" 

 == Nairs were untouchables == 

 I am really disappointed with the hostile nature of some Nair users showing here. Is there any reason for the removal of this sentence? 

 ""Similarly, the Syrian Christians of Kerala had custom of washing themselves if they happened to touch a Nair, before the Synod of Diamper abolished the same in 1599."" 

 Reverting my edit, Shannon has given the following edit summary: 

 ""Syrians were considered untouchables by Nairs."" 

 He has no evidence for this statement. In this talk page, he has given many links that show Syrians were in ""low rank"" compared to Nairs, but none of them has any reference of Nairs treating Syrians as untouchables. The social or political ""ranking"" is different from ""touchablity"". The sentence talks only about the mentality of Syrians towards touching a Nair. So how is it possible to remove by simply claiming a higher rank? If any particular American tribe believes Europeans to be untouchables, can someone discard that fact simply by saying ""Europeans have higher rank""? 

 It is a solid fact that historically the Syrian Christians considered Nairs as untouchables. The statement was clearly supported by straight verifiable third-party reference. Whether the Syrians had higher rank or lower rank as compared to Nairs is totally a different thing. Our focus is whether this sentence has enough citation or not. It is really a bad practice of removing and reverting edits if they appear to reveal truths that you don't like, eventhough they are sufficiently supported by reliable references.   "