Talk:Sangam literature

message: My edits were reverted, where in the summary it was alleged there was no consensus: diff
I would like to reinstate the content, which I believe is a considerable improvement for this article. If anybody has issues with edits, please cite the problematic text from the diff and explain it here. I will try to adress these issues. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for starting this discussion, let's see what other editors who watch this page have to say about you proposed changes.  - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 15:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you remove everything again with no reasoning? I already stated, that my edits were aimed to improve the article by expanding it with more content. To be more specific I want to improve the article in such a way, that a reader gets an understanding of what Sangam literature contains and why it is unique in the world of literature.. Which type of language was used.. How it influenced society and culture.. It's significance today, etc etc etc.. there are a lot of topics which are quite often scholary discussed, but which are not reflected here. I will wait another 3 days for you to specify the issues for discussion. If you revert again, I will take you to administrators.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The warning I left on your talkpage states my reason.  - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Also, the same reason  left for you as a warning. In regards to your threat, you should review WP:BOOMERANG first.  - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not concerned about boomerangs. Your warning states, that the changes needed to be dicussed on talk page for a consensus, since they are "large changes". I've not only opened the necessary discussion here, but also waited patiently, for over 10 days, to get feedback. It's not like I'm overconfident that everything I write is fine, but the lack of feedback shows me, that there is no actual problem with my edits, and you have apparently no point to revert here. Your reasoning also seems to be generally invalid, since large parts of my content was translated from the excellent German article. So I repeat that you must mention the problems of my proposed changes within the next 3 days since I've already waited more than 10 days. If you don't state any content problem within the next 3 days, we will see us on a different page again. This is my last warning for you. Get the problematic content within 3 days on this page or this discussion will be continued somewhere else.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

text: I've requested third opinions in the meantime. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   3O is fine with me and please stop with the threats, I don't give a shit where you take this. P.S. I'm not going to "state any content problem" because it's not a content issue.   - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 22:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not a content issue, I don't understand why you are reverting the edits, since each addition of content has an adequate edit summary attached to explain the edits. It's not like that I have created one huge massive block of new content. I'm all for discussing edits, so that's not an issue. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

text: The "large" edits are these:    . There is just 1 edit which is not explained by an edit summary, where I have forgotten to describe the edit. The other ones are just large because tables create a lot of bytes. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: The main article of the old version is mostly unsourced. Some of it is OR. We need to rely on peer-reviewed scholarship and WP:HISTRS sources, not blogs etc (which I will remove per our content guidelines). I welcome comments and feedback. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If the poem appears in a reliable source as a way to illustrate it, I don't see why we can't use it. If anyone objects, the concerns can be discussed on the talk page. utcursch | talk 22:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. The sample translations are all from RS. I will embed one (or more) sample poems within the prosody section I plan to add to explain the poetic meter in the Sangam literature. That will help highlight in part the charm of the poems, just like the Sanskrit prosody adds another depth and charm to the Vedic and post-Vedic literature. I am reading the chapters on the meters in the Sangam literature, and expect to be ready to summarize this in a few para next week, maybe tomorrow. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review, cleanup and expansion 

message: Other IP addresses /  Please do not keep inserting claims such as the following without WP:RS / mainstream peer-reviewed sources: Akananuru (1, 15, 31, 55, 61, 65, 91, 97, 101, 115, 127, 187, 197, 201, 211, 233, 251, 265, 281, 311, 325, 331, 347, 349, 359, 393, 281, 295), Kurunthogai (11), Natrinai (14, 75) are dated before 300 BCE ). If you would like to discuss this, please do so on this talk page. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring over pre-300 BCE claims 

message: To add to this article: according to this newly published book, there may be influences from the Indus Valley civilization on the early Sangam literature.
https://www.thehindu.com/books/books-reviews/journey-of-a-civilization-indus-to-vaigai-review-the-route-from-harappa-to-keezhadi/article30949976.ece  76.189.141.37 (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article