Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thiyyar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete, as a fork of an existing article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thiyyar

Thiyyar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There have been several variants of this article created and/or recreated over the last 12 months, and probably prior to that also. The caste goes under numerous names, and therefore the scope for creating alternate articles is wide. It has been determined, time and again, that this group should be treated as a part of the Ezhava caste and discussions to that effect appear at Talk:Ezhava. Having failed to change Ezhava, the latest creation is in fact a POV fork and should be deleted as such. Sitush (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thiyyar are distinct and different from ezhava in every way that you could define a caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.13.61 (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand why user:sitush said thiyyar is a pov fork of ezhava.Thiyyar is not a synonym for the word ezhava.i agree that both are castes included under OBC category by government authorities but both are two seperate castes with different cultural inheritence.I here pointing out some important difference between these two. 1.Thiyyars following theyyam ,thira ,kavu system of worship and rituals.You can see many theyyam,a dancing gods in kavu(worship centres like temples),during january to april of every year in kaliyattams in kavu of thiyyar people. Sree muthappan is the main deity and you can see somany muthappan kavu in thiyyar's areas of north malabar such as sree muthappan temple at parassini kadavu.Thiyyars also have snake worship in their sarpa(snake)kavu.But you cant find theyyam or muthappan kavu in ezhava areas. 2.Thiyyars generally followed matrilineal system in the past untill the modern laws in effect.where as ezhavas followed patrilineal system. 3.Thiyyars are included and divided under 'eight illams ' such as varakka illam, thenkudy illam, nellika illam etc.The members of an illam are considered as brothers and sisters so there were no marriage between members of same illam.this is one of the important criteria during marriages.Where as ezhavas dont have this eight illam system. 4.Another important difference is that thiyyars not following 'sthree danam' ie.DOWRY system.where as ezhavas brides family giving huge wealth to the groom during marriage.This is an important difference as almost all population in kerala and india follows this system.This should be high lited while considering Thiyyars as an ethnic population of India. One can easily point out so many difference as i mentioned above. The misunderstanding that you(user : sitush )creating by saying thiyyar as pov fork of ezhava will surely degrade the RELIABILITY OF WIKIPEDIA.Just consider the above 4 group of points about ethnic tribe Thiyyars.As you all know ALL ETHNIC TRIBES STRICTLY FOLLOWED THEIR SOCIAL CUSTOMS AND RITUALS, THIYYARS ARE ALSO NOT AN EXCEPTION IN THIS.CONSIDER IF BOTH EZHAVA AND THIYYAR ARE THE SAME ONE CANNOT POINT OUT THESE MUCH DIFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO ,ALSO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT KERALA IS A SMALL GEOGRAPHICL AREA.SO THESE MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO CASTES OF A SMALL AREA CLEARLY SUPPORT THE FACT THAT BOTH ARE DIFERENT .SO THIS IS NOT POV FORK ISSUE.THIYYAR IS A ETHNIC POPULATION KERALA TOTALLY DIFEERENT FROM EZHAVA.SO I REQUEST THE ADMINISTRATORS TO STOP THE DELETION PROCESS Of THIYYAR TO ENSURE THE RELIABILITY OF WIKIPEDIA.THANK U ALL -- Thiyyan (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I had commented on Talk:Ezhavadated 18-04-2012 and didnt get any proper reply, we had tried to resolve the issue with sitush but was unable to get a proper response , also the article follows a neutral point of view and cannot be considered as POV fork--Rahulkris999 (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thiyyar community have their own customs and rituals as described above and it has been documented in numerous works by scholars like Thurston, Logan , F. Fawcett if Ezhava and Thiyyar's are one and same then why these scholars used the word Thiyyar not Ezhava to describe about the people--Rahulkris999 (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

None of the above has ever been substantiated in accordance with our policies, and it is our policies that count in deletion discussions. For example, see the discussions at Talk:Ezhava/Archive_5#THIYYAS_IN_NORTH_KERALA and Talk:Ezhava#Backward_class. This is the crux of the problem: numerous sources treat the two names as being synonymous (or, if you wish, the two communities as being the same). There have been numerous attempts to establish a separate article in the past, all of which were either deleted or redirected. I cannot see the deleted content in order to prove that point, but I'll find some of the redirects asap.

It seems likely from present activity on this and other articles that there is currently another burst of communal sentiment off-wiki that has as its aim a concerted pushing of the Thiyyar POV. This group includes some very active and completely incorrect anons, of whom 14.139.160.4 is but one example. Those anon edits are being reverted mostly by people other than myself but who also have a considerable experience here on Wikipedia and, in particular, in the sphere of caste-related articles. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources Talk:Ezhava/Archive_5#THIYYAS_IN_NORTH_KERALA already given Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society , Volume 38 page:289 it compares cultural similarity with tribes in Southern canary, as for Talk:Ezhava#Backward_class the author cites opinion based on common held view possibly based on 20th century sources , new research is needed and new details will be mentioned soon--Rahulkris999 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not got a clue what you mean in that comment, but the "real soon now" argument is not valid. Please read WP:V. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The JAIAS article does not appear to be mentioned in the first archive thread that you mention above. Worse, the Society lists volumes 37 and 39 as being published, but no volume 38. A Google search suggests that 37 may have incorporated vol. 38 but the page numbering is uncertain. So, you would need to cite this properly: journal, volume, issue, date, page(s), article title, author etc. Without that, the source should be deleted because it would appear possibly to be a copied citation rather than something that has been read in context. This poor citation is another example of why the article has no place here and, again, it is something that I have previously challenged but which was reverted. No need to provide the info here - just get it into the article quick-ish, please. The entire article is a house of cards, based on a fringe premise. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

One example is a redirect that was protected as long ago as 2007 due to the pov pushing. Like I say, this is not a new thing. If there are indeed some cultural differences and they can be verified using reliable sources, then the obvious starting point is to include those differences in the Ezhava article and then, should consensus determine them to be valid etc, open a fork discussion at Talk:Ezhava. Assaulting the project with numerous alterations to redirects/creations of new redirects/pov changes to links etc in order to drive traffic to a new and very poor article is not a great idea. It is, of course, exactly what has been going on.

For now, Thiyyar should be a redirect to Ezhava, as should all the other redirects linking to it. If there is any useful content in Thiyyar then it should be merged into the Ezhava article and expanded per policy.- Sitush (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

why Nambiar (Nair subcaste) page is not included in pov or is this pov meant only to suppress facts about thiyyar community?--Rahulkris999 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As for redirecting which all sections do you consider as Useful information and which all you dont please elucidate?--Rahulkris999 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably not much of note right now, but the article changes frequently and massively. My point is that Thiyyar is a valid alternate name and therefore a redirect is an appropriate reaction, rather than a delete. If there is any useful content at the point when this discussion is closed, then that should be merged. In between times, find some decent books etc, preferably published in the last decade or two. Also, adjust the present content to reflect the neutrally-stated reality which, as I outline below in my noting of a couple of the sources used, is that the common view is synonymity but there are a few who think otherwise. That might be suitable for merging if well-sourced. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I further note that this source, which has been introduced by those supporting the notion of a separate article, clearly states that the commonly held view is that Ezhava and Thiyyar are the same thing. The book referred to in that source, written by a journalist etc called Damo, is scarcely worthy of being called reliable and is most likely problematic under the WP:FRINGE provisions. It is typical of pov pushers not to mention that the origins are generally considered to be something other than that which the pushers wish to portray - an aspect that in caste articles generally surfaces with the varna issue. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

if Damo work is found unworthy for reference will be removed from citation regards--Rahulkris999 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It is unsuitable, it has been removed ... and then you or one of your friends reinstated it. And the reinstatement still ignores the commonly held view that is detailed in the very source which is quoted. Furthermore, you should not really use a book review in this way - I can live with it, but many would not.

Please note that I have opened a sockpuppet investigation also: there is something very odd going on and I am unsure whether it is socking or meatpuppeting or just simple off-wiki collaboration. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I notice that another of the reinstated sources is also somewhat pointless. The Times of India describes the situation as being

On a mission very much different from his area of expertise, cardiologist Dr Shyamalan is tracing the origin of his genes and this has triggered an excitement among several members of the community in North Kerala. Talking to TOI, Dr Shyamalan said that there is an identity crisis among the Thiyyas of Malabar who are being categorized with the Ezhava community in Kerala. He says that his DNA testing revealed that it matches with the Indo-Aryan race that came all the way from South Africa through Kyrgyzstan.

Yet again, this source appears to confirm the more usual belief that the two communities are identical, while acknowledging that those who call themselves Thiyyar do not like it. Shyalaman's DNA test proves nothing of relevance to our situation. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The above Times quote from Sitush does lead me to believe we've got a case of WP:TIGERS here. That is, rather than a dispassionate layout of "the belief by the Thiyyar that they are a separate community", we're seeing people press in to champion said belief and exclude any contrary information in order to "re-write the narrative" on the topic. Agree with Delete, and the issue can be addressed at Ezhava, as apparently has been done often in the past when this has arisen. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The only arguments that carry weight in deletion discussions and indeed anything related to consensus are those arguments which are based on policies and guidelines. The appeal above, like so many others earlier, simply does not meet the basic Wikipedia tests and, yet again, it rather confirms that the article should not exist. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment as of now, every single contributor to this discussion who has expressed a desire to see the article remain in more or less its current form is a SPA. I think that is an unusual pattern. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

i just want MatthewVanitas to go through the following link before going to take a final decision.what really happening in talk:ezhava just go throgh this link http://victoriavedpages.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=111936&p=3&topicID=12280015 .as iam a part of this ethnic community in malabar region in kerala i know very well the difference between the ezhava and thiyya communities.but we cannot cite much more reference as there is a little studies done on this topic.i know wikipedia needs reference,but consider a tribe with out much studies about them ,is it their fault?.i agree the fact that there is some similarities with the two communities 1.both followed saint sree narayana gurus visions 2.both are categorised under other back ward communities category under government of india 3.major share of coconut climbers and toddy tappers are from these two comunities etc.But according to my views when considering two tribes we should give more weigtage for the "cultural differnce '.YOu can see many points put forward bythiyyan.take a single point about dowry system,you are not going to get girl from a thiyya family if u ask for dowry,this a unique plus point of thiyyas from all other groups in kerala.you can see theyyams (,worshipdone by thiyyas in local shrines known as kavu)only in thiyya areas not in ezhava areas of south kerala,and so much dissimilatities .yes we cannot give you much evidence as reference that is not the fault of this tribe.i think mr.matthewsVanittas unaware of this caste system in india,we are not a subcaste of ezhavas and not want to be addressed ourselves as ezhavas.I think from the above link mr .atthews can understand the fact that we ,thiyyas not going to get justice from ezhavas in their talk page.mr .matthews you cannot find much more about this caste in books or in internet but just come to kannur,thalassery,vadakara ares of malabar he hom land of thiyyas to see our cultural heritage customs and rituals .i request you to consider the facts that i put infront of you before goig to take a decision on deletion of thiyyar page from wikipedia,you are representing an organisation dealing with the knowledge in this world,please once again think about this,this is humble request consider this before deciding a deletion.thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.231.132.225 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.