Talk:Dravidian peoples/Archive 2

message: I doubt that the recently added reference Khan, Hayat.  Differences between Pakistanis and Indians. 2006. August 26, 2006. http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/differences.html is of significance. An essay on a  GeoCities homepage? Looks like a bad joke. Also, is it intended to be a reference for what classical anthropologists did in the past or a reference for an assumed fact? --Pjacobi 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, should be removed. Is not credible RaveenS 14:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Racial classification" 

message: The images that are provided with this article, are not covered by a free license. They have been uploaded on fair use claims, which do not allow them to be used on this article. Their use would amount to copyright violation. Thus, I am removing the pictures from the article. Please do not revert back. Thank you.-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 04:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing fair use images 

message: These articles appear to be about the same subject, or close enough for a merge considering the small size of the Dravida article. Thoughts? Brad T. Cordeiro 19:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it should be merged. It's the same subject. Paul B 22:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

message: (moved from article page by BostonMA talk 14:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text suggested by [[User talk:168.167.181.22|168.167.181.22]] 

message: I cant believe there are still people who think there are people who call themselves Dravidian.....THe term Dravidian is a racist term made up by Euorpeans....In India nooooobody calls themself Dravidian.....I live in America and ive never met one person from south India who says there Dravidian.....I dont know anyone that takes pride in saying there Dravidian......And a big chunk of people dont even know what a Dravidian means!......Dont u people get it by now!....Its 2006!.....The Aryan invasion theory is a joke.....ANd the label of Dravidian is a joke to!.....Brrrrrrrruah Punjab India! ARYAN818 22:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dravidian is a classification for a family of aboriginal ethnic groups throughout the Indian Sub-continent from Pakistan all the way down to Sri Lanka. Just like the term Oriental was used as a clssification of the ethnic groups in China and Japan. You are right that the average South Indian would not say that he or she is a Dravidian, just like a Chinese or a Japanese would not tell you that they are an Oriental. Also, one cannot say that Dravidians are just only in South India. Even though they are densely populated in Southern India and Sri Lanka, they are scattered throughout Central and Norther India too. In the case of Central India and some other parts, there have been intermarriage between both Dravidians and Indo-Aryans. Also, as far as linguistics go, there are Dravidians of Central India and Northern India who speak Indo-Aryan languages, and those whose language is mixed in between Dravidian and Indo-Aryan words. So, to say that Dravidians do not exist, is like saying that Indo-Aryans do not exist. I understand the importance of the unity of India is through diversity. Live and let live. Regards.
Wiki Raja 06:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Off the top of my head, I would estimate that the majority of political parties in Tamil Nadu identify themselves as Dravidian.  --BostonMA talk 21:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is a joke. There is no such thing as a Dravidian 

message: For some odd reason, this page on Dravidian people tends to be talking more about the Indo-Aryan civilizatin instead of focussing on the Dravidian family of ethnicities. Much work and research needs to be done on this page. If anyone would like to start a Dravidian project please let me know. This project with include language, ethnicity, dance, religion, and more on the ethnic groups which belong to the Dravidian family. Thank you.
Wiki Raja 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dravidian project 

message: The neutrality of this article is disputed with heavy POV. This page has been vandalized. The topic on Dravidians talk more about the Indo-Arya people, which should be posted on that particular article. Furthermore, there are several users who are attempting to discredit the Dravidian people for the existence. This will not be tollerated. Administration has been notified.
Wiki Raja 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI: I have studied broadly on Dravidian civilizations and various other cultures. Whether one is Dravidian or not should not be an issue in regards to contributing to any article on Wikipedia. This is an academic site and not a personal blog page. Please treat it as such. Also, please refrain from personal attacks and incivil remarks when communicating with other users on Wikipedia. Thank you. Wiki Raja 22:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is encouraging that you are willing to apologize for possibly having offended another contributor.  However, more helpful would be an adjustment of your attitude and of the manner in which you approach other editors in the first place.  Snide remarks (I think we're all aware this is not a "personal blog page") and personal attacks such as that expressed below ("ur Afrocentric POV is not wished here") are unhelpful and do nothing to improve the quality of the article or the spirit of collaboration necessary to produce quality work. Nor does repeated, block reversion of the edits of others text without explanation (edit-warring), here or in the article Tamil people accomplish anything useful. If you have specific criticisms about the accuracy or appropriateness of specific passages, then it would be helpful if you discuss them substantively on the discussion pages, refraining from future uncivil remarks and serial, edit warring/wholesale reversion of the contributions of others.  deeceevoice 22:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Dravidian" history is Indian history. deeceevoice ur Afrocentric POV is not wished here. You tried to prove in Black People discussion that "Dravidians" are Black, but u failed. Now you try it here. Stop removing or rewrite the parts which dont suit ur conception.   Asian2Duracell
Your opinion as to my motives does not qualify as any reasoned explanation for your blanket revert -- wholesale -- of individual edits I made and for which I meticulously provided explanations and/or documentation.  Do not revert unless and until you have addressed the issues I've raised.  deeceevoice 21:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and POV of this article is disputed 

message: This article is replete with just about every pro-Aryan cliche known regarding Dravidians and Indian history and society and is appallingly POV.  It requires urgent attention!!!  deeceevoice 06:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Dravidian" history is Indian history. deeceevoice ur Afrocentric POV is not wished here. You tried to prove in Black People discussion that "Dravidians" are Black, but u failed. Now you try it here. Stop removing or rewrite the parts which dont suit ur conception.   Asian2Duracell
Your opinion as to my motives does not qualify as any reasoned explanation for your blanket revert -- wholesale -- of individual edits I made and for which I meticulously provided explanations and/or documentation.  Do not revert unless and until you have addressed the issues I've raised.  deeceevoice 21:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An appalling mess

message: South India is one of the oldest geophysical regions mainly occupied by Dravidian language-speaking people. Here a random panel of 61 unrelated Nadar healthy individual from Tamil Nadu State were analyzed and compared with other populations of India and the world. HLA-A, B and C alleles frequencies and their haplotype frequencies were determined by high-resolution typing of genomic DNA. The analysis revealed that the Nadar caste of South India have several characters shared with East Asian populations consistent with the demographic history of South India, as well as specific features including several unique alleles such as A*03011, A*31011, B*15011, B*3501, B*51011, Cw*02022. In addition, haplotypes such as A*31011-Cw*02022-B*3501, A*03011-Cw*04011-B*4406 and A*2402101-Cw*04011-B*51011 are of high frequency in both these populations but are rare or absent in other populations of India and the world. The study suggests that a comparatively lesser degree of genetic admixture occurred between the South Indian and North Indian racial groups than that between South Indian and East Asian groups.
I found that on http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15295774. Mabe somone is interested in this topic. 
Another site 
Comparing allele frequencies in the groups from India to those in other geographic regions, allele frequency correlation coefficients are highest for the populations previously studied in Central/South Asia, followed by those of Europe and the Middle East and of East Asia (Table 2). This similarity with Europe and East Asia has been seen in smaller-scale autosomal studies that have incorporated India [24–26]; however, these studies, along with one study of more markers but a smaller number of populations [27], have disagreed somewhat about whether the similarity of India is greater with East Asian populations [24], greater with European populations [26], or about equal between these alternatives [25,27]. We found that allele frequencies in India showed detectably greater similarity to populations in Europe and the Middle East than to those in East Asia (Figure 4). This result is consistent with the fact that the cluster corresponding to India in Figure 2A subdivides a previously obtained cluster corresponding to Europe, the Middle East, and Central/South Asia [19].
http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0020215
Asian2duracell 21:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Asians and South Indians