Talk:Kiryathil Nair: Difference between revisions

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Titles were given by the Kings according to profession. So the titles of Nagavanshi Nair community are also found in other Hindu and Christian communities. But these communities are not at all related to each other, that is, they don’t have same ancestry, though they share same titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.247.151 (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admin, Tamil Mannadiayars of Palakkad district are not Kiriyathil Nairs. They belong to Kunnuvar caste of Tamil Nadu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.7.235 (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the tamil Mannadiyar I think you are referring to nair Mannadiyar since there 3 Mannadiyar in palakkad and nair Mannadiyar are 1 among them , they are kiriyath Pramith 123 (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mannadiars of Palakkad are mainly two groups.

1. The Mannadiars of Vellamkoor gotra are a Sthani and Janmi group in Palakkad. They are the descendants of the Vellala Mandradiar generals who settled in Palakkad after the Kongu–Chera war. They use the titles Mannadiar, Menon, and Achan, according to their respective tharavads. They now belong to the Kiriyathil Nair caste. Notable tharavads include Ankarath, Vadasserry, and others.

2. The other group of using the title Mannadiar belongs to the Kushava caste. They are traditional artisans, and their customary occupation was pottery and clay craft. They are not related to the first group Sansanker (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polyandry means having more than one husband at a time. When a divorced or widowed woman marries again it is called re-marriage not polyandry. In Nair community, both men and women had full right to terminate their marriage if they had problems with their spouse and they also had the right for re-marriage. Nair women never had more than one husband at a time. Fraternal polyandry and non-fraternal polyandry were and are considered shameful in Nair community.

Shri.Chattampi Swamikal was born in 1853. He belonged to Poniyath Nair Tharavadu and his father was Shri.Vasudevan Nambuthiri. Shri. Azhakath Padmanabha Kurup was born in 1869. He belonged to Azhakathu Nair Tharavadu and his father was Shri. Narayanan Empranthiri. The Kings and Princes married women Kiriyathil and Illathu Nair communities. In those royal families Nair women were never forced to have fraternal or non-fraternal polyandry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.125.220 (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admin, please change the title to “Kiriyathil and Illathu Nairs” because Kiriyathil Nairs are genuine Nairs of Malabar and Cochin and Illathu Nairs are genuine Nairs of Travancore. I have collected a lot of information about these two communities from different sources. Genuine Nairs have their own ancestry, rituals and customs. Do not listen to those idiots who are trying to destroy our community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.85.76 (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Kiryathil(കിർയത്തിൽ), It’s Kiriyathil(കിരിയത്തിൽ). My father was Kiriyathil Nair and my mother is Malabari Shudra Nair, that is, Illathu Nair of Malabar.

In the topic explained under the heading-Kiriyathil Nair already explains they are land owners, have their own house and they were allowed to have food with Brahmins, even when Iyers were not allowed. It’s really explained the fact gracefully. They were rulers also. They lived in houses like Nalukettu or more like houses with 4 nadumuttam and along with this house for the family they had a padippura also. Still they are the forward caste and superior to other subcaste of Nair . So Kiriyathil Nair coming under Kshatriyas. Please add this point also to the explanation under Kiriyathil Nair. Liji Nair (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kiryathil Nair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, “External links modified” talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these “External links modified” talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add segments about ‘diet’ and ‘customs and rituals’ of Kiriyathil Nairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.166.94 (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve taken the article back to a “last good version”. There were huge additions during April that seem to me to be inappropriate both in terms of focus (eg: we have an article for the martial art and do not need to go into massive detail about it here) and sourcing (we do not use sources from the Raj era and earlier for caste articles). If you really think that some or all of that material was appropriate then please seek consensus for inclusion of it here first. Thanks. – Sitush (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am wondering whether the various expansions have been copy/pasted from old versions of our articles on subjects such as Kalaripayattu and Nair. Some of it seems vaguely familiar from years ago. – Sitush (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, why you have added the details about Kaniyars from the documents of Raj era? Especially, from Cochin Tribes and castes which was written by L. Anantha Krishna Iyer in the year 1901.

Sitush, I have downloaded many books on the history of Kerala. I had also added the citations. Why did you delete them? Why are you so jealous of Nairs? From Where I will get the old articles for copy pasting? Do those old articles exist now on the internet?

Did you read my opening comment? Sources from the British Raj era and earlier are not reliable. And a lot of what you added was extremely tangential to the focus of the article, which should be about the caste and not, for example, the various styles of kalaripayattu.

I can see no mention of Kaniyars in the article. – Sitush (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about other articles like Kaniyar and Kalari. Read the fourth citation of article Kalari. It is Cochin Castes and Tribes written L. Anantha Krishna Iyer and it was written in the year 1909, that is, before independence. Shame on you Sitush. You are a person with extreme level inferiority complex.

Why you have added the details from the books Kathleen Gough? Were those books written in 21st century?

Ah, I see. Well, I didn’t add that souce to the Kalari article. Gough is after the British Raj era. Please read the information at WP:NPA before commenting further. Thanks. – Sitush (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MR.SITUSH, DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS BRITISH RAJ ERA? IN INDIA, EVEN 5TH STANDARD CHILD KNOWS THAT INDIA GOT INDEPENDENCE IN 1947. SHAME ON YOU SITUSH. SHAME ON YOU.
WHY YOU HAVE ADDED THE DETAILS FROM THE BOOK OF L. ANANTHA KRISHNA IYER IN THE ARTICLE KALARI? READ THE FOURTH CITATION.

What is wrong in adding the details from the books of the British Raj Era? Didn’t the Nair community exist on days? Is Nair a community formed after independence?

In the Nair article, look at the citations from 73 to 77. It is written “Panikkar (1918)”. 1918!!!!!, before independence, where are your rules??????

Another citation in Nair article, citation no.60, “Fawcett(1901)”. 1901, before independence.

I am not responsible for every word written in every Wikipedia article. There are very rare occasions where using an old source might just be ok but your edits certainly were not among them. There is a long-standing consensus of the Wikipedia community regarding this. You may find a read of User:Sitush/CasteSources useful. – Sitush (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush castes sources??? Why should I refer to Sitush caste sources? My community existed before independence. There is a mention about my community even in books of the 16th century. Refering those books is a part of research. Who are you to say that those books are not reliable? For Nair community books of pre-independence era should not be referred and for Kaniyar community any book can be referrerd. Right? You are the most insincere editor of Wikipedia.
103.219.49.142, you need to stop shouting at Sitush, and to read WP:NPA, WP:V and WP:RS before commenting further here. Further intemperate language like that you have used above will get you blocked. You need to discuss the content you wish to add in a civil manner, and establish consensus for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://historicalleys.blogspot.com/2016/12/on-kiriyathil-nairs-and-nair-aristocracy.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see “using copyrighted works from others” if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or “donating copyrighted materials” if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the Kiriyathils were kshtriyas. As mentioned by several historians, all the subsects of Nairs, including the Samantans and Kiriyathils were sudras in the varna classification, however they performed functions of that of Kshtriyas. The Palakkad royal family were regarded as sudras who were then elevated to Kshtriyas with the help from tamil brahmins, similar was the case with Marthanda Varma, who elevated himself from a sudra to a kshtriya with the help of brahmins from the other states. The Kaimals and Karthavu from the cochin kingdom as well as the paliyath achan, although kiriyathils, were still regarded as shudras according to the kings of cochin and namboothiris at that time. Pedia.01110 (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is also further emphasised by C. Achyutha menon(the grandson of Paliath govindan achan), a kiryathil nair himself(called vellayma nair in Central kerala), who wrote the cochin state manual. He has stated the several customs nairs(including kiryathils) had to follow while speaking to the raja, just because he was a kshtriya, for example, nairs had to always mention their palaces or tharavadus as a small ugly hut whereas the Kings Palace as a majestic abode(this is just one such example). This might be one of the reasons why the Paliath achan often did not meet the king face to face, for he had to bow down and follow such customs, even though he was much richer and ruled territories and fiefdoms under the King of cochin. Pedia.01110 (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you happen to know the guy who expanded the article? I’ve been looking at his provided sources but can’t get through. Please verify, so we can move further.R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 14:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the recent additions I have made, when I checked the “references” tab, I have noticed that the 25th reference I have made could not be opened, which is why I am attaching its pdf below. The rest of the sources seems to be fine and I was able to open it. Kindly point out which source exactly you were not able to get through to?

[1] Pedia.01110 (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page on Kiriyathil Nairs is trying to paint them as Kshatriyas without any citations alluding to that fact.

An editor has added 8 references to the line in the introductory passage where he has declared the Kiriyathil Nairs are Kshatriyas but not even one of the citations states that. At best some say they carried out functions analogous to Kshatriya. Admins please read the citations he has provided once yourself.

Here are 4 sources that directly state Kiriyathil Nairs are Shudra (Last one is colonial era source. I’ve added it to show continuity).

1) “In the Shudra varnam there are 18 castes . That comes in the first place are Kiriyathil Nair.”
Ref: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RK__DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT32&dq=kiriyathil+shudra&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJxJfjy4SQAxVrSGwGHV6OAwoQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=kiriyathil%20shudra&f=false

2) “Sudras are divided into Kiriyam, Caranavar, Attikkuricci, Vadakkadu, Parippur and Sudra(Menon)”.
Ref: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=J4MMAQAAMAAJ&q=kiriyam+shudra&dq=kiriyam+shudra&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiD1rvVzoSQAxUkUGcHHVAnHd04ChDoAXoECAcQAw#kiriyam%20shudra

3) “In the high group are the subcastes of Vellayma Sudra Nairs..”
Ref: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=c7snAAAAYAAJ&q=%22vellayma+sudra+nairs%22&dq=%22vellayma+sudra+nairs%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIkLDm0oSQAxWeUWwGHax9Fu0Q6AF6BAgIEAM#%22sudra%20nairs%22

4) “The Malayala Sudras go under the name of the Nairs… Among them there are 18 subdivisions. (1) Kiriyathil Nair…”
Ref: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=DuwUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA118&dq=%22malayala+sudras%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDwKT5zISQAxXfe2wGHXUSMQQQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=%22malayala%20sudras%22&f=false

This is another source which quotes the Kolathiri Raja who says the titles usually associated with the Kiriyathil Nairs were given to Shudras:

“The dignities of the Sthanams so given were “Nayar”, “Kurup” and “Nampiyar” to Sudras, and ’Panikkar”, “Perumalayan”, “Komar” and “Velichappatu” to low caste-men.”
Ref: https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.08399/page/75/mode/1up?q=+sudras

The previous editors have also falsely stated Keralolpathi states that Nairs were Nagavanshi Kshatriyas who migrated to Kerala from the North. But upon checking the Keralolpathi it very clealry states that the Nairs were Shudra Vellalars.

This is an English translation of Keralolpathi:
“There are several grades among the sudras. Those belonging to Vellala lineages are known as Thangal, Kammal, Kurup, Panikkar, Nayar, Atiyoti, Nambiyar, Chellattan, Thalachennor, Talappennor, Menokki. Menon, Appan, Ammoman, Ammavan, etc”
Ref: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=T3NuAAAAMAAJ&q=keralolpatti+vellalar+nayar&dq=keralolpatti+vellalar+nayar&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHvfnM4ISQAxVWT2wGHZcZMDIQ6AF6BAgHEAM#%20vellalar%20nayar

Here is the Malayalam original. Please refer page 11, 61 and 62 of Keralolpathi.
Ref: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.277951/page/n57/mode/1up

This is a colonial era source that talks specifically about the Kiriyathil Nairs being derived from Vellalars in the Parashurama tradition:

“It is assumed that the high caste of Kiriyathil Nairs was formed out of the sixty-four families of Kárakáttu Vellalars, who are supposed to have won distinction by “guarding the clouds” for the Pandya King. Parasurama-the patron saint of the Brahmins-is reputed to have introduced this class into Malabar, assigning to them the duty of agricul-tural service in the hierarchy”
Ref: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=O2soAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA113&dq=kiriyathil+vellalas&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9z8Ps4YSQAxW-SGwGHY6BJV0Q6AF6BAgHEAM#v=onepage&q=kiriyathil%20vellalas&f=false

This is another colonial era source that states Kiriyath Nairs were descendants of Nagas. However it adresses Nagas as a local hill tribe and the foremost among the Shudras rather than as Kshatriyas unlike what the previous editor claimed:

“But the land newly reclaimed from the sea was a most inhospitable region to live in, being already occupied by fearful Nagas, a race of hilltribes who drove the Brahmins back to their own lands. Parasurama per¬ severed again and again bringing hosts of Brahmins more from every part of India to settle in and colonise his new land; the Nagas were propitiated under his orders by a portion of the land being given to them and thus his own Brahmin colonists and the Nagas lived side by side without molesting each other. And by way of conciliation and concession to the old settlers (Nagas) who were serpent-worshippers, Parasurama ordered his own colonists to adopt their form of worship, and thus serpent-worship on this coast early received Parasurama’s sanction. These Nagas became the (Ifiriathu) Nayars of later Malabar claiming superiority in rank and status over the rest of the Malayali Sudras of the west coast.”
Ref: https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.29165/page/258/mode/1up?q=Nagas

I shall make changes to the wikipedia page to reflect the academic consensus on this topic. If the admins feel writing that they are Shudras may be biased against the community, you can remove this point but please prevent caste promoting editors from wrongly projecting them as Kshatriyas.

Thengakallan (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The beginning paragraph has a few inconsistencies:

I. It contains multiple caste promotion wordings: ‘Highest-ranking Shudra caste’ and ‘one of the highest castes’. This violates WP:NPOV. A neutral tone should be adopted.

II. There are non-English words that have not been hyperlinked to their respective pages: ‘Kashtriya‘ and ‘Deshavazhis’, which is more commonly known as ‘Naduvazhi‘. Adding hyperlinks to non-English words makes it easier to understand these terms.

III. The Hermann Gundert (1814 – 1893) source is a Raj-era source, and not considered as WP:RS. The 2003 reprint is a reprint of the original 1843 book by Gundert, which is long outdated and not WP:RS. The sentence should be removed, as it does not have a reliable source.

IV. Some words are overlinked repeatedly, which violates WP:OL

Extended Protection Edit Request:

Current:

Kiryathil Nair or Kiriyath Nair also known as Vellayama Nairs is the highest ranking Shudra ^[1][2][3] subdivision of the Nair caste of martial nobility,^[4] who performed the functions of Kshatriyas in Kerala, India.^{[5][6][7][8][9]} They were independent barons and also served as Deshavazhis of the regions of Malabar District and Cochin.^[10][11]

This was one of the highest-ranking sub-castes of the Nair community along with the Samantan Nairs and Samantha Kshatriya, with whom they share a close history.^[12] They have traditionally lived in ancestral homes known as Tharavads and Kovilakams.^[13]

In medieval Kerala, most of the kings belonged to extensions of the Samanthan and Kiryathil Nair castes, including the Zamorins of Calicut who were from the Eradi subgroup of the Samantan Nair subcaste. The Koratty Kaimals and Kodassery Karthas under the Perumpadappu swaroopam who were also from the Kiryathil Nair subcaste.^[14][15] Historians have also stated that, “The whole of the Kings of Malabar belong to the same great body, and are homogeneous with the mass of the people called as Nairs.”^[16]

The Kiryathil Nairs were the original descendants of the Vellalars who according to the text Keralolpathi were Shudras who migrated to Kerala to serve the Namboodiris.^[17] An alternate theory was that the Kiriyathil Nairs were descendants of serpent worshipping local hill tribes of Kerala called Nagas.^[18] They were historically given status and privileges that were not extended to other Nairs.^[19][20] In the words of the British anthropologist Edgar Thurston CIE, “The original Nairs were undoubtedly a military body, holding lands and serving as a militia.”^[21]

New:

Kiryathil Nair, also known as Kiriyath Nair and Vellayama Nairs, is a subcaste^[22][23][24] of the Nair caste of martial nobility,^[25] who performed the functions of Kshatriyas in Kerala, India.^{[5][26][27][28][29]} They were independent barons and also served as the Naduvazhi of the regions of Malabar and the Kingdom of Cochin.^[30][31]

They are a prominent subcaste of the Nair community, along with the Samantan and the Samantha Kshatriyas, with whom they share a close history.^[32] They have traditionally lived in ancestral homes known as Tharavads and Kovilakams.^[33] In medieval Kerala, most of the kings belonged to extensions of the Samantan and Kiryathil Nair subcastes, including the Zamorins of Calicut who were from the Eradi subgroup of the Samantan Nair subcaste. The Koratty Kaimals and Kodassery Karthas of the Perumpadappu Swaroopam kingdom were also from the Kiryathil Nair subcaste.^[34][35] Historians have further stated that, “The whole of the kings of Malabar belong to the same great body, and are homogeneous with the mass of the people called as Nairs.”^[36]

Kiriyathil Nairs are suggested to be the descendants of serpent worshipping hill tribes of Kerala known as the Nāgas.^[37] They were historically given status and privileges that were not extended to other Nairs.^[38][39] In the words of the British anthropologist Edgar Thurston, “The original Nairs were undoubtedly a military body, holding lands and serving as a militia.”^[40] Taliparamba (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have reviewed all of the changes made, and they all seem appropriate, so I have implemented the diff exactly as requested. TimSmit (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim. Taliparamba (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: such changes in contentious caste articles, especially lede, require consensus! Ekdalian (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that you reverted the edit because of “caste promotion by replacing Shudra with Kshatriya”. But it seems that Kshatriya is already mentioned in the existing text. Rather, to me it looks like this edit just replaces the Sanskrit word “Shudra” with “subcaste”, which is a common English translation of Shudra (caste/subcaste/social group/etc.) TimSmit (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don’t understand it either. By removing words like “highest ranking Shudra” and “one of the highest ranking sub-castes”, the caste promotion was actually removed. But they are back here now. Furthermore, the non-English words remain unlinked to their respective pages, making it harder for people to understand what they mean. On top of that, the 1843 source by Gundert is still not WP:RS. And yes, the “Kshatriya” word, which is sourced, already existed beforehand.

So basically it got reverted to a noticeably worse version. But we can follow the editor’s advice, and start a consensus poll for implementing the changes you made. Taliparamba (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, let’s give other editors some time to respond to the proposed changes, so that everyone has enough time to review, before any changes are made. TimSmit (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you were canvassed to come here I do not think you should be taking any action on behalf of a non-ECP editor. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that a talk page notification to a concerned editor is appropriate and does not count as canvassing. But to be safe, I’ll withdraw so that y’all can take it from here. TimSmit (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I’ve reviewed the suggested changes and I believe they improve the article’s quality and NPOV. If there are any controversial changes that I am missing, please let me know. TimSmit (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with you as well. Taliparamba (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Taliparamba, you are a very new editor, so you may not be aware that it’s inappropriate to canvass editors to a discussion, as it looks like you have done. How did you select the users you posted this message to? They seem to be mostly admins. Why was that? I’m afraid your action may have compromised the attempt to reach a consensus here. Bishonen | tålk 09:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• PS, I have now also noticed that you asked an individual user (TimSmit) to respond to your own edit request; also quite inappropriate. You have micromanaged your edit request in a quite unacceptable way, instead of letting it play out in the normal way. Bishonen | tålk 09:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  Oh, I was not aware of this ‘canvass’ policy. Actually, an admin called “Peaceray” had posted a welcome notice on my Talk Page, saying I could ask for help or assistance. Since he/she was an admin, I thought all admins were people you could reach out to. So I looked up the list of admins, and randomly picked 5 admins who had high number of edits, meaning they were active in editing. I didn’t ask any admin for support, only their opinion. In any case, I didn’t know this would be considered as canvassing.

  And the “TimSmit” editor seemed very friendly, he left a nice note on one of my ECP requests, saying it was a high quality edit. Since he was friendly and polite, I thought I would ask him to take a look at another ECP request. I didn’t mean any offense.

  I will familiarize the canvass policy, and won’t repeat it. Thank you, Bishonen. Taliparamba (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the “International Journal of Creative Research Thought” is a very unreliable source and cannot be used. Search for it if you want. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is not reliable WP:RS, and a few other sources are also outdated. The lead needs to be rewritten, as it contains these:

I. Heavy caste promotion (“highest-ranking Shudra”, “one of the highest-ranking subcaste”, etc.).

II. Has non-English words (“Kshatriya”, “Deshavazhis”, which is more commonly known as Naduvazhi) that have not been hyperlinked to their respective pages to make it harder to understand.

III. Unreliable sources, like the IJCRT and Gundert source from 1843.

IV. Same words are hyperlinked multiple times, making it harder to read and violates WP:OL.

The ECP edit I suggested fixed almost all of these, but I think the problem now is not regarding the very poor quality of the current page, but the focus is now on me asking a few Admins to take a look and give their opinions.

I didn’t know there was a ‘canvassing’ policy for Wikipedia since I am new here, even though I had only asked for opinions (I just said “please take a look if possible”). It was wholly unintentional to canvass, and I withdrew all opinion requests when I was informed of it.

You can see my edit history, I have used the ECP edit request only to make positive changes to the pages, which is probably why the editors made it. On a few pages, I made grammar, spelling and typo corrections, including fixing nouns and random italics.

Anyways I am leaving, it was not an enjoyable experience for me. And thank you @TimSmit for being friendly and helpful for a new user. Taliparamba (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be discernible connections between the editor responsible for the current lead and previously blocked or suspected accounts such as MappilaKhrais. The editing conduct characterized by recurring stylistic similarities, the apparent use of multiple accounts, and logged-out contributions originating from US-based IP addresses suggests a coordinated pattern that warrants administrative scrutiny. The attention of administrators to this matter would help preserve editorial integrity and mitigate further disruption, rather than relying solely on extended confirmed protection across all related articles. R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 09:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]