::My point was not that the article contains erroneous information or lacks references. My point is that the article doesn't contain the information that it should. In short, this is an article about History of South India and Dravidian people, while it should be about proto-Dravidian people. 

 ::Here are some of the sources, which use the term "Dravidian civilization" to refer to proto-Dravidians or Indus Valley Civilization (since some of these believe that IVC is a candidate for proto-Dravidain civilization) 

 :::"the megalithic Deccan Dravidian civilization, which flourished in the first millenium B.C." 

 :::"status of women in Dravidian civilization prior to the Aryan invasions" 

 :::"The Dravidian civilization of the Indus valley- related to ancient Mesopotamia-flourished be- tween 3000 and 1500 B.C." 

 :::"Yoga and meditation originated in the Dravidian civilization of the Indus Valley" 

 :::"Dravidian civilization was pre-dominant in India before the coming of the Aryans" 

 :::"impacted on the Dravidian civilization of the Indus Valley" 

 ::On the other hand, not a single of the 32 references in the article support the claim that the Tamil Nadu-Andhra-Karnataka-Kerala form a separate "Dravidian civilization". 

 ::If you are actually interested in writing an article that talks about Dravidian history, arts, culture and architecture, you could probably edit Dravidian people. All groups like the Bengali people, Gujarati people and others have their own arts/culture/architecture, but that doesn't mean that they are a separate "civilization". I can't imagine an article on Bengali civilization, Gujarati Civilization, U.P.-Bihar civilization or North Indian civilization.  |