Talk:List of Ezhavas

deletion

I have added few entries with references including page number. I hardly saved it , this guy Sithush popped up and deleted. Is this tribal hatred from a caste here? User Sitush is doing mass deletes. WHY??? User Sitush is doing mass deletes. WHY??? PLEASE DON'T DELETE DATAs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.50.87 (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

wanted a clear list of person , having own artcile in wiki Daya Anjali (talk / contribs) 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr K N Raj was vice chancellor of Delhi university and not JNU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnu chekavar (talk • contribs) 06:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The saint , sage , prophet topic should come on top of martial arts experts . What do others feel ?--Vishnu Chekavar 07:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnu chekavar (talk • contribs)

Ref -: Artists and Actors Raveendran Master is not an Ezhava , he belongs to Panan community so removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchekavar (talk • contribs) 11:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to clearly make a point, Thiyyas in north malabar are not Ezhavas.

They dont have any religious gurus like narayana guru. Thiyyas are seperate caste in north malabar, having many their on customs. like theyyam, Sree muthapan.

They are warriors and also rulers of 8 illams.

EkaThiyyan (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Ezhava Goddess

Maalikappuraththamma of Sabarimala ie Leela devi of Cheerappanchira family is an ezhava —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampanchovan (talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits

The Journalists list has been removed it seems , only one name remains. Editors should mention the reason why it has been done. If someone has the list Pls populate .Vchekavar (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Users like Sitesh are doing mass deletes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.163.21 (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am just restoring all removals done by vandalism . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.163.21 (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Who should be on this list

This is a list that makes claims about people. So, unsourced claims should not be allowed. That's my argument. If you (those who keep restoring the unsourced entries) think otherwise, please state your case here. If you don't, then your contributions will be removed. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Wikipedia policies require that all content is verifiable using reliable sources. In the case of living people this is of particular importance. There is a subsidiary point of relevance also, which relates specifically to lists of people.

The combined effect of these various policies in the context of this article is that every entry needs either to link to an existing Wikipedia article which itself contains verifiable information that the subject matter is/was a member of the Ezhava community or needs to have suitable citations (ideally, more than one) to enable verifiability. There is nothing to stop both a link and a citation being provided, but the lack of both is definitely going to result in removal.

I do realise that there may be some cultural issues involved in this and the systemic bias essay refers to some of these. Again in the context of this article, the most obvious one is where a particular last name, such as Panicker, is commonly associated with a particular caste/community. Unfortunately, it is the case that such last names are not exclusively associated with a group and therefore mere possession of the name does not provide sufficient verifiability. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

An IP has just added a bunch of business people, which I have then formatted. Please note that these people may not survive in the list because the requirements of the notability guidelines generally mean that people need to have more than a passing mention in reliable sources. As far as I am concerned, they can stay for now because this is a list and not an article about the individuals ... but I would much prefer it if contributors could actually test the notability of such people either by actually creating articles or providing sources that do something more than (basically) just list names as has happened in this case. - Sitush (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources, BLP & notability

Per our policies regarding notability, it is necessary that statements are verifiable to multiple independent sources. Certainly in a case where there may be an issue relating to how living people are identified, I think that it is desirable to enforce it.

I note that the book by Sadasivan has not only attracted much ire across many caste/community articles but in fact it has now been shown that the man was unreliable in at least some aspects of his writing. In particular, it has been shown that he contradicts himself within the book. For this reason, using Sadasivan without an additional source to support his opinion seems to be a matter for concern.

I am also of the view that all names should be blue-linked, in order to have some sort of wider test/scrutiny for notability. In other words, all names in this article should have their own articles also. It is easy to find "passing mentions" of people (any people, not just alleged Ezhavas) but that does not make them notable. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just removed from the business section

• K. S. Chathunny, Elite Group
• P V Sami, KTC group

Both of these were sourced but neither have their own article. Not that it particularly matters - because notability is not inherited - but there are also no articles for either of the named companies. Just being mentioned (listed, in fact) in a book does not confer notability. My name has appeared in more than one book but, believe me, I am as insignificant as it is possible to be!

Create articles for these people, by all means. Assuming that those articles survive a review per Wikipedia:Notability_(people) then they can be included in this list. For further info, please also read the specific policy of WP:NLIST. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And some more now removed from the same section, for the same reason, are:

• Ramesan Contractor, Rajadhani group
• A. M. Gopalan/Gokulam Gopalan, Gokulam group
• G. Mohandas, South Park Trivandrum
• M. P. Purushothaman, Empee group
• T. R. Raghavan, Elite Group

There may yet be another batch. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The last batch

• M. P. Ramachandran, Jyoti Laboratories
• V. P. Sidhan, Medimix group (owns Cuticura brand)
• V R Prasad, Travancore Mats and Matting Company
• C R Devaraj, Charankattu Coir Manufacturing Company
• P V Chandran KTC group, Grihalakshmi productions

NB: I am not even sure that Medimix (soap) own the Cuticura soap brand, although they may licence it. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This document seems to be locked due to vandalism. In that case should n't the document be locked to a version prior to Vandalism? S.N Sadasivan is one of the most respected authors.

If there is a doubt on one entry, Sitush must provide another reference challenging that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unni1 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I see your general point, although it is not my responsibility to prove a negative and indeed it often cannot be done. There are discussions regarding the veracity of Sadasivan across numerous caste/community articles, most of which is unfavourable. I would agree that people tend to shout more when they disagree with something than when they agree, and that could account for a lot of those (since they start with an opening statement that Sadasivan is wrong). However, at Talk:Kayastha, User:Gyanvigyan1 has provided some compelling evidence of his contradictory statements.

On top of this, there remains the issue which I have referred to here on a few occasions. If someone is notable then they should have their own article, thereby creating a blue link rather than a red one. If that article remains on Wikipedia then, sure, the person is notable and should be on this list. But the notability guideline requirements do include that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list", and it is generally taken that this means multiple sources.

I accept that this is a guideline, rather than policy, but it seems to me that it is almost a pseudo-policy: it is regularly cited (for and against) at articles for discussion, which is a forum frequently appears to be the ultimate arbiter regarding whether an article that asserts "significance" or "importance" is actually worthwhile keeping.

There is also the issue of how a person is mentioned. A passing mention of someone in a book that is really about something else is not really an indication of notability, nor necessarily reliable. Plenty of names figure in plenty of books, but most are of little significance.

I will ask a couple of editors to review this, and I will ask them in as neutral a manner as I am capable, but I am pretty sure that I am correct on the principle. It would not surprise me if some differ on the detail! - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Second thoughts: it might prove difficult for me to find suitable neutral people without accusations that I am being selective. There is a chance that this issue might fit within the parameters of the third opinion process. Would it be acceptable to you if raised it there? - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush asked for my opinion on Third opinion. Third opinion works well where two editors cannot resolve opposing viewpoints. I'm not sure the opposing viewpoints are well enough articulated here for a third opinion to work. However, an alternative answer to some of your problem may be found in the practices surrounding identifying persons as Irish or Jewish, both of which are for various reasons subjects of contention. In both cases, a person can be put in that category only when they themselves are recorded somewhere as having said that they are in that category - self-identification. If you can only include parties who have self-identified as whatever this group is, then they are likely to be notable, because you will at the very least have the source where they self-identify. Does this help in any way? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, a second opinion on Third Opinion! Thanks for the thoughts and, yes, in principle the self-identification would be ok. In practice, I think that in most cases relevant to this list such things would be difficult to source. I hate to say this but, well, that is not my problem. I do a fair amount of obscure sourcing work but in this instance my resources are somewhat limited. Indian caste/community issues are a nightmare and I have sometimes seen the same people listed in a multitude of categories here at WP, which occasionally is not helped by the marriage customs. Despite the concept being denigrated by the 1947 Indian constitution, it remains the case that caste/community has an enormous impact in India, as witnessed both by the extent of warring on Wikipedia and by the number of caste-related violence issues in the country itself. For this reason, certainly in the case of living people, we do need something that is concrete otherwise it is anyone's guess how it might be interpreted and/or acted upon. - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

In his last batch of deletions, Sitush deleted V.S Achuthandan and R. Sankar. Both were Chief Ministers of Kerala state and that alone make them notable. There are articles about them and has several references. Yet he deleted them. Why? There are virutally tens or 100s of entries Sitush has deleted that were long standing. There may be entries that did not have citations. In that case delete that particular entry or entries.

Sitush says it is not his problem to find references that contradict the references that I have given. Then what exactly is his problem? I would like to know so we do not waste time waging wiki wars here. For me it is not a level playing ground because I am writing and finding references and Sitush is simply deleting and says it is not his problem to prove or disprove.

Mr S.N Sadasivan's book(this particular one) deals with Social History of India. It is natural and expected that there will be opposing views to his point of view. However this article is simply a list, there are no controversial theories in this list. That some one likes or dislikes Sivadasan is not a Wikipedia level concern because for every one that dislike Sadasivan, there are those who like him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.163.21 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I am getting fed up of this now. Sadasivan is unreliable - it has been shown that he contradicts himself, and there has been much disapproval of his opinions across a wide range of articles here. But, and more importantly, as someone says above he provides only a list. We're basing our list on his list, when it would be better to use multiple sources due to there being issues regarding this guy. I realised that most sources for this type of info are likely to be "passing mentions" but there are issues with such things, especially so when we are making statements about living people (as in this article), but my main point relates to WP:SOURCES which says, inter alia

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Content related to living people or medicine should be sourced especially carefully.

I do not believe that Sadasivan has "a reputation for fact checking". If you dispute this then I suggest that you raise the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard but until such time, and because we are dealing with living people, I am merely applying policy by erring on the side of caution. - Sitush (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If you do not believe Sadasivan has a reputation for fact checking, that is not sufficient. I did not see anything to the contrary in the book. There is no need to get fed up. Just follow rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.163.21 (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Sadasivan is not going to tell you that he doesn't check his facts, so it is no wonder that you could not see it in the book! I have linked above to one article where this was shown to be this case - Kayastha - and the same has been shown as, for example, Nair. The guy cannot be relied upon. If the Ezhava thing is so important in relation to the people he mentions then there must be other sources available out there, surely? I am pretty sure that he did not speak to them all personally. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, in the case of Nairs, Sadasivan claimed that there was a passage in the ancient literature that said they were descended from dogs. Nobody could find any other secondary source to support that statement, and those with the capability to read the old texts could not find it there either. Not surprisingly, people turned out in their droves to say that the guy was bonkers. In the case of Kayastha, he makes statements that they were of X varna and then that that were of Y varna, and in both cases completely mis-states what the courts ruled. Bearing in mind that he was not even by training a historian, anthropologist, Sanskrit scholar etc and, well, you have to question what the man was up to. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have removed the list of arts people claimed to belong in the article (which also was formatted incorrectly and not written up neutrally), because I share the concerns about sourcing. First of all, the above-mentioned publication does not appear to be well-edited and published by a reputable press; second, none of the articles linked were sourced sufficiently to warrant their inclusion here. Unless other, reliable sources are found, these people (dead or alive) should not be included. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

APH Publications , Darya Ganj, New Delhi has published a variety of books. Go go google books and do a search. So far the author was in question, now the Publisher is in question. What is the basis for all this?

I could not see what is the formatting problem. If format is a problem, correct the format and improve it. Why delete? Then there is complaint about neutrality. What is neutral about a list? There are 100s of such lists in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.163.21 (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You ask "what is the basis for all this"? The answer is our reliable sources policy. Sadasivan is not reliable. Just find something else. - Sitush (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• I tried to be as comprehensive as possible in my edit summary. The entries I removed all contained this "famous" stuff, which is not neutral. The accepted formatting uses bullet points. Finally, I share Sitush's concern about the source. I don't know the author, and looked at something else--the publisher. I cannot find evidence for this being a notable outfit: a few of their books have been reviewed in The Hindu, that's all. How many books they have published is not relevant. If I combine Sitush's doubt about the author with mine about the publisher, then it seems clear to me we have legitimate cause for concern about reliability. And then throw in the fact that all those linked biographies themselves are poorly or completely inadequately sourced... Drmies (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush"If you cannot discuss and impose your preference", then why did you delete my entries? Again and again?

Drmies If your problem is the word famous, I can remove the word. There is no need to remove the entry for that. About the author, he has published several books. Published by 1) Mitthal Publications 2) Indian Instiute of Public Administration 3) Tata McGraw Hill and so on. Mr. Sadasivan's books are used as reference in various other books published by various other authors and publishers. Just go to Google books or Amazon.com and try. Both authors and publisher are reputed and is not 'one off'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.163.21 (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have discussed extensively. Indeed, I started this thread on 30 October. Sadasivan's non-public administration works, including the one which you cited for this article, are extremely rarely cited by his peers. The man spread himself widely when it came to writing about matters outside the scope of his day job, but he was no polymath: indeed, it seems to be more a case of spreading himself thinly rather than widely.

In the case of the source in question here, I could find on Google Scholar only three citations in the 11 years or so since the book was published. One of those appears to be a cite by the author himself, and the other two appear to be obscure. Not much reward, then, for what someone has described at S. N. Sadasivan as his "most ambitious" work. Now, let's stop going round in circles: either take it to WP:RSN, find other sources or forget about the whole thing. I am not kidding when I say that this guy has caused a phenomenal amount of problems for the Wikipedia project, but I would much rather that he caused no more. I am prepared to stand corrected, of course, but this relentless, repetitive thread is not achieving anything. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I too have discussed extensively, but arguments like the Author is not reliable or the publisher is not reputable etc does not fly. Because they are. When you started the thread is immaterial. I am not planning to forget about the whole thing either. If that is a good idea, Why don't you forger about the whole thing? It is an exaggeration to say that Sadasivan has caused "phenomenal amount of problems for the Wikipedia project".. I don't agree with that. Wikipedia is too large a project for that. There may be people who disagree with Sadasivan. That is an intellectual debate on those topics. As far this article is concerned, whether the person sourced is notable and whether he is Ezhava (or not) is the question. What Sadasivan talked about Hinduism or Budhism in his book is not an issue. I have not sourced those ideas here. Right now, I am not interested in Ancient texts or ancient Hindu beliefs of origins of castes.

If you feel that an entry that I made in this article is factually wrong, say Mukesh, then question it. You have never made an argument that a particular person is not an Ezhava. You have not made an argument that they are not notable.

Googling S N Sadasivan returned 84000 results. I can see 100s of citations in Google Scholar for S N Sadasivan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.163.21 (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadasivan was an academic and involved in public administration. For that reason, yes, you will get a lot of hits. What he was not is a sociologist, historian, anthropologist, Sanskrit scholar, lawyer etc (some of these as mentioned here previously). This specific book is a complete disaster and is rarely cited, probably because of that. For some reason, he seems also to have changed publishers quite frequently, which is rarely a good sign. What is so difficult about finding other sources? - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I suspect that either you have made a typo, misread the Google result or do not understand how Google works. The actual number of hits is around 8,700 & most of those appear to be garbage. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Googling is a standard practice to get a feel. It is hard to see every result and see if it is garbage or not. One man's treasure is another man's garbage. "S N Sadasivan" is not the only way to search. There is also "S.N Sadasivan" and "S. N. Sadasivan" etc.

Sourcing a book has a context. No one has questioned the reliability of this book with respect to the context I was using in this article. The context is "List of Ezhavas". You tell me if a person listed is not Ezhava or the snippet about the person is wrong , then we can remove that. I am sourcing as per Wikipedia policies on sourcing that includes the context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.163.21 (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, if a source is unreliable then it is unreliable, period. And that has been established on other articles, as referred to above. "Garbage" is correct when the results are mirrors of Wikipedia, blogs, bookselling websites etc. You keep ignoring my question, whereas I continue to respond to yours. Once again, what is so difficult about finding an alternative source?

BTW, it would be nice if you did follow some policies etc. For example. signing your posts and indenting the things. - Sitush (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've now tried all permutations that I can think of at Google and still cannot get beyond around 8,700 hits, except if the search is just on "Sadasivan" (750k). The perms included variations of spacing and periods etc. What search string did you use to achieve the figure of 84,000 ? Sitush (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the policies reliable sources. "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Therefore it is not correct to say that "No, if a source is unreliable then it is unreliable, period". It is only your opinion that it is not reliable. It is very reliable. That the book does not align with your opinions is not an issue here.

In any case it is simply your opinion that Sadasivan is not reliable. It is totally reliable. I have not seen anything in the book to the contrary. I have sourced my additions including ISBN and page number. That is when you started your argument about reliability of the author, then the publisher, then google scholars and then google itself. It is common to cite an author as Sadasivan et al. There will be other Sadasivans that show up then. I used S N Sadasivan for search string. I use quotes "S N Sadasivan" then I get 8,970 results. Apparently he is not as popular as Kadarshians. But that is not the point here on sourcing him.

As far as this article is concerned, what matters is

1) Is the person referred here is an Ezhava? 2) Is the person notable?

The differences of opinion about the origins of various castes is immaterial to this article. If one caste claims superiority over another, the later would object to it. That is common. There will be various authors arguing for and against such matters. Those things can be argued in articles dealing with those subjects, not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.236.162 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not just my opinion, though. It is the opinion of a lot of people, over a lot of different aspects of what he wrote in this book. Given that there have been so many substantiated objections etc & over such a broad range of issues, it is for you to prove reliability. And you have have not done so. Elen of the Roads has a good point above re: self-identification. And still you have not answered my question. I am beginnning to think that this may be because Sadasivan is in fact the only source that oyu can find - if that is so then it just underlines the awkwardness of using him. - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A thought. Does Sadasivan name his sources for the Ezhava assertion relating to these people? Any decent academic would do, I think. My view at GBooks is now pretty limited due to having referred to it on so many occasions, but I could always get it out from the library again if you are in a similar position. - Sitush (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There is always original research. You cannot always source other people, some one needs to do original research. I, as a Wikipedia editor needs to source because it is Wikipedia policy. What holds for Wikipedia or a research paper in a University class does not apply to books. I cannot find out what an author did for his research. I do not have the time and resources for it. A journalist will produce his research, he is not sourcing somebody.

Besides Wikipedia is based on good faith. When I write something, they are my work. I need to provide references because it is an online encyclopedia not a book. You cannot ask me to find out what various authors did and so on. I am only introducing names of Ezhavas who are notable and I am providing reference including page number. If you have an opinion that they are not Ezhavas or they are not notable, then you have a point. There is no need to do a fishing expedition here. Slandering authors and publishers is uncalled for.Unni1 (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unni1 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No, my opinion is that your source is unreliable. That opinion has been supported by others, including at least two administrators. I was trying to find a way round the problem but if no way exists then the source remains unreliable. As Elen of the Roads says above, in the ideal world we find some source where they have self-identified.

Just because the page has been unprotected does not give you the right to insert the information. We have not reached an agreement regarding this & therefore it would be edit warring, which is a situation that can lead to you being blocked from contributing here at all. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush asked me to comment here. Unni1, at quite a number of different articles, Sadasivan has been found to be an unreliable author, because he lacks credentials and his work does not seem to be well written (if I recall correctly--I'd have to search up the exact discussions). As such, the presumption should be that he is generally unreliable. You can't just assert that he is in this case reliable without evidence. If you have some reason to believe that he is reliable, please go to the reliable sources noticeboard and open a discussion there. Otherwise, per agreement at several different places (including, I should mention, some people who disagree about prety much everything else), Sadasivan shouldn't be used as a source anywhere.

In addition, it is not sufficient to use a source that simply asserts a person was an Ezhava. Wikipedia is not in the business of listing every single person who is in a given caste, or who lives in a certain city, or who went to a certain school. Thus, you need a source that goes beyond simply saying "X was an Ezhava"; it needs to also explain why the person is important enough to be listed here. For living people, this isn't just an option--it's a requirement per WP:NLIST. For dead people, the requirement isn't set in stone, but it is still generally recommended under WP:NOT. Thus, one of the easiest things to do is simply to require every person be blue-linked--that is, if they're notable enough for an article, they're important enough to be on this list, then allow exceptions only in specific, well-sourced cases. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not added a person for simply being Ezhava. I only added when notability is met. Blue linking means that there is another wikipedia article and we are using that article as a reference. It is not a necessary and sufficient condition for notability. What you mention about notability in WP:NLIST is about unsourced or poorly sourced references to living persons. That does not apply here as I have used detailed information on source for my entries.

"In addition, it is not sufficient to use a source that simply asserts a person was an Ezhava. Wikipedia is not in the business of listing every single person who is in a given caste, or who lives in a certain city, or who went to a certain school." Is this sarcasm? The persons in this list were notable just as they are in lists like List of Nairs. You must follow consistent rules.

BTW whose presumption? I have not seen anything in this context or outside the context for my source being unreliable. You show me anything unreliable about the source in any close context. Unni1 (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

−

Perhaps I am confused based on the items Sitush lists above. Can someone point me specifically to the names currently in dispute? If they're not in the article right now, a diff for when they were would help. Of course, if the only source is Sadasivan, it doesn't matter, because you'll need to go to RSN first to establish the source is RS, since numerous other discussions have shown he is not. Sitush, do you remember the talk pages where it was agreed? Or did you actually take that to RSN before? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been several groups added that relied on Sadasivan. The first included the business people listed near to the start of this thread. IIRC, the last - which were indeed bluelinked - were this batch. A couple of talk pages at which Sadasivan was found to be unreliable are listed above - Talk:Kayastha and Talk:Nair.I don't think that RSN were involved because the unreliability was so obviously the case.

Unni1, I am working on List of Nairs, don't worry. Look at the history there & you'll see me nibbling away at it, as I did here over a period of a few weeks/months. The treatment that has been applied here is indeed being applied elsewhere, not that it particularly matters because of the "other stuff exists" notion. It is just that this article is proving to meet with considerable opposition, whereas the others generally are not. The more time I spend here, the less I spend elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sivadasan contradicts himself is the argument you are making about reliability. First point is that Kayastas were Brahmins once. Second point that contradicts the first one is that Kayastas tried to claim higher status by claiming Kshatriya status. That does not necessarily contradict since the second point is in reference to a later and more recent period, after some social status changes took place. I do not know about Kayasta, I must admit, however some searches and enquiries tells me various stories. One is that they are not one of the 4 varnas(Head for Brahmin,Feet for Shudra etc) . Kayasta being born of Kaya makes them outside the 4 varnas. Another source tells me that even though that might be the case, Kayastas are higher in the order than Kshatriyas, they are between Kshatriya and Brahmin. These are debates and claims.

Claims and counter claims along with slander are tools of casteism. In the beginning most would have accepted the initial claims and would have started making counter claims later.The general tone of Sadasivan is that certain mythologies, stories, oppressive tools of feudalism and slander had been used historically to create undesirable social conditions that harmed various communities of people. That being said, we can not know history with certainty. Every person has a natural right to say he is not beneath anyone. If you say you are talking history, then I am talking history as written by someone else. I am talking slander as a tool.

As regards this article,what I am saying is very simple. When I write something, it is my work. I need to provide source, so I provide source. To show that Sadasivan is unreliable or I am unreliable you need to show what I wrote is incorrect or Sadasivan wrote is incorrect in context. Incorrect means this: If Sadasivan presented a non-Ezhava as Ezhava or an unimportant person as a notable person, then that will show unreliability. Same with me, If I add a person in this list and if he is not Ezhava, or he is not notable then there is good reason to suggest unreliability. However you have not done so. Another issue is the rigor around living persons, which I agree. In the interest of time that could be used for better purposes, we can agree that living persons require multiple sources. But what about dead people? Again notability does not require another Wikipedia article as long as notability can be established using other sources such as books. You may call such material orphans without cross linked wikipedia articles but that is not ground for deletion. References and links will come later as more articles develop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unni1 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Because the agreement on Sadasivan has occurred on several different pages and from a wide number of editors (again, I cannot stress enough how much these editors usually disagree), the responsibility will not be up to you, Unni1, to show that the source is reliable. Again, the best place to do that is at WP:RSN. Regarding adding dead people to the list without sources...well, this is an issue that different people treat differently on Wikipedia. Some editors add information that is not controversial to articles, and then wait for sourcing to come. And then another person will see that it's unsourced, and add a "citation needed" tag. And then a third person might come along later and delete the information for being unsourced. However, WP:V does not require us to use such a protracted process--it explicitly allows the removal of any unsourced information except for that which is completely common sense. And there is no question that calling someone an important person in a list of a particular caste/community is does not fall under common sense. So, if you find someone described in a book as being Ezhava, and that book also explains why the person is important, you could add that person with that reference. You can't add someone just because they are listed in a book along with a dozen other names, because, being an encyclopedia, our grounds for deciding who is or isn't important may not be the same as that books. And even after you add the info, other editors can still challenge it, by arguing against the quality of the source, or by arguing that it doesn't show enough importance (this falls under WP:NPOV, btw) to belong in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Narayana Guru

I have removed Narayana Guru from the list. As someone has recently pointed out, he did not agree with the concept of caste. This being the case, he should not be listed here. I realise that this is a policy more strictly applied to living people but feel that the removal is nonetheless appropriate as inclusion amounts to puffery. - Sitush (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Support. KAS^{( talk)} 09:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Historic Ancient personalities removed

There is no reference to show that Aromal chekavar or Unni archa was ever Ezhava --Rahulkris999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There's two references right in the article. Are you saying those references don't meet WP:RS? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Rahulkris999, you were also removing the reference to Thiyya, which is also sourced, with the summary "Thiyya subclass removed". You appear to have had problems previously in relation to Thiyya, editing against consensus and without proper discussion. If you wish to remove either piece of content, you need to explain the problem with its sourcing and get a consensus in support. Please take the time to have a read of the discretionary sanctions applicable to caste articles, which I have posted on your talk page, and be aware that joining in the edit war to remove content that you do not like, without proper explanation or discussion, will render you liable to action under those sanctions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Cinema personalities

message from Sitush - Hi, I am sorry but I have had to revert your recent additions to List of Ezhavas. The sources that you provided were circular references, both to other Wikipedia articles and to "books" that clearly state they got their information from Wikipedia (sometimes called mirrors). - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The above message is with regard to three film personalities - Mukesh, Samvrutha and Rima Kallingal. I'll take these one-by-one. First Rima Kallingal --

• Rima Kallingal - Malayalam film actress from Ollur, Thrissur

The reference is provided from a book by Jordan Naoum. The disputed information is contained in the description of the book given on Barnes & Nobles' website selling the same, as well as Google Books' index page for the book. Is this book not reliable? Does the book indeed say that it got its information from Wikipedia? Sreejiraj (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The reference link is this, which clearly states "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online.". It therefore appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia, as I explained on your talk page. It is certainly not reliable as a source and, in any event, as a living person we would need verification that Kallinga self-identifies as an Ezhava, not that someone else says that she is. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Then it will be difficult to include any living Ezhava in the list. Because according to their Guru, they must not talk of Jaathi (ethnic origin), and nearly all the notable ones don't want to talk about it, as they consider it a divisive trend to talk about tribal affiliations and all that. This is different from other castes in Kerala who openly go about proclaiming their tribal affiliations, to the extent of including it in their name (MT Vasudevan Nair, for example). For example, if you looked at the reference for Mukesh, there is one quoting a UK website (Celebri.co.uk) which mentions an anecdote "When asked about this in an interview, Mukesh commented in a light mood that he and Sathyan Anthikkadu belongs to same Ezhava caste and one Ezhava does not like another Ezhava prospering. Sathyan Anthikkadu immediately called up Mukesh and was cast in.." This is the most you can expect in the form of a self-admission. However, this egalitarian and modernist outlook among Ezhavas should not come in the way of Wikipedia's efforts to chronicle a list of the prominent personalities in the ethnic group. Another fact - I live about 15 miles away from where she hails from, and I know for a fact that she is an ezhava. Anyway, that aside, look at Barack Obama. The first line describes him as "African American". But there is no reference to back up the claim. Nor is there any link to where Obama is claiming that he is African American. It is not required because it is common knowledge that he is. Unless someone contests it, there should be no need for elaborate references for each item in a biography. Just because Rima is an Indian (we use the first name as proper reference), it doesn't mean that different standards have to be adopted. I realize that you guys may have fewer admins or moderators from India (particularly from Thrissur, Kerala where she is from), but my suggestion is to leave the name in. Because it's a competitive world out there - if she's not from this community and is from another community (which is not the case, as I know personally), members of the other communities will be quick to edit her name out and point out the fact. Otherwise, the list will have to consist of purely dead people. If you insist that they accept that they are Ezhava, it is like saying someone should accept that they are Jewish.. a lot of Jewish people don't really like to go about saying they are Jewish, and Ezhava people are mostly like that - believers in universal brotherhood and all that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejiraj (talk • contribs) 09:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm certain it is, or could easily be sourced that Barack Obama is African American, since thousands (at least) of articles call him the "first African American President"; that, plus the fact that the article does verify the ethnic origin of his families in reliable sources does verify his status as an African American. And if you think "Jewish" is an easy category, you've never tried to edit it--we've had hundreds of edit wars and users get blocked numerous times for fighting about who is or is not Jewish. In any event, as for this article, your own personal knowledge is not sufficient, nothing from Gyan is ever acceptable for anything on Wikipedia, and we must have a clear source verifying ethnic identity. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what you expect? For example, would you like me to get a notarized affidavit by a High Court lawyer? There are several instances, on the web, of people saying she is from the ezhava community, and I repeat, no one has even said it is otherwise, here, or anywhere on the web, but you still say it's not proof enough? Besides, if one were to be fair, and distribute the burden of proof equitably, can you show me any instance (I am not even looking for 'proof', just a mention) of anyone saying she's from any other community? I don't really get what you are looking for. Perhaps I could arrange a private one-on-one with her? Would you be able to come to Trissur please? If so, please give the date and time. The ignorance or the origin of Wikipedia editors should not be a limitation on the quality of articles on this website. If that was the case, Wikipedia would not be where it is today. Please remember that spirit. Sreejiraj (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You need a reliable source. If you can find a source that meets that guideline, then we can discuss the self-declaration requirement, but you haven't even produced a reliable source. That link will explain to you what counts. The point behind requiring sources is that any reader should be able to verify where info on WP came from. That's why even if I did have a one-on-one with her, it wouldn't help. Note that there is no requirement that anyone find any evidence saying the opposite: the burden is always on the person who wants to add the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Let us move on to the next item in the list (since you say that the backcover description given on a biographhical book can't be relied on). *Mukesh What is the issue with this? Rediff India Ltd is a Nasdaq listed company and one of India's first and largest web-publishing company. Their biographical article is not enough? Celebri UK is not enough? And finally -- several such sources together is not enough?Sreejiraj (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Rediff news articles are generally reliable. But that page is a fan created page--it's basically an open wiki, just like Wikipedia, meaning anybody can add or change info. Such sites are never reliable. The second is clearly either a fan site, self-published site, or possibly even a mirror of a wiki. The third is a dictionary, so I don't see how that helps. The last clearly doesn't meet WP:RS as a self-published site. Again, I ask that you read WP:RS, which details the guidelines for finding good sources. You need things like good quality newspapers, scholarly journals, trade magazines, books published by known authors in reliable publishing companies, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, what about a book by SN Sadasivan? http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Be3PCvzf-BYC&pg=PA690&lpg=PA690Sreejiraj (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

S. N. Sadasivan has caused all sorts of problems on all sorts of articles, notably Nair. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

So you can't accept that book? One question to Sitush You said "in any event, as a living person we would need verification that Kallinga self-identifies as an Ezhava, not that someone else says that she is." This policy is there only for religion and sexual orientation according to Wikipedia policy. So why are you dragging it in, in case of ethnicity? - WIKIPEDIA POLICY ON ETHNICITY Sreejiraj (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus. There is an explanation and links to discussions available at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. Sorry, I thought that I had already mentioned this. The issues you raise are the same as countless past challenges. We do not categorise people by caste, and it was decided not to allow claims in lists/articles etc if the person is living, unless self-identified. Caste is, effectively, treated as an ethnicity. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

For some links to past discussions concerning caste categorisation, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_10#Category:Rajput_people. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I went through the link and specifically, I am interested in this comment of yours -- "it was decided not to allow claims in lists/articles etc if the person is living, unless self-identified." A similar comment made by AndyTheGrump seems to have gone unchallenged in that conversation Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_49#List_of_members_of_X_caste. Specifically, he said: "Further to this, per WP:BLPCAT, we shouldn't be putting living persons into such a list without explicitly citing a source that demonstrates that they have self-identified as being of that caste. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)" I read WP:BLPCAT which hands over the topic to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality. However, I am not able to find the section that mandates such a self-identification. (I have raised this issue with Andy as well.) There is such a requirement for religion, as I can see. But I see no requirement in the section about identifying the tribal or ethnic origin. "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not. Ethnic groups may be used as categorizations, even if race is a stereotypical characteristic of the ethnic group, e.g. with African-Americans or Anglo-Indians. See Lists of ethnic groups for groups that are typically considered ethnic groups rather than races. For example, we do have Category:Jewish musicians, but we should not have Category:Semitic musicians." That is what it says. So I would like to know from you the basis of your averment that to mention somebody's tribal/ethnic origin or community, one has to produce proof that he or she self-identified with that group. For example, in the BLP of Larry_Page, he is described as Jewish, without giving any reference to prove that he self-identified with that ethnic group. Another issue -- if you are going to actually implement this rule, then you have to remove nearly all the items currently in the list, as most of them are living and none of them are the sort who would say "I'm Ezhava" and be quoted for it. By the way, you seem to have no issues letting them remain there though there is no reference or link to prove that they self-identified. Isn't that unfair and discriminatory? Sreejiraj (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sreejiraj, you wrote above that "it will be difficult to include any living Ezhava in the list. Because according to their Guru, they must not talk of Jaathi (ethnic origin), and nearly all the notable ones don't want to talk about it, as they consider it a divisive trend to talk about tribal affiliations". Regardless of Wikipedia policy concerning ethnicity, it would in such circumstances necessarily violate core WP:BLP policy to include living individuals without evidence of clear self-identification: "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". If individuals do not wish to be identified by caste, it is a violation of their privacy to do so. Or do you think this ridiculous obsession that some Wikipedia contributors have with shoving people into arbitrary boxes is more important than the rights of the individuals concerned? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you have not given me the answer to my question -- which is, why are you inventing a rule about self-declaration for ethnicity when there is no such rule in Wikipedia's policies. Secondly, it's very kind of you to take my opinion so seriously and base your actions upon them and I am truly flattered. But I think that's not how Wikipedia editors should work. They should go by Wikipedia's accepted guidelines, and the guidelines do not say that ethnic identities need self-identification before they can be made part of a Wiki. As you might have noted, this rule is not observed for Westerners like Larry_Page, why should it be for Indians? So, this is just a red herring that you are trying to throw and I would request you to answer the question. (And yes, people have been told not to 'boast' about their tribe, and they generally don't, but does that mean that they can't be mentioned as belonging to that tribe? If that is true, then you can't call a Nobel Prize-laureate a Nobel Prize-laureate unless that guy describes himself as a 'Nobel Prize-Laureate', which most modest people wouldn't. Anyway, this is besides the point. Let's stick to official policy for now.)Sreejiraj (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't recall my exact reasoning - but it seems self-evident that 'caste' is a religious and political concept, as much as an 'ethnic' one, and since general WP:BLP policy applies anyway, as I've already pointed out, whether caste is treated exactly as ethnicity in the WP:BLPCAT is irrelevant - we shouldn't be labelling people by caste at all unless it is relevant to their notability. As for your comments regarding 'Westerners', and Larry Page in particular, the correct action if you see policy violated is to correct it, not to use it as an excuse to do the same elsewhere. Finally, I'd remind you that Community Authorized Discretionary Sanctions are in place in regard to articles concerning caste. Given that you seem to be the only person here arguing against what appears to be a general consensus within Wikipedia that we should not categorise living people by caste, you might well be best advised to avoid making what might be seen as personal attacks - as anyone who is familiar with my editing history will be aware, I have made my opposition to the relentless over-categorisation by ethnicity, religion and who knows what else entirely obvious - and I resent your continued implications that I have some sort of anti-Indian bias. I suggest that rather than picking over the minutia of WP:BLPCAT policy, you consider the broader objectives of WP:BLP policy in general, and of the emerging Wikipedia consensus, and find another, less contentious, subject to contribute to. Or if you prefer, ask at WP:BLPN for advice as to what current practice is - though you should expect to be asked why you consider the supposed membership of a caste by individuals notable for something else entirely to be worthy of note in an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

All concerned here may wish to read and perhaps comment on this at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have left my reply at this Sreejiraj (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that even though I have opened discussion at WT:INB, current consensus is that living people can only be included if they self-identify, so this article needs to conform to that consensus. So please don't add any names w/o such a source until such time as consensus changes at INB (if, in fact, it ever does). Qwyrxian (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Martial Arts Experts Ezhava Panickers- http://gurunarayana.blogspot.in/2014/05/the-prominent-personalities-of-kerala.html Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker Akathayyadi panicker - Chief commandor of ilayidath swaroopam(Kottarakkara kingdom) Ambanattu panicker - Chief commandor of chempakassery Kingdom. Ref: Pathonmpatham noottandile keralam by Bhaskaranunni Lokanatha Panicker - Chief commandor of kayamkulam kingdom Patheenatha Panicker - Son of Lokanatha Panicker, Chief commander of kayamkulam kingdom who defeated Marathanda varma of travancore 3 times. The name of his tharavadau is Varanappally near kayamkulam where Sree Narayana Guru lived during his education from Kummapally Raman Pilla Asan. Ref: KK SN Directory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.38.133 (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.TinjuRaj (talk • contribs)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2018

Martial Arts Experts Ezhava Panickers- http://gurunarayana.blogspot.in/2014/05/the-prominent-personalities-of-kerala.html Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker Akathayyadi panicker - Chief commandor of ilayidath swaroopam(Kottarakkara kingdom) Ambanattu panicker - Chief commandor of chempakassery Kingdom. Ref: Pathonmpatham noottandile keralam by Bhaskaranunni Lokanatha Panicker - Chief commandor of kayamkulam kingdom Patheenatha Panicker - Son of Lokanatha Panicker, Chief commander of kayamkulam kingdom who defeated Marathanda varma of travancore 3 times. The name of his tharavadau is Varanappally near kayamkulam where Sree Narayana Guru lived during his education from Kummapally Raman Pilla Asan. Ref: KK SN Directory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.38.133 (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.TinjuRaj (talk • contribs) 59.99.38.133 (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Ezhava

Who created this page This page is abusive to 3.5 million people Please note and do the needful Sreeretnan (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Vaguely ranting messages such as yours will achieve nothing. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

References

References are clearly mentioned but no relation with facts May be this creator tried to corrupt Sreeretnan (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Vaguely ranting messages such as yours will achieve nothing. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Hi, Thiyyas and Ezhavas are 2 different communities. Please remove Thiyya from the content. 116.72.161.30 (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

Add Pinarayi Vijayan, the Hon. Chief Minister of Kerala to the list. He belongs to the Ezhava community. Here is a source: https://scroll.in/latest/908057/some-people-remind-me-of-my-caste-quite-often-says-kerala-cm-pinarayi-vijayan 42.111.230.183 (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Timbaaa -> ping me 02:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

The link to the politicians page of "K Surendran" is incorrect. The link should point to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Surendran_(politician) Sanjoealex (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)