Yours is a really nice thought through comment and I thank you for it One of the systemic issues with Wikipedia is that it prefers secondary sources to those that are considered to be primary or tertiary The Britannica falls into the tertiary category and if I am honest even a fair few of the EB links where EB is intended to mean that the content has been checked by an editorial board seem to be distinctly non scholarly As a child I was always taught that Britannica was it but as a graduate student it became quite clear to me that things were not so simple That was in the days when the web was just kicking off and I am afraid that if anything the Britannica web presence is less worthy than its recently discontinued print version Regardless any tertiary source of merit should cite the sources that it uses and so it should be possible for you to track down the origins of the statements made in the Britannica article That would be our way forward because it would mean that we are using secondary sources It is complicated I know Can you be more specific regarding the elements of the article that you regarding which you have concerns We can always revisit them As far as the marriage thing is concerned the subject of Nair marriage and inheritance systems etc is probably the primary reason why the community has received so much attention from the academic community and as such the weight needs to reflect this