looks like someone wants to something like "Ezhavas have historically had no position under the Hindu caste system, like dalits" with some sources. First, where? It seems like "Historically, they never found a place in the four-tier caste system of Hinduism" in the intro could use those sources and then more could be added in another section under "Culture" (relationship within Hinduism)? Thoughts? Oh, and Vvmundakkal, please see the Wrong Version which applies to your argument; everyone see it, it's pretty clear. If someone wants to add something (especially when you guys *know* it is going to be controversial), for the sake of peace, discuss it first on the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Poojari
So show everyone what I mean, it looks like the "Poojari" section is at the wrong level. Do people think it is better at the same level as "Billavas" (both under "Similar communities") or as a subsection of "Billavas"? Also, it would be nice to add something about what they added to the Nema or Bhuta Kola. Any sources? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)