Talk:Tamil-Brahmi

message: Tenkasi Subramanian, please summarize the question. Help is requested, but I wouldn't like to read the entire discussion before seeing the question. Gryllida (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break 

message: Several news reports about recent excavations:
* https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/major-discovery-tamil-nadu-s-keezhadi-possible-link-indus-valley-civilisation-109165
* https://scroll.in/article/937484/who-were-the-sangam-tamils-next-round-of-keezhadi-excavations-could-provide-crucial-evidence
* https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/keeladi-findings-traceable-to-6th-century-bce-report/article29461583.ece
* https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-study-connects-tamil-nadu-with-indus-valley-civilisation/story-ESlR55vEIZQPvq2Q0jXeVP.html
* https://thewire.in/the-sciences/keezhadi-excavation-tamil-nadu-sangam-era-asi-tamil-brahmi
* http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2019/sep/21/findings-in-keezhadi-expose-asi-lies-on-tamil-civilisation-su-venkatesan-2036782.html
* http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2019/sep/19/sangam-civilisation-older-than-thought-says-new-report-2036042.html
Feel free to add more interesting links.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be interesting to see the peer reviewed report and any response to it, but meanwhile it doesn't belong in the article. The media is not a reliable source for archaeology. Nor in fact are all journals. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong, this is all fascinating, but it's also political another reason we shouldn't use the media reports. See [https://thewire.in/the-sciences/keezhadi-excavation-tamil-nadu-sangam-era-asi-tamil-brahmi this which you also linked to above. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not advocating to use the newspaper sources for wikipedia articles. Just making people aware of recent developments. Eagerly awaiting the peer-reviewed material.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 to Doug Weller. I have removed all 500 BCE etc exceptional claims based on newspapers, questionable websites and other non-RS. Ancient chronology we use in wikipedia articles must come from peer-reviewed scholarly sources. I have also checked the sources and reworded/cleaned up this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

text: JAIN MONKS, MERCHANTS, AND KINGS IN EARLY HISTORIC SOUTH INDIA
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JmqNMJZoW0MJkPDdBwz98NbYXUbUkFmk/view?usp=sharing 
This is a peer reviewed source by Julie Hanlon. She favours a Pre-Ashoka dating for Brahmi.
Please read the following section from p66:
2.3. The chronology of Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions: Origins and evolution
Now with the latest finding from Keezhadi carbon dated to 580 B.C. It is very clear now that Brahmi is pre Ashoka. This is the archaeology report from the Department of Archeaology in Tamil Nadu:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-3Hdu7P7WW1i214cATQDnxINOwk4OMG_/view?usp=sharing
Are the detractors seriously claiming that the multiple scientific carbon dates from both Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu as spurious?
Metta79 (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

text: first question is who is M. Karan - I see no evidence they have authority to share those publications, however it's possible that that is automatically the case for them as government documents.. My big problem is trusting government bodies.  I need ask about that. Doug Weller talk 16:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

text: This is undoubtedly an authentic report (thanks for that!), but it should be publically available, so we could link it with the article.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

text: The link was emailed to me. It is also available here: https://archive.org/details/keeladibookenglish18092019 Metta79 (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The uploader seems to be connected to projects related to the development of Tamil. I also found, that he uploaded the Tamil version of the report. But theoretically this could be uploaded by an impersonator in a forged version. My suggestion is to wait for reliable third party feedback. In the meantime we should keep this report in mind when we make edits to the article.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

text: PS: There is also news, that Adichanallur and related excavation sites get reported soon (after a very long gap). That information will also serve to improve the article.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamili script found in Keezhadi dated to 580 BCE 

message: Robin7013: I have reverted your edits because the newspaper is not RS, and the "book" you cite is actually WP:SPS. Any source whose peer-review process is absent or unclear is questionable, and all WP:SPS fall in that category. Tentatively, I am moving that claim into the main article with proper attributions. We must not use wikipedia voice for such exceptional claim(s) made by employee(s) of one government organization, and which vast majority of scholars do not. In the lead and main, we need to stick with what the mainstream scholarly sources are stating. Do you have a peer-reviewed scholarly publication for the "Tamil-Brahmi 6th-century BCE dating"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your edit did mix up claims about Indus script and Tamil Brahmi. The report claims 1001 graffiti inscriptions and 56 Tamil Brahmi inscriptions (page 14).ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Metta79: Without prejudicing or agreeing with what you write above, do you have any source links in peer-reviewed publications? Please note that article's talk pages are not a WP:Forum. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiosity: Why did you revert the wikilinks? ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ThaThinThaKiThaTha: After some source checks, I have restored the last better version and commented out the latest TNAD publication (which also commented out your wikilinks). Let us wait till these findings get accepted in peer-reviewed scholarly publications. The 3rd-century BCE and after dates are in many peer-reviewed scholarly sources including Zvelebil. Rajan's work is not new, the article already mentions it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  6th century BCE claims and WP:SPS 

message: Why is this script's name given 25 times with hyphen and 54 times without hyphen? Shouldn't it be standardized? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling discrepancy

message: The current opening sentence doesn't make sense.
:
That it coexisted with Brahmi does not indicate that it was not a variant. So what does that sentence mean? I removed the link to Brahmi script and replaced it with Brahmic script. Srnec (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the source and corrected the sentence to what the source says. --Glennznl (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence