Talk:Nangeli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nangeli, an Ezhava women[edit]

Hi all,

This is hemalataeditor. I have checked the recent edits and the reverts too. Especially the one made by Cpt.a.haddock around Nangeli's identification as an Ezhava woman. Regardless of the exact time of the incident, it is a proven fact that she was an Ezhava woman which has been documented by many writers who visited her village and collected her stories. One such narration comes from the narration of a BBC reporter Divya Arya who visited Kerala to get the facts.[1]

So, Cpt.a.haddock it would be really great if you can do some more readings about Nangeli and if there is any doubt about her being an Ezhava woman, provide references to it. Until you establish her non-Ezhava status, probably we should go with the popular belief and address her as an Ezhava woman.

Thanks!Hemalataeditor (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The woman who cut off her breasts to protest a tax". BBC News. BBC. Retrieved 10 June 2017.
@Hemalataeditor: Hi, I'm not sure which of my edits you're talking about as her supposed caste is mentioned in the lead as well as the body. However, the whole story of Nangeli currently has no historical basis. Quoting from your cited article, It is a village tale that is not officially recognised in any of India's historical accounts. There are no "proven facts" here and the lead prominently notes this "fact". Furthermore, newspaper reports are not generally considered to be reliable sources for historical articles. Please see WP:HISTRS. If you'd like to really improve this article, please find scholarly sources that deal with Nangeli.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the other references clearly state the incident occurred and have added references which clearly state this and can bring more references if required .Only the BBC article only states it not recognised in any of India's historical accounts but they do not say it did not occur.Even the BBC article states that Maniyan Velu, her cousin's great-grand-son, says he feels upset that Nangeli's story is not more widely known.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both the references you have added to the article are unreliable. "Dance of the Spirits" is a novel. "The Idiolects" (2016) is a very dubious source that happily plagiarises Wikipedia in the very section dealing with Nangeli. The section is written by Dr. Shakuntala AI, an associate professor of English at MPMMSN Trust College in Shoranur. A couple of pages above the Nangeli episode, the paragraph beginning, The Ezhavas or Izhavas are the largest ethnic groups ... is simply copy-pasted from elsewhere. The source is probably a page such as this one from 2009 which credits Wikipedia at the bottom.
Please familiarise yourself with WP:HISTRS on what qualifies as reliable for history articles. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it, Cpt. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
:) The first paper in "The Idiolects" is titled "Post-Colonialism is an outburst of suppressed desires in the quest of an identity" and lists "Sources from the Internet" in its references section. I'm afraid that this kind of dross is going to become increasingly common …—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truth or fiction[edit]

We have a source saying that historians believe the Nangeli tale to be apocryphal. An anonymous contributor has been changing that to say it is believed by the government of Kerala. The problem is two-fold: (a) they have provided no source for that; and (b) in accordance with WP:NPOV, even if the government do believe it, we are obliged to show all significant opinions. I realise that this is dealt with in the section immediately above but the issue is still not resolved because those who say it is true are not providing anyything valid to support their claim. - Sitush (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The same BBC source quotes her Maniyan Velu, her cousin's great-grand-son, says he feels upset that Nangeli's story is not more widely known. As per this.Now if she had a grand nephew then she existed.All other sources state she existed.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that verifies someone's claim to be a relative of the person. It doesn't verify that the story is anything other than apocryphal, and a relative is not exactly independent - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vencha desca? ∯WBGconverse 13:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've lost me, WBG. What do you mean? - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither have I any clue as to how a paragraph about whether the subject is real or a folk-legend; got transformed into that:-( Weird day; a few edits back Twinkle did not create any AfD page but templated the article and inserted a red-link to the AfD-logs !
Will be re-posting the write-up:-) ∯WBGconverse 16:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, just noting that the BBC source describes her to be from early 1900s and says Nangeli is believed to have lived over 100 years ago. Over some function that was organised to commemorate her (and covered by TOI), one program organizer says:-We name so many roads and chowks after political leaders but why not after this brave woman who had fought against a brutal system over 100 years ago.
In contrast, the Hindu source puts the time-span to around 1813 vide Nangeli, who lived in Cherthala in Alappuzha over 200 years ago. It quotes an MLA (by profession, an advocate) as researching and saying:-The incident happened in 1803. It created a lot of anger and the practice of collecting breast tax was put to an end here by 1812.
That's a time difference of about 100 years.
Obviously, the MLA is not remotely RS (by any standards) but I personally think ~1800 to be far more logical because that was the time when the breast tax was imposed on the subjects et al.
I will add the other points in due time but I have good reasons to believe that this is a folk-legend with hardly any semblance to reality. ∯WBGconverse 16:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This also serves as an example as to why non-academic sources are pathetic; when documenting historical figures. ∯WBGconverse 16:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the vast difference in dates isn't good. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles Allen writes over Coromandel: A Personal History of South India:-

However, the bulk of the Thiyyas and Ezhavas refused to follow suit and suffered accordingly. One of their number was that mulachi or ‘breasted woman’ from Cherthala, the Ezhava by the name of Nangeli, wife of Chirukandan, who in response to the parvathiyar, or tax-collector, calling at her door presented him with her severed breasts on a banana leaf. The story of Nangeli and her tragic self-mutilation is now widely represented as the signal act of defiance that led to the abolition of the iniquitous mulakkaram tax. But that is history as we would like it to be rather than what actually transpired.

∯WBGconverse 16:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allen's short bio:--

With more than 23 books to his name, Charles is today an acknowledged authority on British Indian and South Asian history, and in 2004 was awarded the Sir Percy Sykes Gold Medal by the Royal Society for Asian Affairs for his contribution to Asian studies. He is an active Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and the Royal Asiatic Society, a Council Member of the Kipling Society and a Member of the Royal Society for Asian Affairs and the Frontline Club.

∯WBGconverse 16:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paging you:-) ∯WBGconverse 17:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I know of Allen. Does he actually give his opinion of what did transpire? I've always thought the Nangeli thing to be at least in large part fantasy, the article says that and I'm betting Allen says the same. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

References

  1. ^ "The woman who cut off her breasts to protest a tax". BBC. 28 July 2016. Retrieved 6 April 2022.
  2. ^ "Nangeli — the forgotten Dalit woman who stood up against Travancore's 'breast tax'". DEEPTI PRIYA MEHROTRA. The Print. 8 March 2022. Retrieved 6 April 2022.
  3. ^ "The woman who cut off her breasts". The Hindu. 19 February 2017. Retrieved 6 April 2022.
  4. ^ "Reviving the unknown sacrifice of Nangeli, the woman who protested against the casteist 'Breast Tax'". India Today. 29 January 2018. Retrieved 6 April 2022.
  5. ^ "Remembering One Woman's Ultimate Tax Protest On International Women's Day". Kelly Phillips Erb. Forbes. 8 March 2016. Retrieved 6 April 2022.
  6. ^ "3-day tribute to Nangeli who defied breast tax". Deccan Chronicle. 9 March 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2022.
  7. ^ "A Travancore Tale: The graphic story of Nangeli, the woman who cut off her breasts to protest a tax". Scroll. 15 September. Retrieved 6 April 2022. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ "200 years on, Nangeli's sacrifice only a fading memory". Nidhi Surendranath. The Hindu. 21 October 2013. Retrieved 6 April 2022.
  9. ^ "Memorial demand for Nangeli, who killed self to protest `breast tax'". Vijay Singh. The Times of India. 16 March 2017. Retrieved 6 April 2022.

The issue is very heavily covered in the Press and in books and several historians have recorded it including Charles Allen.BBC ,The Hindu ,Forbes ,Deccan Chronicle ,The Times of India amongst others are not promoting fiction. The incident has been recorded. It is clearly covered in multiple reliable sources.BBC is reliable. They did contact Maniyan Velu, Nangeli's cousin's great-grand-son.The subject existed is a fact.We cannot call something fiction multiple WP:RS call it otherwise and passes WP:V.Hence fictional needs to be removed from the article. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above it can be mentioned as a village legand not as fiction as BBC and The Hindu and WP:RS do not do so.117.207.127.39 (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of sourced materials is being done above.117.207.123.155 (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction[edit]

https://www.opindia.com/2018/01/the-recurring-myth-of-breast-tax-doesnt-seem-to-die-down-this-time-propagated-by-scroll/ https://www.hindupost.in/breast-tax-a-false-story-to-attack-hindus/ This article explores the Nangeli breast tax myth. There are zero contemporary historical references to this incident. Please call it out as myth. Further edits should explore how this myth came into place, its original references & motivations. — Preceding Saiswa (talk comment added by Saiswa (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saiswa,  Done w/o using OpIndia sources, obviously. ∯WBGconverse 16:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Fiction not backed by any authentic documents[edit]

Dear All,

I have gone through many articles in internet, most of them are taking references from wiki and which is based on reports and fiction. In the references section I couldn't find any authentic articles or history archives which supports this claim. As you people are aware this Nangeli issue has become a political propaganda in our state Kerala. If you look at recent edits, it looks like a fight. Yong people are counting on you guys to get information and fact checks, you guys can't simply call someone Ezhava based on a news report. You, me anyone can submit a story to BBC and if they like it they will publish. I believe this story of Nangeli is derived from kannaki and it was just a story to inspire people in lower section to fight for thier rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneDev (talk • contribs) 06:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background section removal[edit]

A large of removal of sourced text from the background section including references clearly not explained in talk but self reverted for now. Can it please be explained in the talk page why large text was removed. There has no discussion in this Talk page or in WP:RSN if sources are to be discussed .If sources were needed they could be tagged. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

[1][2][3] [4][5] [6][7]

References

  1. ^ Cohn, Bernard S. (1996-09-08). Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India. Princeton University Press. p. 140. ISBN 9780691000435.
  2. ^ Hardgrave, Robert L. (1969). The Nadars of Tamilnad. University of California Press. pp. 55-70.
  3. ^ Smith, Bardwell L. (1976). Religion and Social Conflict in South Asia. BRILL. p. 32. ISBN 9789004045101.
  4. ^ Allen, Charles (7 August 2018). "WHO OWNS INDIA'S HISTORY? A CRITIQUE OF SHASHI THAROOR'S". Asian Affairs. 49 (3): 355–369. doi:10.1080/03068374.2018.1487685. By the start of the 19th century the ordinary people of Travancore were being required to pay as many as 100 petty taxes, ranging from head tax, hut tax, marriage tax and taxes on the tools of one's trade to taxes on the family cow, goat or dog, wearing jewellery, staging festivals, growing moustaches, and above all what became known as the breast tax, mulakkaram, by which the women of lower social groups had to expose their breasts or pay a tax. The Brahmins, naturally, paid no tax at all.
  5. ^ Nair, Adoor K. K. Ramachandran (1986). Slavery in Kerala. Mittal Publications. p. 45. The Pooja Raja in Travancore made the Malarayans pay money at the rate of one anna, two pies (8 pies) a head monthly as soon as they were able to work, and a similar sum of presence money besides certain quotas of fruits and vegetables and feudal service....The head money was called Thalakaram in the case of males and Mulakaram (breast money) in the case of females.
  6. ^ Kattackal, Jacob (1990). Comparative Religion. Kerala: Oriental Institute of Religious Studies. p. 144.
  7. ^ Yesudas, R.N. (1980). The History of the London Missionary Society in Travancore, 1806-1908. Kerala: Kerala Historical Society. p. 19.
clearly sourced sections are being removed as noted above.183.82.108.172 (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can't treat a fictional story as history. All sources were assessed and rejected per edit summary here. Wareon (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources including BBC ,The Hindu and several others over 30 sources are for this incident they do not call it fictional or hoax.BBC Even contacted Maniyan Velu, Nangeli's cousin's great-grand-son.This is not a hoax as WP:RS do not treat it so.183.82.108.172 (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want sources to be reviewed it should done in the WP:RSN noticeboard you cannot just say the source it not okay.183.82.108.172 (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They call it a village legend. Historians conclude there are no records of it that's why it is fictional. There are enough claimants of Taj Mahal but it doesn't mean we rely on their testimonies. They need to be established legally and recognized in secondary sources. Wareon (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Historians have not conceded that this is a hoax or fictional and this is covered in reliable sources.BBC has not a hoax or fictional story.They did contact Maniyan Velu, Nangeli's cousin's great-grand-son.We can take it to WP:RSN if you wish.183.82.108.172 (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was already decided at Talk:Nangeli#Truth or fiction. Accept the consensus and move on. Wareon (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you IP 83.82.108.172 BBC is reliable. They did contact Maniyan Velu, Nangeli's cousin's great-grand-son.Multiple Reliable sources cover this point in various .
Hence is not fiction and there is no consensus to call it fiction. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Background section needs to be restored as it sourced to reliable sources.Further it can mentioned as Village legend but not fiction as WP:RS sources cite it.117.207.127.39 (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of sourced materials is being done here by removing reliable sources.117.207.123.155 (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are being deceptive, just like you were with this edit summary, because it was already decided at Talk:Nangeli#Truth or fiction that this subject is a fiction. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New issues[edit]

@The Doom Patrol: I am answering the questions you posted on my talk page here.

  • Where is the source for "fictional story"? The sources says "legendary".
  • The source says "She is no heroine of the written history. Some say she is just a legend of the times. Some say she is part of folklore. Some say, ‘Show us the proof.’[...] There are some who argue that Nangeli is a fabrication because no ‘records’ exist of her".[1] Per WP:FRINGE we are supposed to give more weight to the accurate position.
  • Where is the source for "it gained widespread attention since the publication of a 2016 BBC Asia article on it" ?
  • Used another source for this.[2]
  • Where is the source for "judging it misinterpreted historical authenticity arising from a fictional work based on the subject ? Also misleading, as per that source, the court order was against representing Nadar community as migrants.
  • "misinterpreted historical authenticity arising from a fictional work based on the subject" was probably interpretation of the petition filed. I have added the source which talks about it.[3]
  • Where is the source for "hate speech" ?
  • Removed this word.
You might be correct about Manu's summary of the subject so I have restored your edits there. Aside this all, I also removed this book that does not mention 'Nangeli'. Wareon (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First things first. Is there any reason for starting the article as "The fictional story of X ..."? Articles about persons, real or fictional, should start as "X is a ...". You cannot compromise Wikipedia's manual of style just because you want to highlight "fictional story", and as a matter of fact, this article is about "Nangeli" and not "Breast chopping story of Nangeli".
  • Fiction and legend are two different things. Historians calls her legend. If something is historically inaccurate, then the accurate position is to write it is "historically inaccurate" presenting in neutral tone, per WP:NPOV. Beside, only the breast tax is misnomer, the existence of Nangeli herself is not rejected by historians.
Manu S. Pillai, while rejecting breast tax and calling the narrative "the legend of Nangeli", says its "the real story of how one woman’s rebellion against oppressive feudalism ... she died in 1803". He writes as if Nangeli existed, but she fought against regressive tax that was not breast tax as added by the changing public morale, "Nangeli's sacrifice was an ultimatum to the order, so they remodelled her as a virtuous goddess, one who sought to cover her breasts rather than one who issued a challenge to power ... and Nangeli reduced to the sum of her breasts".
Manu also wrote in [4], "She was not fighting for the right to cover herself .... She was resisting an oppressive, caste-based tax. The battle is about caste, not about virtue or the 'right' to cover up". He also adds "Written records are usually left by upper-caste, literate elites. Avarnas and others recorded their tales and stories in song, lore, and collective memory. Nangeli is one such source from oral history.
In the same source, historian Malayinkeezhu Gopalakrishnan says he "couldn't find any mention of, forget Nangeli, even 'breast tax' in Mathilakam Records ... But just because I couldn't find it anywhere in the Records, I am not saying Nangeli's incident didn't take place". That's because it's folklore / legend.
[5] says there's "folklore about women cutting up their breasts ... Folklore often remains restricted to oral transmission and rarely makes its way into recorded history. Other elements enter through the gap". For Nangeli, the other element is breast tax.
On the same source, historian J. Devika says "The gesture of chopping off the breasts was the refusal of the brahminical swarga on earth, bestowed to Brahmins by Parasurama, and for which the lower castes had to pay a tax. These women were not struggling for feminine modesty. They were asserting their right to their bodies, freeing it from this order even though that meant mutilating it". She says cutting breast was against poll tax.
When historians describe her as legendary or a figure from folklore, you want to present her as fictional? Then you should write that in your blog, not Wikipedia, as it goes against citations and scholarship, WP:FRINGE. The matter is with the terminology. Folklore can be partly historical, mostly imaginary or fully fictional, but that doesn't matter. Folklore is folklore. The correct terminology of such a figure is legend. Featured article King Arthur describes him as "legendary" although historians reject him as historical figure. Unicorn is a legendary creature, not fictional creature.
  • Seriously? How is a quote added within double inverted comma an interpretation? There's not even a mention of Nangeli, the case was not about Nangeli either. It's clear that the editor deliberately added a fake quote with a WP:FICTREF. Additionally, Oneindia.com cites nothing new, not to mention its unreliable even for citing cinema news.
  • She belonged to Ezhava community. Why was that removed? It's significant since the whole events in the tale happens because she was lower caste.
  • Why put duplicate references back into the article? --The Doom Patrol (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If 'Nangeli' existed or it was an established legend, then we would know about it from millions of scholarly sources published to this day instead of seeing it pop up only in the 21st century.
It is necessary to point out that the story is a 'fiction' per WP:FRINGE because there are proponents who want to treat it as historical without providing any evidence. Given the sensitivity involved in Indian history, it is completely fine to call it fictional.[6]
Pillai says "if Nangeli existed", that means he does not believe that Nangeli. Let us not compare Unicorn, a subject documented for thousands of years, with a folk tale that was invented only in 21st century. You should read Drop bear, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Gyuwon Sahwa for better examples.
"Ezhava" was removed by another editor recently.[7] I have restored it. Wareon (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked The Wire article. It's ironic that you talk against fringe theories and you yourself adds hoax material. Nangeli was never in the Class IX textbook. The Wire report was sandwiched with their own editorial opinion, outside commentaries, and past controversies, all mixed up. Nangeli's mention in the introduction was only a reminder of similar upper cloth struggle and otherwise unrelated. Nangeli's story is yet to be added in any textbooks due to insufficient records, they cite. The section Caste Conflict and Dress Change talks only about Nadar's upper cloth issue and the subsequent Shanar riot of 1859 in Travancore. Litigation was an attempt to whitewash the past of Nadars, alleging it is degrading to write they were subordinate caste and did not wore upper clothes. Although this litigation/order happened in 2016, the section was removed only in 2019. The "migrant" and "toddy tappers" controversy was from 2012, with politicians making amusing claims like Nadars are descendants from the mythical Kumari continent. Those words were immediately dropped. Whatever! Our concern is whether Nangeli has anything to do with this textbook. The answer is a big NO. If you want to look directly into the textbook, a 2013 print is available (page 168).--The Doom Patrol (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was supported by reliable sources, that's why it existed for years. But I agree that The Wire probably misrepresented the incident and so did others. Wareon (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between baring breasts and morality.[edit]

The current article states "Covering breasts was not a fashion in Kerala at that time as people lacked a sense of morality". The people of Kerala have always had a sense of morality and this statement comes across as racist. It is correct to say that covering breasts was not a fashion in Kerala at that time, there is evidence of this such as artwork and the writings of John Henry Grose. It certainly is not correct to claim an entire people had no morals and that the baring of breasts was a consequence of that. 31.185.40.12 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nangeli&oldid=1207900780"