Talk:Dravidian civilizations

message: My answer to the hoax tag question posted on the main page is that I have already provided links to the articles of which particular sections have explained about. All one has to do is to take a closer look right below some of the sections titles and they will see that there are links. I will make it easy for you. For example: Main article:(Carnatic music). Also, in regards to referenced sources, all one has to do is to click on the link stating references, or just scroll down to the section where it says references. Try it, it's easy. Now you will see that there are over 30 referenced sources. And wait a minute, these referenced sources are titles of books, and these books have the names of the author, publisher and location. And just one more thing, if you look really really close at the end of the referenced sources, right after the year are listed the page numbers! Wow! How cool is that!? Now, the next step would be for the reader to jot this information down (title, author, page number), go to a library and look up that book and page number. That wasn't so hard was it? Now enough with this nonsense. I am getting really tired of having to have to repeat myself several times. Grow up! Wiki Raja 06:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You talk so much about your so called "references". Can you give references that there was something called "Dravidian civilization" or "Dravida nadu"? I'm not asking about your "Thanthai Periyar" version of Dravida nadu. Loosely connecting sentences picked from books here and there doesn't make an article meaningful. None of your references talk about so called "Dravidian civilization." Illusions and concocted theories doesn't make any sense anyways, like this one. Gnanapiti 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gnanapiti, both you and I know that I have already provided numerous references to back up all my points in the past up to now. You are just simply rambling and just starting problems. Therefore, let me recommend that you stop with your nonsense. Wiki Raja 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen, first of all you might want to go through WP:NPA for all your betterment. I've already told you once, you are not going anywhere by making personal attacks. Since the very beginning you kept on harping that you back your hoax with references but till date, I haven't seen one, even one from you. By the way, since the audience is big now and stage is all set, why don't you unveil your "numerous" references for our viewing pleasure? At least once let us be blessed with your sacred "references". Gnanapiti 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wiki Raja, we all agree that you've done great work in creating the article and backing it up with numerous references. The article is clearly about Dravidian people, and you've still not provided a single reference for the claim that "Dravidian civilization" refers to "groups which belong to the Dravidian family of ethnicities and languages", and not the ancient Dravidians (before 1000 B.C.). All the references in the article . Why not just merge this stuff into article on Dravidian people or History of Dravidian people, and turn this into a disambig page (pointing to proto-Dravidian or IVC), or perhaps an article about the proto-Dravidian speakers? utcursch | talk 17:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that's your position, perhaps you might try  tags to open up a discussion on the issue.  Or perhaps open up an RFC.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is an out and out synthesis and hoax and there is nothing to merge or redirect.  All the info in this article already exists in the articles that it possibly can be merged into.  For example, merging Kalaripayattu(a 'Dravidian' (martial) art) into Dravidian people would be like merging Bhangra(an 'Indo-Aryan' art) into Indo Aryans.  That would be plain nonsense and if we started doing that, there would be no end to it. Sarvagnya 20:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I take it that's your position, fair enough, for you I would recommend an RFC, given that there doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete on AFD.  I believe  is the tag you want.  FrozenPurpleCube 21:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template  is for articles concerning history; not for hoax articles. You can't imagine things out of illusions, create a synthesized article about your imagination and call it history. Still I don't see a single evidence that there is something called "Dravidian civilization". Gnanapiti 21:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gnanapiti, seeing Manticore's other contribs on other AfDs (some like this one, where he knows next to nothing about the subject) its quite clear that he's either here to just try and game the system for kicks or is just trolling, pure and simple. Either way, pls read up on this. Sarvagnya 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tsk, tsk, commenting on the contributor like this won't make your point for you, sorry.  You may also wish to look at the no personal attacks policy.  And of course, considering how your own comments look.  Believe it or not, I don't care about this article very much, I don't much worry about it, however, I do think the arguments made against it are relatively poor and not very convincing.  However, to give you a fair chance to make your position in an appropriate environment, I suggested RFC.  I really hope you're not adamantly opposed to using the venue, as I don't know that there anywhere else that would address your concerns effectively.  I suppose you could go back and try to make a more persuasive argument on the AFD, but given how acrimonious things are close to getting, I'm not sure that'll be effective.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, then it'll be an easy RFC, where folks agree that there is no such thing. However, it's unlikely to happen in the current AFD, given the way the discussion quickly turned.   FrozenPurpleCube 23:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer to the Hoax tag question

message: Unless the first line of the article is cited and the context is explained clearly and satisfactorily, I propose blanking this article and redirect it to Dravidian people.  Sarvagnya 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but the outcome of this vote was that the article and title stays. Wiki Raja 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing, may I kindly ask why you are placing a  tag for every sentence here when in fact those sentences which belong to the paragraph came from the referenced source provided at the end? Wiki Raja 03:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The outcome of the vote was "no consensus" with the closing admin recognizing the need for a  "thorough-going rewrite"; several of the people who voted keep said that the article should be rewritten to reflect what "Dravidian civilization" refers to. utcursch | talk 05:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  And that would take all of five minutes to do.  I will wait for a few more days and if the article doesnt take any steps towards sounding coherent and encyclopedic, I will blank it and start from a clean slate. Sarvagnya 05:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: As pointed out by the closing admin and several of the users who voted "keep", this article needs to be rewritten about what actually the term "Dravidian civilization" refers to. So, I suggest that the content that is not actually about "Dravidian civilization" be merged to Dravidian people. utcursch | talk 05:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with merging is that, I hardly see anything that can be merged with "Dravidian people".  The arts and architecture for example, have nothing to do with the fact that its practitioners spoke/speak a "Dravidian" language.  Carnatic music, Bharatanatya etc., are tradtions that have evolved and drawn heavily from pan-Indian traditions.  Even the most basic texts and definitive treatises in these arts are in Sankskrit.  Merging it with Dravidian people would be flawed logic.  The practitioners' mother tongue and the art itself are two very different things.  For that matter, I wonder why Hindustani music doesnt find mention in this article!  Karnataka has produced some of the all time greats in Hindustani music.  Or did the likes of Bhimsen Joshi and Mallikarjun Mansur and Gangubai Hangal suddenly become "Aryans" in Wikiraja's eyes? Sarvagnya 05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, there is a lot of content in the article that can be merged. utcursch | talk 05:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be scraps... but I am not sure there's a lot.  In any case, merging whatever is worth merging is fine with me. Sarvagnya 05:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The right article to merge most of the content here is South India and/or Tamil Nadu(considering that half of the content is about Tamil, Tamilians and Tamilnadu) Sarvagnya 05:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Why is the "Bangladesh" template there on this page? Please see the top. --AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 09:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just Bangladesh.  By WikiRaja's golden logic, Pakistan and Sri Lanka templates ought to be there too.  Go figure. Sarvagnya 09:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pakistan (Brahui) and Sri Lanka (Tamils) may be relevant. --AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 10:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Bangladesh!!!

message: Sarvagnya, you cannot simply blank pages without sound refereneced proof. Your blatant claim that all the martial arts texts were in Sanskrit are false. Martial arts of Tamil Nadu were written in Tamil language in a piece of literature called Varma Cuttiram. Martial arts of Kerala were written in the Malayalam language. Revising history to suit one's POV doesn't solve anything. Wiki Raja 02:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanking of Dravidian martial arts section

message: Sarvagnya, please discuss first with the other users before blanking a section. Wiki Raja 02:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanking of European colonization section

message: Sarvagnya, I have asked you a few times to discuss first with other users before blanking a section. Please stop. Wiki Raja 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanking of a part of festivals section

message: Sarvagny, I think you are not listening to me. Your continuous blanking of sections of the article constitutes to edit warring. Please stop. Wiki Raja 02:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki Raja: You have not discussed before adding any of those sections. For me it looks pretty much clear why those sections have been blanked. Give me just one good reason, why those sections should not be deleted? How are those sections related to this article, even remotely? Unless all the tags are addressed it will be even more confusing to the reader what this article is all about it, let alone those adhoc sections related to South India. - KNM  Talk 03:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanking of a part of History section

message: As per the discussions above, User:KNM corrected the article to describe what the term "Dravidian civilization" actually means. As per the discussion in Merge and other sections above, I've merged the history of the article to Dravidian people to maintain GFDL compliance. The article currently redirects to Dravidian civilization. utcursch | talk 15:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged