Talk:Nambudiri

Consider the following section in the main article: "Only a Nambudiri can become the Rawal, Head Priest, at Badrinath in Uttarakhand,[3]and the Chief Priest at Mookambika Temple in Kollur, Karnataka, Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu, Nepal and other Mahakshetras around India."

The priests in the Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu, Nepal are from Shivalli Brahmin community from Dakshina Kannada / Udupi districts of Karnataka and not Nambudiri brahmins. I know this fact, since, a couple of my relatives have been / are the Rawal at the Pashupatinath temple. Kindly change the section accordingly. Halambi (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Halambi

See this part from the article: "Most of them live in central Kerala and a few, in north and south kerala." This is apparently wrong. Do you really think that there are only a few of them beyond central Kerala? Kuntan 03:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

what about the rawals in kathmandu before 8th A.D. Nambudiris migrated from Godavari area in the 8-9th A.D. Even whether Adi shankaracharya was Nambudiri or other old brahmins like sthanika tulu brahmins is a matter of research. Shivallis came in 11th A.D.They replaced all the sthanika tulu brahmins in tulu nadu and kerala. Same happened in pashupatinath and mookambikai of kollur. Sthanika tulu brahmins were replaced everywhere.Nambudiris and shivallis are half brahmins (ardha brahmanar) born of Nairs and marakalas (fisherwoman).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.28.243 (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Some are asking about the ultra-orthodox nature of Namboodiri brahmins.well my friends,you must be a Malayalee to know it.the Namboodiris made the caste system enforced.as we call "ayittham"(അയിത്തം) which means any untouchable including Nairs,iyers,tulu brahmins cannot come infront of Namboodiri.If a Namboodiri passes through a road ,there will be assistants(kshatriyas) who makes sound to keep away the other caste people.consider this to any brahmin in India or World.History of Namboodiri is different.

Next ,What happened to all Namboodiri's?They are less in number due to single marriage(moossadu) practice in families.Most Nairs finds pride in identifying as the product of Sambhandham of particular Namboodiri to Nair Lady.The Nair Husband have to leave the lady for Namboodiri as it was the practice ,also considering the matri-lineal Nair Society.(Bunts are not nairs).

as a independent point of view ,Syrian Christians of Kerala may be where the majority Namboodiri population merged due to the doubting thomas ,jesus's apostle who supposedly converted Namboodiri's in 71/2 places in Kerala.(It is RELIGIOUSLY HATED BY Nairs/Namboodiri's -the syrian christians due to they left for "maargam koodal".) http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=3509349&tid=2564646861490885160 http://www.merinews.com/clogarticle.jsp?articleID=131699&catID=1&category=World&month=4&year=2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.14.144 (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Syrian Christians are not Namboothiri converts. They were Ezhavas, originally. That accounts for the sizeable decrease in Ezhava headcount during the second half of the 19th Century and the corresponding raise in the Christian Population in Kerala.The credit goes to the English evangelists led by William Wilburforce. The ezhava Memorial and the 'Maaru Maraykal Samaram' (right of women to cover their torsos),supplied the right settings.As to those who claim conversion before this, they too were Ezhavas; the frustrated Ezhava population of Kerala who were originally Budhists were always on the lookout for alternate beliefs to migrate to and challenge the Orthodox Brahminical Setup.Further, there were no brahmins in Kerala to convert in 52 AD, when Thomas is supposed to have arrived.( another concoction!)The old sinner must have come across a few fishing villages at the most, and the inhabitants would n't have borne even the faintest resemblance to the highly articulate, sanskrit speaking namboothiri Brahmins!( Do not worry; Ezhavas too have 'Aryan' blood, having been the descendents of the emissaries of Ashoka (DevanaAm Priyadarshi) to Sri Lanka for the spread of Budhism. ) There were numerous Pulayas who embraced Christianity too, under the influence of bread and books (education) from the multitude of churches that sprang up in Kerala, especially in Travancore, during the 19th century and later on.(Their descendents ,of course , have no qualms about thinking of themselves as Brahmin converts and rejoicing in Aryan heritage!) There was another form of 'Sambandham' too that was being practicsd by the Christian households unobtrusively, when they took on the British,Scottish and Irish Missionaries and others as boarders. Most of these were well-to-do young men away from home, and you can easily put in place the missing blocks in the jigsaw of prosperity that soon descended among the native Christian Population. Papodinos Scarilos (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Papodinos Scarilos ,I smell some frustrations in your post.Do you think you can somehow coincide darker ezhava/thiyyas to Syrian Christians who are sharper in features and some even traces their origin to Namboodiri Mana's?yeah!I know of this RSS propaganda by some "issac" who writes BS about Syrian Christians.Like it or Not ,Syrian Christians are mostly the namboodiris who got converted.yeah ,even the mentioning of this fact turns nairs and other non-syrian christians furious!BUT-Secretly most agrees with the Syrian Christian Claims.Heck ,Many Syrian Christian Families in Kottayam and thrissur districts still cannot stop the old traditions.they have to do the "vilakku vekkal"(lighting deepam) inside the Houses to prevent other issues.I felt that Only Pro-Hindu Rightwing People despises Syrian Christian claims.Agrees that Some Syrian Christians looks aboriginal who are ,may be later converts.ezhavas and bible society has nothing to do with Syrian Christians.The Marthoma Anglican Syrian Christians are those syrian christians who left Orthodox Christianity due to British Influence to destroy the St.Thomas Church in kerala. 59.93.41.205 (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

From my childhood I am told by christians that their ancestors were Nampoothiris. I am wondering how this was possible at such times when Nampoothiris practised Ayitham, and the other caste people were not allowed to come near them? Namboothiris were very pious and orthodox (my cousin who stayed at the ancenstral home had to bathe in the river before entering the house everytime she cam back from school)and also rich. They had Aksharalaksham Gayathri Siddhi, so no ordinary miracles or magic would have moved them to change their religion ever. According to Hindu tenets, conversion is a cardinal sin, to which there is no atonement. Can someone show or refer proper proof of all these conversion claims? Where does this come from? Please read Ishwar Sharan and Sita Ram Goel at http://www.hamsa.org/ to know more about St Thomas ever coming to India (?). Hinduism is not an organised religion, and therefore cannot concoct and propagate mythical stories about organised crimes and lies. I cannot believe a Nampoothiry who worships cow as Holy Mother, would eat it!! - that too centuries ago. I have not even seen meat upclose in my life, and I live in a foreign land. Nampoothiris also had strict Smartha Vichaaram as their own social justice to ensure purity in preserving the vedic way of living. People who add notes here, please do not start off on Nampoothiris converting to Chirstianity. Let this piece of Wikipedia deal with what the race is about. Other claims, proof please, not just theories and rhetoric Sreevidya Balasubramaniam (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC).. Thanks

I have removed a part dealing with Nambooothiri's contribution to literature. It was insufferably biased and the claims were unsupported. Most notably the part didn't mention people like V.T. Bhattathiri or poets like Akkitham or Vishnu Narayanan Namboothiri. Kuntan 03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article states that Namboothiri brahmins are the most orthodox. The Maithil brahmins make the same claim. In fact, several brahmin communities claim that theirs is the most orthodox, just as all language communities claim that their tongue is the most sonorous. The phrase on the Namboothiris being the most orthodoxy should be made less declarative. I'll edit it. Sarayuparin 22:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There's n't room for dispute in this matter, Sarayu. nambuthiris indeed were the most orthodox among all brahmin sects, being the authors of the most rigid code of conduct for castes, intended without doubt at preserving the chastity of their women who were to be out of bounds for all men outside the Nambuthiri fold. Contact, even by sight, was taboo for suitors from the avarna castes.Transgressions were put down with a stern hand, the hapless female being bundled out of the system through an elaoborate system of rituals known as 'Bhrashtu',and ostracised till death.Vaniks or men from the merchant caste or vaisyaclass that included rich Christian (and Muslims, in the later centuries)traders,and Chettiars from Thamizhagam among others, would be only too eager to take the belle home - if she has n't killed herself by then- and fulfill their long cherished phantasies of conjugal bliss with an aristocrat of the highest order, repository of the most exclusive of genes. That's how the nambuthiri Brahmins preserved, or strove to preserve the racial purity of their womenfolk.The wild oats from Nair women and the royal ladies never blossomed into accredited Nambuthiris. That was reserved for children from the Antharjanam ( Nambuthiri women; literally meaning those confined to the insides of the house . These alone were the regular offsprings, sole claimants to the title, wealth and ancestry. See the game plan? And how well it was executed? So thoroughly practised for about 1200 years that the society in Kerala evolved into little more than a madhouse, as The monk Vivekananda phrased it.There 's no parallel to all this anywhere else in India. So, I would ask you to move over, quit such talk about Maithili etc, and return the mantle with due respect to these stalwarts from Kerala.86.145.171.125 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to be too long. It should be condensed to the essence. Insvik

Hey...a book i have, called the Travancore State Manual, makes mention of verious subcastes of Namboodiris which are very different from what are mentioned here...they include Sapagrasthas, Sadharnas, Adhyans, Jatimatrams etc.... kindly check that out...Manu

There is a tale that goes from father to son among some of the highest caste brahmins of Garhwal, that disciples of Adi Sankaracharya were settled in the Garhwal region to run Badrinath. Indeed, Garhwali Dimris (a Brahmin surname) do have a stake in running and receiving substantial shares from the offerings made at the Badrinath temple. This information was formalized in a book "Garhwal ka Itihas" written by Pt. Harikrishna Raturi in 1928. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.102.235 (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is stated here that "The unique thing about Namboothiris is that they follow the poorva mimamsa school of Hindu philosophy unlike uttara mimamsa or vedanta school followed by most of the South Indians."

According to Mimamsa

To a certain extent, Mimamsa is atheist, placing all importance in proper practice as opposed to belief, rejecting a creator God as well as any scriptures on dharma outside of the Vedic tradition, yet accepting svarga or heaven awaiting the person who has acted righteously in his or her life. In its rejection of belief in a God, it is related to the nastika Carvaka school.

A community of temple priests who do not believe in God? The Tantrik practices as per the Tantra Samucchaya which the community follows does not fall under Mimamsa.

IMHO this general statement about the community following poorva mimamsa does not reflect reality.

--Sankarrukku 05:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

the article is completely unsourced. It should be drastically reduced, keeping only material that can be traced to reliable sources. dab (𒁳) 11:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sankara.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It is stated that they are the most orthodox Brahmins in India - but the encyclo. link provided does not state that(though it does mention that they are rigidly orthodox). "Most orthodox" seems like an OR to me. Any opinion? Suigeneris (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

let us consider the matter in an analytical way

1st point is chronological order of indian system of time.

That is krithayuga, threthayuga, dwaparayuga, and kaliyuga

each yuga is comprised of multiples of 420000 years

kritayuga is 420000*4=1680000

thretayuga is 420000*3=1260000

dwaparayuga is 420000*2=840000

kaliyuga is 420000*1=420000

therefore in total one mahayuga is 4200000(42 lac) human years

According to astronomical calculations the yoga alignment of nine celestial bodies have been found on BC 3102 February 17th Saturday, this says kaliyuga has started on BC3102. Other archeological and astronomic evidences say that the kurukshetra battle has taken place around BC3140. Now see the difference of time to connect with thretayuga and kaliyuga. So we can conclude Parasurama's personality as a puranic imaginary personality or otherwise a series of real persons having similar charecteristics and has been elevated as Parasurama. The second option among these does have some valid consideration. The fourth point I am discussing here will give some light over this regard.

2nd point is, the puranaanas and ithihaasas say that Parasurama came to SriRaama(threthayuga) at the occasion of Seethaswayamvaram also, and Parasurama couldnt do anything there. At mahabharatha era (dwaparayuga), Parasurama countered with Bheeshma according to princess Amba's marriage issue. In this occasion Parasurama used Brahmastra against Bheeshma and Bheeshma has taken down Brahmastra with a weapon called Praswaapanaastra. Here also Parasurama couldnt do anything. The point is that Parasuraama is not described as an unbeatable person anywhere.

3rd point is, Parasuraama's father is brahmin and mother is kshatriya. According to the inheritance laws followed by prominent brahmin gothras, if any of the spouse belongs to neechavarna then the child also would be considered as the lower sect among the two. The practice which namboodiri brahmins adapted by means of marriage with nair woman is the best evidence. The children are considered as saamanthakshatriya, not brahmin. Therefore how to rebut that Parasurama is not kshatriya. And there is an occasion in Mahabharatha, just after Kurukshetra battle, Dharmaputra says to Krishna that he is the cause of death of thousands of warriors, so he wanted to giveup his worldly life and wanted to pursue a sage's life. Krishna replied if you are giving up your responsibilities after this great war, you are committing adharma and if you rule the land which the battle has affected, the sin for killing these many people will not affect you. These are the words from SriKrishna. We know Parasurama never ruled any region. And another point for nairs, Parasurama's brothers gave their life for saving their mother and Parasurama saved his life by killing his mother.

the 4th point is little more important according to the existence of Parasurama

Parasurama has done his martial academics from Agasthya Rishi. He began to utilize his warrior abilities against kings with reason. Where ever he went he won the battle because of his expertise in weapons, except the south part of Kerala. At Thiruvananthapuram, he has been defeated and captured by Pallichal Pillai warriors taking care not to bleed any drop of blood of a Brahmin - there are two great houses with name vilangaruthala and Kattaamam still today.

Vilangaruthala means "vilangu-handcuff", "aruthala - has broken", he was again captured by the nair family at Kottaamam and they fastened him with a rope made with 'hay'. "Katta" means rope made from haystack and "aamam means handcuff".

After this again Parasurama was released - as he claimed to be Brahmin, nairs were not able to execute or punish Parasurama. Again in far south of Kerala after 12 kms from Pallichal, the places (1).Dhanuvachapuram, (2).Vaalvachakoshtam, (3).Parasuvaykal (4).Idichakkaplamoodu (5).and another Kattaamam again are there even today as main town centers. Around these places, the warriors from Kurunkutti Nair family has obstructed him again. After heavy struggle, the nair warriors snatched his Dhanu (dhanu - the weapon bow) at Dhanuvachapuram, he again has been released because of being Brahmin. He made fight challenges at the place Valvachakoshtam, the in-land warriors snatched his sword at that place(vaal-sword, vacha-surrendered, koshtam-place). Parasurama came back to a nearby place to Dhanuvachapuram, called "Idichakkaplamoodu" at that place Nair warriors captured him and beaten with idichakka (a kind of small jackfruit, it has thorns but it will not cause bleeding). After these much events Nair lords convinced Parasurama to surrender by himself and there he surrendered his master weapon "Parasu The Great Axe", this place is known as "ParasuVaykal." Parasu means Axe and Vaykal means surrendering. All the above mentioned places are existing and are well known Nair dominant areas in Thiruvananthapuram. Countable reasonablenesses are following: 1.Nairs are also having the proficiency in martial arts directly from Agasthya Rishi, 2.Nairs are very sensitive to their relationship with mother and Parasurama was known for his matricide. Upto the period of enactment of Land Reforms act, general transfer of property and inheritance laws for Hindu communities, Nairs were following strict matriarchial family system and matrilineal inheritance.

Also we may consider an event in purana where Parasurama goes to Shiva and counters with Ganesha, there he breaks one tusk of Ganesha and Parvathi Devi was about to finish Parasurama and the matter was settled by surrendering the Great Axe before Parvathi Devi. We should not map the puranic stories with actual events.

VAAMANA Vs. PARASURAMA

This is the region of Naagas(Serpents). At the out-place of this region there is a particular place having an area of 30,000 yojanaas. Vishnu Kala who has the attribute of 'tamasa' lives there under the name "Ananatha." The real Anantha or Aadishesha as the radiant embodiment of this Kala. History says that the Naagas were the early indigenous inhabitants of Kerala. The ancient word "ANANTHA" denotes "THIRUVANANTHAPURAM." The temple of Ananthapadmanaabha at Thiruvananthapuram answers to this description. On the whole the description of Pathaala fits well with that of Kerala. So it is not wrong to infer that the description of Pathaala in puraanaas is entirely about Kerala in all its aspects.

(Encyclopaedic dictionary of Purāṇas, Volume 3, PAGE 762) By Swami Parmeshwaranand

Prahlada's grand son MahaBali was the ruler of the whole world. Because of the efficiency of his rule, the reason came to MahaVishnu to take his 5th Incarnation as Vaamana. Vaamana has taken the Space and Earth with two steps, there MahaBali submits his essence of Punyakarma for donation towards the third step. MahaVishu has given a boon to Mahabali for visiting his citizens in every year at the occasion of Thiruvonam. Pathaala was the region where Mahabali was sent. Onam is the Biggest official and non-official festival of Kerala for the commemoration of this particular event. Therefore once the region of Kerala was called Pathaala and this region was ruled by the Serpent Dynasty from the period of unknown history.

This legend gives direct answer to the ParashuRama theory. Vaamana is the fifth incarnation of MahaVishnu and Vaamana went to MahaBali then MahaBali was sent to Paathala, which is Kerala itself (the festival Onam is the concrete evidence). If the fifth incarnation was directly connected to Kerala, how the sixth incarnation (Parashurama) can create Kerala???

Vekramaditya (talk · contribs)

According to the 1931 Census, out of the 50,000 Malayala Brahmins, less than half were Nambuthiri. So that will be 0.5% / 2 ==> 0.25%. Considering that the Hindu population got reduced from 70% in 1931 to 55% in 2001, I don't see any reason for their current population to rise above the 0.25% level. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The following was in the Classes section but has remained uncited since at least 2007. It cannot stay there like this, so I have cut and pasted it to here. Can anyone find some citations please.

The original Nambudiris are classified into ten sects:^{[citation needed]}

These ten classes and their rights and duties are

1. Aadu: They are specialised in Yaagam, and have Yaagaadhikaaram or the right to perform Yaagam.

2. Edu (a page in a book, symbolising knowledge): They have the right to acquire knowledge and teach Sanskrit, Vedam, Linguistics, Astronomy, Astrology, Architecture and so on.

3. Bhiksha (alms, symbolising a saint or a samnyaasi): They have the right to become a saint (or samnyaasi).

4. Picha (also means alms, in crude form): They are Othikkans, helping other Nambudiris to perform rituals.

5. Othu (Spiritual hymns): This class of Nambudiris was basically teachers of Othu (Vedam).

6. Saanthi (temple priesthood): These Nambudiris are priests in temples.

7. Adukkala (kitchen, symbolising cooking): These Nambudiri families were specialists in large-scale cooking and catering. A family belonging to this group has to be consulted on all catering-related issues including for Yaagam.

8. Arangu (stage): This special group of Nambudiris, called Chaathira Nambudiris, was a military group. Their evening entertainment was Panemkali (Sanghakkali).

9. Panthi (dining structure): Nambudiris like Graamani, Thangal, Vaal-Nambi and Ashtavaidyans (all Mooss families except Vaidhyamadham) belong to this category. Vaidhyamadham, though an Ashtavaidyan, belongs to Aadu class, as they are the Vaidyans in the Yaagasaala (the hall where Yaagam is performed). Mooss families are not included in the above eight classes as these physicians perform surgery. Graamani Nambudiris, Thangal Nambudiris and Chemb azhi nambi(Chengazhi nambiar), Vaal Nambis are Nambudiris performing village administration and hence excluded from the above eight classes.

10. Kadavu (bathing points in the pond): Elayath and Adikal are Nambudiris belonging to this category. In elite sub-class of Aadu class above, is a special group of Nambudiris known as "Ashtagrihathil Aadhyanmaar" (eight elite families).

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. why was the section 'Potti' removed? Though books like Travancore state manual and some other books doesn't says so, they are actually same as Nambudiri brahmins of central and north Kerala. There is no fully reliable article to support it, but that's the fact. And no proper reaearch has been done on this section of Nambudiris though some books mentions about this community as a seperate community from Nambudiri. Thanks. Specialadd (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"There is no fully reliable source to support it" is a good enough reason. We cannot rely on your "that's a fact". See WP:RS for info about reliable sources. Your comment that some books refer to them as a separate community further confirms the point. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok.fine.Thank you.Specialadd (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. By saying 'There is no fully reliable source to support it', I mean't to say that no proper information is available since adequate research was not done on this community. I said 'it is fact' because, otherwise in Travancore region, how come so many temples are having these Potti brahmins as 'Thanthris'(High priests)? You can refer books written on the history of temples of Kerala(Malayalam books)or in some websites. Few books mention them as seperate community but without adequate reason of considering them as seperate commnity.Specialadd (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding you here but I think that what you are suggesting would fall foul of the policies regarding original research and synthesis. We are not allowed to draw conclusions based on inferences of what is said in sources etc. I do realise that this can be frustrating and, indeed, it has frustrated me sometimes ... but those are the rules. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cited information which stated the the Nambudiris arrived in what is now Kerala etc in waves from around the 5th century has been removed on the grounds that "thats a fringe theory. Nambudiri arrival might be btwn 10th c BCE to 3rdc CE. still academically debated. try a search on "Nambudiri BC" There were two sources provided, one of which appears to have been present for some time and one which I recently added when the reverter originally removed the info.

Could anyone please explain:

• why it is a fringe theory and/or provide citations that call it such
• why it was removed rather than counterpointed by the other theory - it is ok to show two points of view
• why the other theory is not even mentioned
• some examples of what is usefully returned from the search referred to by the reverter. If I do it then I am pretty sure someone will accuse me of cherry-picking etc, so best that someone else does it in the first instance

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now reviewed the results of Google searches, as referred to be the remover of the cited info. I searched using "everything" (not specifically GBooks etc) for "Nambudiri BC" and the same terms without the quotes. The former search returns one page of results & not a single item on it is reliable. Indeed, they're mostly blogs and self-published sources. The unquoted variant returns 155,000 results, of which I looked at the first couple of hundred. Some were inevitably irrelevant, but of those that did relate to the community none were reliable sources.

So, my proposal is that the cited information should be reinstated unless someone actually comes up with info that satisfies WP:V, WP:RS etc. One possibility that might be worth pursuing is to consider searches on the various other spellings of the name. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Balachandran Nair is his book "In quest of Kerala" says Nambudiris came between the 4th and 7th century BC. Hisotorian KP Padmanabha Menon suggests that the arrival of the Namboodiris would be between the 7th century BC and the 7th century AD (as noted in "Towards a transcultural future: literature and society in a 'post'-colonial world"). PKS Raja also say Nambudiris migrated long before Christian era. In Leela Devi's take on Kerala History, she points her fingers to 4th century CE drawing on conclusions from Legends. Ayinapalli Aiyappan takes the date further and postulates 8th century CE. My point here is that the dates of Nambudiri arrivals are just rough guesses arrived from rituals, legends and linguistic changes. There has not been an academically unequivocal evidence or an anthropological study to establish the correct era of migration. In such a context, an edit like citing a couple of historians is but cherry picking that favors a narrow perspective. Arjun^codename024 19:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good, we have some more info now. We can only use that which we know of. The info needs to be in there because the thing that is certain is that they are not native to the area and, as such, it needs to be explained when/how they moved there. The date range might be massive but that is no problem: we just list a few. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is native to the area, everybody migrated from somewhere at some points of time. As far as i see it, including the period of migration in the lead is not consistent with other articles on castes in Kerala. Moreover, since we do not have a definitive date range and are just offered some theories, it should not be put in the lead. The range of dates and difference in opinion among scholars can be mentioned in the "origins" subsection. Arjun^codename024 21:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I don't mind where it goes and certainly I doubt that I am the one who put it in the lead (although I think I did add a citation). I will see if I can view the sources you mentioned. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a few lines regarding them being fishermen, who abondoned their original shudra duties to enter into priestly affairs, lured by the temporary advantage of material benefits, deserves mention in this article. Ikon ^No-Blast 20:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A book of literary criticism is not a particularly great source for a statement of communal origins, but my bigger concern is that in both instances these items are only available (here, at least) in snippet view. The problems of snippet view have been explained to you previously & so I would hope that on this occasion you could provide us with a copy of the relevant pages - not just the paragraph, but the surrounding text for, say, one or two pages either side of the bit which you refer to. I am aware the the origins of Nambudiris are somewhat controversial and largely unproveable. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

We do not seem to be making much progress here. The sourcing is still very poor and there are still items listed in references which are not actually being used per WP:CITE. Can we improve on this situation? If not, then I am inclined to start pruning the thing. - Sitush (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please go ahead! There doesn't seem to be any active contributor to this article, apart from yourself. :-) Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 21:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember how this ended up on my watchlist, but after seeing an edit this morning I looked at it and was just about to give a "warning of impending removal". It looks like everything after "overview" has been tagged as unsourced since June of last year, and who knows how long it was in before that. That's enough time for me to be comfortable hacking and slashing. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for 24 hours to stop the edit warring. However, both Sitush and Ashley thomas80 broke 3rr (Sitush hit 4, Ashley thomas80 hit 5). While I feel uninvolved enough to protect the article (the edit warring had to stop), I'm right on the borderline regarding blocking. I will ask Boing said Zebedee and Salvio giuliano, two admins who regularly help manage caste issues, whether or not they feel blocks are appropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Does removal of copyvios count towards 3RR? That is what I was doing, as well as explaining on the other contributor's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

there's mentions of 'migration of Aryans'. Aryan theory has been debunked for decades now. this entire page is bunk and it should be heavily rewritten. is there anyway you can throw up a citation needed or verification need blurb somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.134 (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It is fairly common practice for us to identify the prior names of the state now known as Kerala in articles that deal with the history of that region. This is because many of the sources refer to the former names rather than the current one (which has existed only since the 1950s), and if we quote those sources then references to Travancore etc may needlessly send the reader off to another article. A simple statement is justified for reasons of clarity and has never been challenged elsewhere.

For reasons that make absolutely no sense to me, Ashley thomas80 has been removing such a statement, most recently here. The edit summary for the last removal is "steriotyping not a practice in Wikipedia", and I simply do not see how "steriotyping" comes into this. The academic sources commonly do just as this article did, ie: explain the former names. My suspicion is that these may be point-y removals in response to my prior removals of copyvios inserted by that contributor but, if not, then it really needs a better explanation. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I should add that WP:MOSQUOTE deprecates the use of links inside quotations, so having the statement of prior names independent of any possible quotation etc is a neat way of resolving the issue. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, since there has been no objection raised, it is my intention to reinstate the statements today. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary information. An internal link to Kerala will suffice. --AshLey ^Msg 07:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have explained why an internal link to Kerala does not suffice. Now drop it, please. - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If we are moving in your line, we would have to mention all the regions of India where ever the name India is introduced in Wikipedia. Don't think that I have bent to your copyvio allegation: in my talk page I have established your manipulations already. --AshLey ^Msg 08:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The last clause in the following sentence is a case of WP:SYN and WP:OR,

The Brahmins used their priestly and advisory relationship with the invading forces to assert their beliefs and position. Buddhist temples and monasteries were either destroyed or taken over for use in Hindu practices, thus undermining the ability of the Buddhists to propagate their beliefs.

User talk:Sitush has reinstated(diff: the clause, citing p.29 of the source which I had removed. But, I'm unable to find anything supporting the clause- "thus undermining the ability of the Buddhists to propagate their beliefs"-in p.29. --AshLey ^Msg 07:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there is an issue with comprehension. Pullapilly says, inter alia, "the Brahmins effectively destroyed the leadership of the new religion by abolishing Buddhist monasteries and learning centres". No leadership, no monasteries, no learning centres, temples either converted to Hindu use or to the worship of pre-Aryan deities --> undermining of the opportunities for propagation of the new religion. He also says - p. 28. - that at the time of the Nambudiri arrival, the Ezhava etc population had become Buddhist through the influence of missionaries; there is other stuff on p. 30 and even p. 31, but I would hope that you could use your common sense here. Do you dispute this conclusion? Should we quote the entire chapter? And can you explain how the statement breaches WP:SYN, given that it only uses one source?- Sitush (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a case of synthesis with your OR(you call it as common sense). Temples, learning centres, monasteries etc may not help a religion to "influence" the "civilized people" towards it. If so, millions of people could have been influenced to Islam, influenced with their enhanced infrastructure facilities. It's a case of ideological influence and intellectual and spiritual debate, which may attract a civilized person to one particular faith. Destroying the temple might not undermine the spiritual and ideological attraction towards Buddhism. Need much more "comprehension" to see this. --AshLey ^Msg 08:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing with you about this any further because your linguistic pedantry is known to me, and we both know that you are mainly targeting me because you bear a grudge. Let's see if others support you. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ashely_thomas80, maybe you're misusing the word, but [{WP:SYN]] only applies to combining two sources and drawing a conclusion that neither of them explicitly state. Now, perhaps you simply mean to call Sitush's claim plain original research. I think that's actually what you're trying to assert. I have no opinion on that claim itself (though perhaps I'll try and work through the wording tomorrow and see if there's a problem there. If you want faster action or action from someone completely uninvolved, start a thread on the original research noticeboard; give both the original quote and Sitush's proposed wording, and see what totally independent editors think. If you do that, just leave a note here so that Sitush and others will see there's a noticeboard discussion going on. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

We could include the quote I refer to above - "the Brahmins effectively destroyed ..." etc, - if that would resolve the concerns. As far as I can recall, this was one of the many India-related community articles that had developed into a conflict between being a quotefarm and a repository of completely unsourced original research. However, if the quote is not necessary then we should not use it: one of the most useful situations where quotes are justified is when paraphrasing is problematic, but if we quote then we must be sure that the quote fully encompasses the intent and is not a selective representation. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I plan to post it on the original research noticeboard, probably on Monday. There is no case of grudge or anything like that. Apologies, if I misused the term SYN. --AshLey ^Msg 16:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Why go to NORN and waste everyone's time there? Are you not content to replace the statement with the quotation? - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion. Better you could try some rewording like: ...."thus replaced the Buddhism with Brahmanic Hinduism in Kerala." (p.29)--AshLey ^Msg 15:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That is what you did first time round. It is not appropriate and is in fact a misrepresentation of what the source says (some Buddhists remained). - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Or, ".Thus the the Brahmanic Hinduism took over the dominance and Buddhism was marginalized" --AshLey ^Msg 15:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That is very poorly phrased. I suggest that you read the entire chapter, and/or that we stick with the quote. I do not understand why the quote should be such an issue but you seem to be unwilling to accept it. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Phrasing not an issue here, you could improve it, but the role of Nambudiris in the introduction of Brahmanic Hinduism in Kerala along with the marginalization of Buddhism needs to be mentioned in the article. Sitush, our confrontations have really started with such simple issue. Here, you agree with the content, but instead of suggesting a better "phrasing", you tries something else. You have accused me of pedantry! Why don't you think of the view from other side? --AshLey ^Msg 07:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2015/October#on_editing_Nambudiri_page.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Both the minimal unsourced Moothath and the much longer, sourced, Nambudiri state that "Namboothiri" is an alternative name. If so, then these two are equivalent. PamD 20:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

But Moothath is indeed unsourced and Namboothiri isn't even remotely a transliteration or alternate spelling. It might still be valid as a redirect but that needs some WP:BEFORE and I suspect the outcome would be a deletion. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

For a recent example of discussions concerning the use of genetic studies in caste articles, please see Talk:Ezhava#Genetic_studies. The outcome there follows precedent. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

While reams have been written on the Nambudri Brahmins of Kerala, it would be worthwhile to read Nambudri community participant observer Jayaprakash Mallay's book MALAYALA BRAHMIN AUTOCHTHON THEORY published in the print media from Manjeri in 1995. It is uploaded in the electronic media in 2009 as Malayala Brahmins. You may kindly visit him mallayj@blogslogspot.com Jayaprakash Mallay (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The text in this article mostly relies on the observations by Cyriac who is a self-proclaimed Christian missionary. His observations are not corroborated by neutral sources. There is little evidence that the Kings and invaders joined hands together with the Brahmin community in Kerala and have emerged as the land usurpers. Noting the current economy of kerala and also the literacy penetration in the state, it doesn't actually sit that the Nambudri Brahmins have had a reigning hand in the socio-political matters that governed the state. More information from contemporary sources is needed to support this fact or it would be tantamount to a biased view of the community.

The tone of the article mostly suggests that the article is not neutral and factual. Hypergamy is practiced in most of the communities in Kerala and not exclusively by the Brahmin and Nair communities in Kerala. The article seems to suggest that Brahmins are the instrumental community that have given rise to this custom.

Moreover, Polygamy is practiced internally by the Nair community as well which was more matrilineal. The attire prescribed to the so-called higher castes in Kerala is Mundu and is again not exclusive to Nambudri community. Mundu was also the attire worn by the ruling classes in Kerala and some southern parts of Karnataka. Hnaluru (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

So find some other reliable sources. As it stands, your comments are original research. - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hnaluru:, and please can you try to remember to sign your posts here, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hnaluru:Can you explain your issue with the article? I dont really understand whats wrong with it, but to be fair I haven't comprehensively read much into it. BreadBuddy (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@BreadBuddy: I did. In the initial justification I provided for tagging this article for factual bias. The Brahmin community of Kerala has long been accused of unwarranted hegemony over the other caste groups. Moreover, my contention is that the source being attributed to cannot be considered as someone who can provide a neutral point of view. Cyriac is a Christian missionary and various Christian denominations have long been trying to produce a biased notion of the Brahminic community in the coastal areas of India to foster more Christianity. Hence, unless historically verifiable, the claims of a Christian missionary cannot be considered as an authentic source. I am trying to gather more contemporary evidence to counter or support the statements been made. Will revert on this shortly with more credible sources. Hnaluru (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hnaluru:Well I'm not sure if I can agree with you or not there, but what I can say is that the Cyriac Pullapilly source counts as WP:FRINGE. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be added, unless there are other reliable sources saying the same exact theory (i.e the views of a small minority should not find a place in Wikipedia). Not to mention, this obscure origin theory is put in the history section, which is certainly WP:UNDUE. BreadBuddy (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

However, I am a bit concerned with your given criterion for removing Pullapilly, and I would strongly suggest that you please use reliable sources and use neutral wording in your addition. Note: I think the Fringe thing was brought up earlier if you scroll up, but was kept due to lack of finding a suitable replacement.BreadBuddy (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Pullapilly is a historian, too. Where is the evidence that he is distorting things to suit some evangelical agenda? It is well documented that the Brahmins did exactly that in South India when they acted as go-betweens/translators etc for British Raj ethnographers such as Edgar Thurston, attempting to boost their own position and concept of the caste system etc, but do we have similar documentation for Pullapilly? I don't have a problem with qualifying his position, eg: Cyriac Pullapilly, a historian and Syriac Christian, says ..., although I suspect some people might think even mentioning his religion is undue unless that is known to have been a significant influence on his scholarship. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: I think there is two different discussions going on here, I assume that in your response you were adressing Hnaluru? I never mentioned that he is distorting things to suit any evangelical agenda.BreadBuddy (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I was replying to both of you but feel free to adjust my indenting to make things more clear. Hnaluru had mentioned the evangelical thing, you were suggesting that he is FRINGE. For what it is worth, I am unsure how Pullapilly can be considered fringe when he is saying that other people have made the point. Christopher Fuller is one of those in his studies of the Nair community. - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

A quick example from Fuller here, towards the bottom of the page. He says more but I'll have to dig out my hard copies of his book, papers etc. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I have no problem with the text from Christopher Fuller in the article. In addition, I did take a look at the link you have sent and I believe the portion you are referring to in that text is where it says "There too, at various times, the Nambudiris have wielded considerable political influence.."; This area however doesn't mention anything to what Pullapilly described, besides the fact that the Brahmins were dominant in influence. BreadBuddy (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Fuller continues "...given to the caste system an extra rigour which it lacked elsewhere". I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Caste system in Kerala but you need to be to understand this. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)