Talk:Dravidian peoples/Archive 3

message: I just took a look at the article and glanced through the arguments on this talk page and few users' talk pages.    There is so much wrong about this article that, frankly, I dont even know where to start.
Even so, I'll try.
For starters, 'Dravidian' is NOT a 'race'. Not by any stretch of imagination.  It was term first used by Caldwell, a linguist, to group together certain languagaes like kannada, tulu, malayalam, brahui, tamil etc.,. Nothing more.  Nothing less.
And even Caldwell writes in his book that the term was a very bad choice and that he was using the term reluctantly simply coz he couldnt think of anything better. 
So if 'Dravidian' is ever used to describe people, it should only be used to refer to 'speakers' of the above mentioned languages even if the speakers were Mongoloid or Caucasian.
That 'Dravidian' has(in some quarters) come to assume racial connotations, is thanks purely to the political machinations of the Dravidian parties.  A similar fate had befallen the term 'Aryan' too a little earlier, thanks to a certain Mr. Hitler and his comrades.
Racially, both 'South Indians' and 'North Indians' are the same.  Somebody may point to some esoteric genetic study(which used probably a sample size of 5 people to decide the fate of a billion people) and claim that there are, infact, genetic differences between 'north indians' and 'south indians'(both terms being as ambiguous and 'loose' as they get).  Nonetheless, these may at best be perfectly natural differences but certainly not enough to bracket them ('south indians' and 'north indians') into different races.  It is not like one of them is Mongoloid and the other is Caucasian!!  Even if the languages they speak are as different as chalk and cheese(thats debatable too, but let's leave that for another day).
Other than the racial connotations that this article talks of, even other things like claiming that Carnatic music or Bharatanatya or Kuchipudi etc., are 'Dravidian' traditions is patent nonsense.
So unless somebody puts some sense and sanity back into the article, I will be tagging it soon.  Infact, I dont even know what an appropriate tag would be.  {OR} certainly comes to mind.  So does {pov} and its variants.  Let me see.  I'll try to find a good one.  Sarvagnya 18:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters this is one of the most comprehensive view on the concept called Dravidian people. It gives all sides of the argument for is it a race or not ? is it a language group or not ? but in general the article does not make a prnouncement about truth unlike your argument above. In wikipedia we give all sides and let the readers make up their mind. This article reads only POV only to those who have only one point of view. It is page of constant changes because of it but at the end we have maintained it in a balanced point of viewRaveenS 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dravidian race?! 

message: I dont have the time to look into it right now.  But will someone please take a look at User:Geomatician's recent edits and revert them if necessary.  I've reverted one of the edits.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a whacky reiteration of Jones's theories about the Tribe of Ham. Paul B 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geomatician's edits 

message: I have some serious concerns about this article.  I'll go section by section.
*Tamil legends - Why does this article talk about Tamil legends?  Especially when the legends discussed have nothing to do with the linguistic 'Dravidian' group?  People all over the world have legends handed down by tradition.  So should we talk about Kannada legends, Telugu legends, Brahui legends, Tulu legends etc., also?  What exactly does this section try to accomplish?
*Manu Smriti - Ok. Fine. The MS uses the word 'Dravida'.  So?  So what?  It is just a coincidence that Caldwell used the same term to name a group of linguistically related languages.  He could have named this linguistic group anything right.  For example, let us assume that he had named this linguistic group, "American", would that mean we should be talking about linguistics on America or United States of America??
:If Caldwell called it 'Dravidian' it certainly is nothing more than a coincidence.  He certainly didnt name it after 'Dravida' tribe that is supposedly mentioned in the Manu Smriti!
*Greek legends - Can somebody explain to me what on earth this section is trying to prove?  Greeks called somebody 'Ethiopians'.  So?  Sarvagnya 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sarvagnya Regarding Greek Legends, there have been trade and commerce between Southern India and Greece. So, this is the Greek version of early contacts with the Dravidian civilizations. Also, in regards to Tamil lengends, I feel that we should include Kannada legends, Telugu legends, and so forth if there are any. That would be great. If you have any info in regards to Kannada legends or Telugu legends, could you please post it? Regards. Wiki Raja 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns

message: I have removed the "Historic views" section.  It mentioned
* Tamil legends - legends which had nothing to do with speakers of "Dravidian languages"
* Greek legends - it was some incoherent rant about Ethiopians
* Manu Smriti - Can somebody prove to me that the "Dravida" and "Andhra" tribes mentioned in Manu Smriti were Dravidians.  First of all can you prove that the mentioned tribes were historic fact?  Sarvagnya 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show more civility when posting to other users including myself. So far you postings show strong signs of a POV propoganda rampage. This is not part of Wikipedia policy since it advocates strong POVs. I do not know why you are mad at me. If you would like to post your own articles, please go to the Unencyclopedia. Thank you. Wiki Raja 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In relation to Greek legends, more than Eastern Ethiopia, it is important to discuss Romila Thapar's identification of Meluhha, Dilmun and Makan as the Sumerian versions of place names in Proto-Dravidian and the debate about that where others disagreed.  I can add this, but I do not know when I will be able to. -- Ponnampalam 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic views section 

message: I've read that the war the militant atheistic Dravidians brag about so much is actually a war between the Indo-Aryans and the Iranic tribes. After all the Iranians worshipped the Asuras (or Ahuras.) They were opposed to Lord Varuna losing rank to Lord Indra in the Rig Veda. The Dasarajna was a war between Indo-Aryans and Iranians with the Bharatas, led by the 'Sudra' King Sudas (Mahabharata) being the saviors of Indians.
Please read 'UPDATE ON THE ARYAN INVSION DEBATE' by KOENRAAD ELST. 
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/downloads/books/aid.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geomatician (talk • contribs) 16:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The War Between Asuras and Devas 

message: There are not many Dravidians in China except for Hong Kong; ref where there is a sizeable Indian, and possible Macau where there is an increase in Indian tourists . Try travelling to Guangzhou, Shanghai and other Chinese cities and you'd hardly find any Indian, and if there are - they'd be very little fo them. I don't agree to those placing the Chinese flag for having significant Dravidian population. So, I've removed the Taiwanese and Chinese flags. Please provide credible sources if you do think are lots of Indians in China other than the Special Administrative Regions. --Fantastic4boy 04:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dravidians in China

message: Hello, could the editors please use NPOV. Also, please write the articles with generally accepted viewpoints. Such subjects have hundreds of different views. I can see that user named Orpheus is continuously reverting the article without giving substatial proofs to his claims. The user Geomatician has given enough proof the material he has written. What Orpheus is doing can be considered vandalism. I don't even see him discussing his viewpoints here. If this continues, I think the user must be banned from editing this article.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.39.225.99 (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user Geomatician, who appears to prefer to use the third person when not logged in, hasn't addressed the concerns raised on this talk page about his edits. I think that some justification is required for such contentious material. Orpheus 07:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem I have with the material is the same problem that was raised above on this talk page - the theories being posted have no support in the academic community. Additionally, it's not well cited. See WP:RS for what makes a good reference. I would also point the user Geomatician to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, especially given the title of this section. Orpheus 00:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough - I've added that bit back in. The rest, I stand by. It's WP:OR, not reliably sourced, and possibly a bit WP:POV. Orpheus 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To respond to various edit summaries - the link in the section I removed is to a random stream of thought essay, not a reliable source. Orpheus 00:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you define a reliable source?Asian2duracell 15:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia has a policy on reliable sources, which I linked in my comment for your benefit. Orpheus 22:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Hi,
To all who are contributing to the flags and populations of Dravidian people around the world, are we doing it by lands of origination, diaspora, or countries with the most populated Dravidian people? So far, it looks more like by diaspora. Regards. Wiki Raja 06:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regions with significant populations

message: The story on Vedic Harrapans should be posted on Harappan.
Wiki Raja 04:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To the new Anon user

message: Hi,
I have added in the section on India under Political Ramifications a  tag after the sentence "further fuelled such Dravidianist ideas since it implied that the Indo-Aryans were uncivilised barbarians." Also, I noticed it takes a stand against all political parties in Tamil Nadu instead of presenting them in a neutral light. Instead of briefly stating what these political parties are, it just simply clumps them up into a bracket such as in this sentence: "(e.g. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, DK, ADMK, VC, etc.)". I have noticed that the editor who posted that made a mistake on the third party listed. Instead of ADMK, it is actually AIADMK which stands for All India Ada Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. I do not know whether this may have been a typo, or an intention on misrepresenting these groups. This section, as with other parts of the article overall present a biased perspective of the Dravidian people instead of presenting it in NPOV form. Wiki Raja 00:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Ramifications

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox