Talk:Menon (title)

message: Could someone add links to notables. B Nambiar 15:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 1.	Menon is a profession title means head clerk. All nairs are Shudra the servents to namboohiri and how come they become "ROAyL" or is it the meaning of "royal".
2.	Male members of cochin royal family engaged in asambandham unions with Nayar women of Kerala and is not restricted to those dignified as menon alone. So only individual cases of such unions with menons existed . So this claim that it is “only” to menon women is bogus. If you have any source that it was restricted to menons  you must cite it in the article. (What stupid acts) 
3.	Paliath Govindan Achan (and not Govinda menon) was the last Paliath Achan to occupy the position of Prime Minister in the Kingdom of Cochin until 1825. Infact Nadavarambu Kunhikrishna Menon who succeded Paliath Givindachan was a rival of the Paliam family. Paliath Govindan achan was imprisoned and later died in 1832 in Benares. Diwans of Cochin Thottakkat Govinda Menon (son of Sankunni Warrier)  and later his brother of Thottakkat Sankunni Menon were all appointees to the office of Diwan of cochin after the hereditary prime minister ship of the Paliam family to cochin was abolished by the Raja of Cochin and did not belong to the Paliam family.So donot confuse between paliath Govindan achan and Thottakkat Govinda Menon.  Inspite of these historical facts if you have statements in a historical document that Paliam family was a menon family then you should cite it in the article otherwise the claim is bogus.
So i am reverting the article to keep it accurate.   
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.201.1.30 (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FACTS about Peacock items

message: Paliath swaroopam was actualy menons and they assumed the title of "achans" later on,Cochin rajas always address the paliyath valiyachan as menon.reference Kottaratil Shankuni's "Ayithiha mala". Aiyihya mala is he biggesy blunt book ever written   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.201.1.30 (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paliyath Swaroopam

message: Bhavana, Nithya Menon, etc?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govindsharma (talk • contribs) 05:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is 

message: Kindly keep the article devoid of peacock terms and adequately referenced . Users like Anandks07 and Linguisticgeek are simply engaged in ego satistfying reversals. In case there is discontent about a section let us discuss about it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[NPOV]]

message: The menon article has peacock terms without citation as described in the discussion section of the article. The article has been modified by me several times with appropriate citation and during these i have mentioned the reasons. However inspite of this you seem to be reverting or undoing to an older version that has inadequate citation and prolofic peacock claims.I am therefore reverting it to the properly referenced version without peacock terms. I encourage you to participate in a discussion and not to revert to inadequately cited older version. Such repeated reversals by you to older version of the article  which is inadequately referenced and has peacock terms amounts to edit war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[NPOV]]Reversal refusing Discussion by Anandks007 

message: I think we need to elaborate more about all the sub-divisions, especially Menon panicker as they were the creamy layer , most close to zamorins & other rajas  & running a royal line in palagat as in this article has mentioned.
Do any one have referenced facts about them??
Personally i know they used to supply army to zamorin & have been high ranked officers in zamorin's army & menon paniker women were married to zamorin or others from  samoothiri kovilakam.
Am not a historian to show any reference to above facts.
[so cannot put in Wikipedia also] 
so if some one historically inclined can check there vast collections & put some thing about it here will enlighten every one & Some of those informations will be definitely new for me also, Am looking forward to see all that .
Thank you .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.8.217 (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Geographically also, Palakkad Menons were considered superior to other Menons. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Menon Panicker 

message: The citation was from mathrubumi news paper. I think its credible enough.
as the said news paper is one of the most reputed malayalam news paper.
If no one have objection we can enter that data under menon paniker .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.191.229.119 (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  royal family of palakade 

message: As pointed by some senior editors, menon is not a kshatria caste, but only a kshatria like caste. so I have written it accordingly.[caste of kshatria like function but no actual status]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.191.229.119 (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  kshatria status 

message: please give reference to back up your claim  menon is a tamil name Sesshomaru666666 (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the section. It can be reinstated when somebody comes up with a source that complies with our policies. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  tamilian0 

message: Can anyone come up with a reliable source verifying warlord status, please? - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warlords 

message: Fawcett is an old British Raj source and such things are not considered to be reliable, as also is Edgar Thurston. Equally, the "royal family" source is inherently unreliable, if only because there are no royal families in India yet this lot still claim to be such. This has been determined to be unreliable at WP:RSN. These are why I have been reverting various anons from Karnataka. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP has just added this, which is clearly a mirror of Wikipedia (that is, it has just copied our content) and even more clearly a dodgy website generally. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fawcett and "royal family" as sources 

message: Someone recently added "Kaanipayyoor Sankaran Nambudiripad, Reminiscenes, Kunnamkulam Press" as a source. It needs a page number and I am pretty sure the title is spelled incorrectly. However, and worse, I don't even think it is reliable - reminiscences are generally the opinion of the writer, not subject to independent editorial oversight. The publisher is also obscure. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source