Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:26, 17 July 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kerala article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 2 months

	Kerala is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 9, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 21, 2006 Peer review Reviewed January 27, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted July 16, 2009 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

India: Kerala / States B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kerala (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Indian states (assessed as Top-importance). This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.

	Dravidian civilizations (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dravidian civilizations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dravidian civilizationsWikipedia:WikiProject Dravidian civilizationsTemplate:WikiProject Dravidian civilizationsDravidian civilizations

Template:V0.5

Untitled

• You may also discuss general Kerala related matters at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Kerala

Beginning Paragraphs

I started to fix the beginning paragraphs but it needs much clean up. Can some one help in doing so...User Talk:Dewan357 A 3rd-century-BC rock inscription by emperor Asoka the Great attests to a Keralaputra. Around 1 BC the region was ruled by the Chera Dynasty, which traded with the Greeks, Romans and Arabs. The Tamil Chera dynasty, Ays and the Pandyan Kingdom were the traditional rulers of Kerala whose patriarchal dynasties ruled until the 14th century AD. Pliny the Elder who visited Kerala in the first century AC reported in his book Natural History (Pliny) that the Northern Kerala was ruled by the Chera Kings while the southern Kerala was ruled by Pandyan Kingdom who had the capital at Nelcynda with port at Porakkad (Ambalapuzha). The Dravidian Villavar tribe which established the Chera Kingdom were Patriarchal in descendency. Ay kings ruled southern Kerala. The Later Chera Kingdom otherwise called the Kulasekhara dynasty was founded by King Kulasekhara Alwar who is considered as a Vaishnavaite saint. After the repeated attacks of Rashtrakutas in the end of first millennium the northernmost portions of Kerala. Later Chera dynasty came to an end weakened by the Rashtrakuta and Chola invaders.

Feudal Namboothiri Brahmin and Nair city-states subsequently gained control of the region. Kolla Varsham or Malayalam Era, which is assumed to have been established by King Udaya Marthanda Varma, King of Kollam, in 825 AD, serves as the official calendar of Kerala. Early contact with Europeans gave way to struggles between colonial and native interests. Kerala state was created on 1 November 1956 via the States Reorganisation Act which merged the former state of Travancore-Cochin, Malabar district of the former Madras State, and Kasaragod taluk of Dakshina Kannada.

map

please fix the map.. thanks

Central Travancore

Koothattukulam

If my knowledge is correct Koothattukulam was once a part of the Kottayam district. So it also comes under Central Travancore right?

Muvattupuzha, Thodupuzha, Kothamangalam

I guess these places are also considered as a part of Central Travancore rather than Northern Travancore. In fact the term Northern Travancore is never been used anywhere. May be for places like Aluva and Angamaly it might suite.

At present Central Travancore refers to places in Central districts of Kerala which belonged to the erstwhile Travancore Kingdom. Hence Muvattupuzha, Thodupuzha, Kothamangalam etc. are a part of Central Travancore.

Insertion of corrected and enhanced information on the spelling and pronunciation of Kerala

User:Kwamikagami is launching new edit disputes with a small set of reversions of which only one is correct, and at least one that is flat out unreasonable, going counter to a Misplaced Pages best practice. This section discusses edits dealing purely with linguistic issues. Another new section discusses points that straddle linguistics and history.

First, I admit the correctness of a reversion in the opening sentence. I overlooked that the pronunciation being demonstrated is how the name is pronounced in English. (The phonetic transcription corresponds to British English.)

Unfortunately, this other editor also reverted the insertion of the native name of this province in the local alphabet in the existing Infobox. Just look at the Infoboxes for Fukuoka_Prefecture, Russia, and China. Kwamikagami presumably knows better than anyone that this is information we strive to include in the Infoboxes to articles on languages and in geography. In fact, this editor simply performed a total reversion of every change in a small amount of changes I made, doing so within two hours of making them, at 01:52 17 May around midnight 17 May. He did not give notice of the total reversion. Readers should know that Kwamikagami is seething with hatred of me, as displayed on a couple of talk pages. The removal of how to write "Kerala" in the local language from the Infobox can only be due to either spite and/or he didn't try to notice every edit I made because he wanted to revert them all anyway.

This other editor also reverted my replacement of an inferior source on pronunciation To support a phonetic transcription using a work of what is apparently sociology or theology (Freiberger, Asceticism and its critics: historical accounts and comparative perspectives) is not necessarily inadequate, but when I cite instead a reference grammar of the language, it's hard to imagine how anyone could defend deleting that in favor of the former source. On top of that, the phonetic spelling that was attributed to Freiberger (maybe he was misquoted) is wrong in the first vowel.

This other editor wrote on his talk page, just a week ago, addressing a third person, that he shouldn't even be editing Misplaced Pages at the moment. Dale Chock (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

How about that, the "Oliver Freiberger" source is garbage. There is no mention in it of how to pronounce "Kerala". The words "Kerala" and "Keralam" each appear just twice, on pp. 117 and 118. The words "Malayalis", "pronounced", and "pronunciation" do not appear in this book. By the way, this is a collective volume, and Freiberger is not the one who wrote about Kerala. By now I've seen 3 or 4 editors protecting a phony citation. Now let's find out who's originally to blame for this insertion.

And, editors don't want to see Malayalam script in the Infobox for "Kerala"! Misplaced Pages seems to get weirder every month. Dale Chock (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you there, Dale. The India project decided that there should be no Indic script in articles on Indic place names, because (a) it's too hard to verify or spot vandalism and (b) it attracts nationalists who want their script on as many articles as possible, until every place name is given in eight languages. Some of us argued that this isn't difficult to police, but in the end it wasn't worth the argument. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that sheds light. I ended up at the RfC, and it is hard to verify that there's a decisive, majority approach there, contrary to what one editor hinted. Dale Chock (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The "Freiberger" insertion started out innocently. It came from a sockpuppet, but it was only invoked to attest that the inhabitants use the form Keralam. That's all -- it wasn't associated with a phonetic claim! Valid, but really that's not a proper source. Relevant books can be found to attest to that. Dale Chock (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Abhishek 16:09 17 May 2012 reinserted an UNSOURCED and anyway false phonetic claim 16:09 17 May 2012. Last month, on 19:36 15 April 2012, User:Kwamikagami made an incorrect phonetic claim and incorrectly assumed that an existing citation (Freiberger) supported the claim. The claim was as to the native pronunciation of the name "Kerala". He copied a passage from the lead which addresses the pronunciation by English speakers. The Freiberger citation was already in place where the claim was incorrectly pasted. The "Freiberger" source, however, was never meant to attest to pronunciation in detail, but only that the locals add an 'm' to the end of the word. "Freiberger" was inserted 21:57 26 November 2009. (As it happens, "Freiberger" is the wrong author to cite in connection with the source publication.) On 17 May, I replaced the phonetic transcription and supported it with a reference grammar of the language. Kwamikagami soon agreed with this, but Abhishek reinserted the whole of the false material. The material is phonetically inaccurate as to the first vowel in the name. I have already spelled this out clearly on the Talk page and an edit summary. Thank you. (By the way, my mention that the ancient meaning of "chera" is now disputed used to be in the article's lead for many years (not put there by me back then). Now, mysteriously, people are deleting it altogether.) Dale Chock (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sloppy writing and citation providing about etymology. Improvements swept aside.

User:Kwamikagami reverted my changes regarding the earlier history of the Malayalam language, the language of Kerala. Some Wikipedians think you can insert anything if it comes from a "reliable source" in the Misplaced Pages jargon sense of that term. In an encyclopedia, it's usually more advisable to make a less categorical, less outspoken statement than a more categorical, more outspoken. And accuracy is very advisable.

The oafish insertion which Kwamikagami is insisting upon is the paragraph on "Etymology".

Kerala is pronounced Kēraḷaṁ by the native Malayalis. (Reference: Oliver Freiberger, 2006, Asceticism and its critics: historical accounts and comparative perspectives . . . ) Scholars agree that Kerala transliterates Classical Tamil Cheralam ("Land of the Cheras") or chera-alam, ("declivity of a hill or a mountain slope/range"). The state was anciently called Cheralam and Cherala Nadu. Reference: ref name="Menon_1967" -- no page number provided) (Reference: Vincent A. Smith, "1999", The early history of India . . .) (Reference: KM George 1968 A Survey of Malayalam Literature -- no page number provided . . .) Another popular view is that 'Keralam' is derived from the Sanskrit word 'Kera' which means coconut and the Dravidian word 'Alam' which means place or land, as Kerala is and has been famous for the coconut trees it grows.

This scholarship is perhaps not quite horrible, but there are several things crude about it. It does not acknowledge more or less directly quoting V.A. Smith, who actually wrote, "Scholars are now agreed that Chera and Kerala are only variant forms of one word". Well, previous editors actually didn't quite offer an accurate quotation. "Transliterates" is obviously (to a knowledgeable editor) the wrong word, and in fact it distorts the original. Smith's claim is apparently not controversial, but you wouldn't realize that he wrote this one hundred years ago, that the 1999 publication is just a reprint. KM George did affirm the belief half a century later. Notice that two of three citations don't include page numbers. We are not told that the state ruled by the "Cheras" was only one of three simultaneously occupying today's Kerala. (Why aren't we told this? Both Smith and George elaborated on it.) Notice also that the article, including the lead, has a lot of promotional statements as if out of a tourist brochure. Incidentally, this biased and slipshod editing in both content and sourcing is common in the contributions from the Subcontinent.

It would be more in line with the best envisionings for Misplaced Pages to not obstruct thoughtful, diligent improvements. Dale Chock (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to fix your writing for you, Dale. As I've said before, you can do that yourself.

Oh, and could you remove the double spacing between paragraphs? — kwami (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Per from kerala.gov.in, Keralam means land of Kera or coconuts. That could be included too.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Latest insertions about pre-600 A.D. "maritime" history

You have Arab Muslims, lots of them, immigrating two centuries before Muhammad. I am dismayed to see such claims. Dale Chock (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it misleading? Arabs are an ethnic group, and Muhammed is just one of them. The Arabs who had trade-relation with Kerala before the period of Muhammed could not be considered as Muslims, at least in a historical point of view. But the inter-marriage of Arabs with locals formed a specific ethnic group in Kerala, who were under the patronage of Arabs and later on they also embraced Islam, once the message of Muhammed reached here. If the passage in the article needs more clarification, you are welcome. --AshLey 13:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Official version but not reality!

What is given here is just textbook history; and not factual. I need to just say that Mappilla lahala though pictured as an anti-British rioting was nothing of that sort. It was pure communal clashes that included terrible atrocities committed on both sides. The British administration came into the scene only to crush this social malice with force, using equally brutal and crude native policemen.

Another thing is the mention of matriarchal system of family. The numerically significant caste in Malabar known as Thiyyas is not seen mentioned. Among them, the north Malabar version had Matriarchal family system. The South Malabar Thiyyas did not practise Matriarchal system. It may be mentioned in passing that though there are concerted efforts at depicting the Thiyyas as a sub caste of the Ezhavas, it is not correct.

As to the quality of Matriarachal system, it was not a good family system, for it generally subordinated the husband to the granduncles and other uncles of the wife. Without their permission and the husband's servitude to them, the husband had no right over his wife.

Another thing that needs mention is that till the Chief Ministership of Nayanar, many Kerala places had English names which were widely used. Some of them were even the historical names.

Some of the place names in English and their current day Malayalam equivalents are given below. It may be noted that even though officially the Malayalam names are used, the English names are still in vogue, and widely used. In recent years, a very ferocious language fanatics has been spurred up, mainly by the teaching class and leftist parties.

Cannanore  : Kannur

Baliapattom  : Valapattanam

Tellicherry  : Thalassery

Wynad  : Wayanad

Manantody  : Maananthavaady

Sultan's Battery  : Sulthaan Bathery

Calicut  : Kozhikode

Palghat  : Palakad

Badagara  : Vadakara

Trichur  : Thrissur

Alwaye  : Aaluva

Cochin  : Kochi

Alleppy  : Aalappuzha

Idikki  : Idukki

Quilon  : Kollam

Trivandrum  : Thiruvananthapuram

Cape Comerin  : Kanyakumari (not in Kerala)

Another thing that needs mention is the oft quoted: {Kerala's Human Development Index rating is the highest in India. This apparently paradoxical "Kerala phenomenon" or "Kerala model of development" of very high human development and not much high economic development results from the strong service sector}

This is not really an unexplainable economic phenomena; and the explanation given is not correct. It is based on a fantastic duping of the people of this nation. That is, a foreign employed person's earning is allowed to expand by a fraud known as currency exchange rate devaluation. What it really means is that the native-employed person is not protected from the devaluation of currency that is known to be doctored to suit the interests of the foreign-employed and the exporters.

For example, a person is earning Rs. 1000/-inside Kerala. It remains 1000 only, while a foreign employed person will find his 1000 denomination expanding from 17 to 50 times. This huge fraud has literally made the people of many states in India with no foreign connections literally destitute and economic slaves.

--Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Section: Kerala in religious traditions

1. We need to move the section down. Almost all WP articles on state or country keeps the standard order of 1.Lead 2.Terminology 3.History. But here we are mixing the mythology with history. We need to standardize the things.
2. Heading of the section could be changed. The heading "Religious traditions" doesn't mentions "Hindu" --AshLey 16:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Last week, I moved the section down and put it just after "Culture", but User:SumerianPrince has included it in the history section. Hence I started this discussion here. However User:SumerianPrince hasn't responded yet. For such an important article, I think it's not good to wait for a long time to implement such a change. --AshLey 09:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed because the Third Opinion project (like all forms of content dispute resolution), requires talk page discussion before asking for dispute resolution. Now that you have requested discussion from the other editor, allow him a few days to respond and if you do not get a response, then try a request for comments to draw other editors' attention to this issue. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfc: History and religious traditions

At present, the sub-section, Kerala#Kerala_in_religious_traditions is included under the title history. Is proper to include it in history? Where it could be aptly fixed? 11:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• The section Kerala#Kerala_in_religious_traditions is oddly placed under history. It does not seem to fit under any other headings without content being altered. It may be best placed as a section on it's own after religion - or given the section Kerala#Culture links to the subject, it may be best incorporated there. It's not an easy one to answer. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Rome has its section on its mythical origin under the history section. Same in History of Rome and History of London. That seems to be the convention. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

To add to the comparisons: History of Athens begins a section "according to legend". Memphis, Egypt (Cairo's nearby predecessor) also includes legendary history. The idea that mythological and legendary sources are "not history" has not been a constant distinction. Indeed, often myths and legends contain a fair amount of veracity; moreover, they are often the only texts modern historians have available for certain periods; periods before "history" as a distinct way of analysing the world from legend. It is - given that such sources are clearly highlighted as "legendary" - entirely appropriate and proper that such sources be within the history sections. In this case, the section under question provides only information that is relevant to the history of the city; its founding, ruling and so on, and does so in a manner that recognises the source is in myth / legend. Not only is it proper that it be in the history section; it's a relatively good example of how to encorporate such sources. -- Cooper _{(Talk)(Contr)} 16:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Agreed, this is difficult, for the religious history of Kerala is Kerala history in a manner and fashion. It is probably best to leave it where it is and have a link to an article of its own. It does not seem to fit on the Kerala#Culture page. Whiteguru (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Leave as is per Joshua Isaac, Cooper-42 and Whiteguru, because of the number of articles which have established a convention. Miniapolis (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Leave it in history unless or until someone makes a case for moving it and provides sources saying that ancient practices are anything other than history. Blue Rasberry (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Leave it in history - per convention stated above. Also, the subsection title explicitly specifies that those described in the subsection are history according to "religious traditions". There is no room for confusion. Snowcream (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Summary- The conclusion may be drawn as to keep the Religious traditions in history itself. --AshLey 08:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this is an accurate summary of consensus. In particular the use of Other Stuff Exists arguments is not in the least persuasive or useful for the formation of consensus. The concept that mythic histories are adequate histories is out of line with the consensus developed at major historical projects (such as MILHIST) and also in the reliable sourcing area (WP:HISTRS). The conclusion may be correct, but the arguments currently put for that conclusion are not. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'm also against the mixing-up of myth with history and initiated this RFC. Could you please help to sort this out. -AshLey 12:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

POV concerns about the "Human Development Index" section

This section is completely one-sided, and many sources are misquoted to present this state in a overly positive light (see WP:SYN). One such reference, used extensively within this section, is titled "The Development Debacle of Kerala", but there's hardly any mentions of similar concerns, all the talk is about the unmitigated success of the social policies of this state.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not completely one-sided. Last paragraph briefs the flip side of the story. The source "The Development Debacle of Kerala" also explains the achievements of Kerala in the Human development side, but stresses on much worsening fiscal, economic and employment issues. These issues are basically not related to Human Development Index and they could be discussed in the section related to economy. The same source is already cited in the Economy(section) to brief "paradoxical Kerala phenomenon" where we could further explain the economic issues of Kerala model of development. --AshLey 11:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to address the concerns you have raised. POV template has been removed. Pls suggest more improvements, --AshLey 08:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Section: Religions

This section could be streamlined and expanded to brief the history of major religions. My attempt has been reverted here by Snowcream alleging POV issue. Snowcream has also alleged that the author Cyriac Pullapilly's view are communally biased towards Christians and hence the source can't be accepted. The same source has been found as a stable reference for many more articles like Nambudiri, Caste system in Kerala, Ezhava etc. Hence I request, Snowcream to reinstate the new contributions. Alternatively, he or anybody else could also try to streamline and expand the section. -AshLey 08:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

First, giving separate subsections for religions and giving religious history is undue. The section needs to give the religious demographics of the state and does well to do so in the version prior to your edit. A 'theory' that a fringe evangelical author like Cyriac Pullapilly makes deserves no space is the section. The claim the Hinduism 'slowly evolved to the present brahmanical form' is factually untrue. The Hindu religion or its beliefs did never attain a brahminical form; rather the social stratification order did. This order, however transcended the Hindu people and included every individual in the society.

Since all tribe/caste/creed of people living in all parts of the world reached their current location due to some migration in former years of history; we can easily come to fact that the Nambudiri presence in kerala owes to some migration in the past. However, whether this 'Nambudiri migration' has occurred in the span of recorded history or during pre-historic times is a matter with no academic consensus. The Nambudiri arrival and their modeling of social order has been a matter of vast academic speculation. Balachandran Nair (is his book "In quest of Kerala") says Nambudiris came between the 4th and 7th century BC. Hisotorian K.P. Padmanabha Menon (in the book "Towards a transcultural future: literature and society in a 'post'-colonial world") says that the arrival of the Namboodiris can be anywhere between the 7th century BC and the 7th century AD . Leela Devi puts the date to somewhere before 4th century CE, where as Ayinapalli Aiyappan goes the farthest at 8th century CE. These dates present no congruity what so ever.

The point is, putting such "theories" as self-declared truths is not what Misplaced Pages desires to have. Snowcream (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not undue; however separate sections are not necessary, paragraphs will do. Religion could be a separated section instead of being a sub-section in Demographics(as in Karnataka (FA). Kerala's religious history has many unique features and has much encyclopedic value. For example Advaita Vedanta of adi shankara needs a mention in Hinduism. Judaism, Christianity and Islam also arrived in this land before reaching much of the other parts of the world. Hence, briefing the religious history would only increase the encyclopedic value of this article.

Cyriac Pullapilly: Your allegation against author with out any evidence is uncalled for. We should keep civility and refrain from personal accusations even if you don't like his theory(WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Moreover he is just narrating a theory that he has originally referred to many eminent persons like E. M. S. Namboodiripad, K. R. Narayanan, R. Sankar, K. Balarama Panikar etc (pls ref footnote 16)

Brahmanical Hinduism: Influence of Nambudiris in the Brahminization of Hinduism in Kerala is not a fringe theory of any Christian evangelist but finds a place in the 'cultural history of Kerala' in the official website of Government of India. As a fair use, I'm quoting india.gov.in here: "The new social evolution brought about by the influence of the oncoming Aryans was distinguished by three important features; private property in land, caste system and Aryan culture. The Aryan culture, which was first confined to the Namboodiris, began to percolate to those non-Aryans who had close contact with them in social life and slowly but steadily through them to those in the lower strata. Brahminical Hinduism, with its religious ritual and ceremony, its beliefs and practices, its traditions and mythology, its language and literature, began to have its impact on the society." Cyriac Pullapilly along with others mentioned above also support it. More over, A. Sreedhara Menon, in his book "Political History of Modern Kerala (pp.36-41) also assent to this theory. AshLey 09:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

1. http://kerala.gov.in/keralacalljan_08/pg45.pdf
2. "Ancient History Sourcebook: Pliny: Natural History 6.96-111. (On India)". 74.125.153.132. 2009-05-06. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
3. "History of ancient geography - Google Books". Books.google.co.in. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
4. "Early history of Kerala". Government of Kerala. Retrieved 2007-05-16.
5. "officialwebsite of". Kerala.gov.in. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
6. "The land that arose from the sea". The Hindu. Retrieved 2009-07-30.

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• B-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Top-importance
• B-Class Kerala articles
• Top-importance Kerala articles
• B-Class Kerala articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Kerala articles
• B-Class Indian states articles
• Top-importance Indian states articles
• B-Class Indian states articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Indian states articles
• India portal selected articles
• WikiProject India articles