Talk:Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu

message: The article as it stands is written almost entirely from the Tamil POV ("Indian security forces massed into Tamil Nadu and their ruthless shootings of unarmed demonstrators" etc), and is very short on what these "impositions" and their rationale actually were. Jpatokal 14:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Would the recent Marathi riots of Maharashtra incited by Raj Thackeray of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena fall under this article or should there be a wider resistance to Hindi category?
Hcobb (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Indo-Aryan languages?

message: Is there a reference for this sentence under "Post Independence" section?? If not it should be removed. I'm not sure about the meaning of "Indian security forces", does it mean the Army, CRPF or TN police?
"In addition to the killings by Indian security forces", Chinnaswamy, Muthu, Ranganathan, Sarangapani, Sivalingam and Veerappan poured petrol (gasoline) over their bodies and burned themselves to death in protest of Hindi imposition.
(68.162.44.102 (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations Needed

message: Its a POV source. It does not meet the criteria of WP:RS. So please refrain from inserting information from its pages. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Geocities:Tamil Tribune

message: I have done some work trying to add more information. The job is still unfinished. Will work on it whenever I get time. Others are welcome to improve upon. Docku:“what up?” 04:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: major revamping

message: User:Sarvagnya has made these changes without providing any reference to it.  I brought it up in his talk page. His answer is If you think it is missing something.. add it! Or sit back and relax. Somebody will get to it eventually. Sorry, that is not the way it works. You just dont add unreferenced material especially if it is disputable and controversial. The article is missing references for agitations in other parts of India. Docku:“what up?” 20:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Anti Hindi agitations" looked up on Google Scholar gives me articles talking about TN alone . All opposition to Hindi as National language wasn't termed as Anti-Hindi agitation. Agitation is indeed a strong word and was used only (correct me here if am wrong) for the ones that happened in TN at two different occasions. The other oppositions can be termed as Opposition to Hindi as National language where Anti-Hindi agitation would be a part, but not otherwise. 9/11 will redirect to September 11 attacks atacks because the media termed it so and not to September 11. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: new unreferenced changes

message: From reading about this, it appears that there was a constitutional requirement that Hindi be the official language of India (and hence the language of the government). Was there an amendment to get around this (I don't thing so)? What legal mechanism did the Shastri government use to get around the constitutional requirement? --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 02:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a feeling this article has the answer for it. I dont have access to it though. Docku:“what up?” 03:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting article. Apparently nothing was decided and the whole issue just got shelved never to be taken up again. The use of language is now governed by the Official languages act of 1963. I could email the article to you if you like. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 13:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the offer. very nice of you. I am at work now and have access to it here. will read and post my op later. Docku:“what up?” 15:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitutional amendment?

message: I propose we move this article to Madras anti-Hindi agitation of 1965 (or Tamil anti-Hindi agitation of 1965), with appropriate redirects of course. Then we can rewrite it adding context, description of the agitation itself, and consequences (language and DMK). I propose we defer decisions about a broader agitation until we're satisfied with the state of this article. (If we find enough evidence of a broader movement, we could drop the Madras from the title.) Comments?
:I support the idea. I just have this suggestion though 1965 ant-hindi agitation in Tamil Nadu. Docku:“what up?” 02:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to differ, but as I pointed out earlier the search string "Anti Hindi agitation" (or plural with s) would point out the 1965 agitations in Madras State alone. I'm really not fussed about the move proposal to be honest, but I guess we stick on to this title. Protests and demonstrations don't make it as an agitation, but the incidents of 1965 were pretty violoent with student immolating themselves and education institutions shut for months. I still recollect the stories from my parents how they used to go to their teacher's house in George Town to study Hindi with fear of violence breaking down in the streets anytime. No wonder the academics used the word "agitation". Nevertheless, if it is supported by the community to move the article, please go ahead. For such a move, please get some comments by posting a message in Wikiproject Tamil Nadu's talk page before it is done. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 07:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I supported the move only because I didnt want to sound like an obstructionist. I am yet to see references for agitation other than in year 1965 and states other than in Tamil Nadu which demand a disambiguation at this stage. Quoting Regents Park for the record, But, the agitation does stand alone as well because, without the violence (mainly, it appears, in the response of the government, Hindi may very well have been the national language of India. The Duncan F. article makes this point somewhere as well. The point is that it is not just the agitation, its historical significance. I am all for legitimate neutral presentation of articles, but not for liquifying the subject not supported by reliable sources for conceivable intentions. Docku:“what up?” 12:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand you (wikiality) correctly, your objection is to the making the article specific to Madras or to the Tamils? The word agitation stays either way. The case for adding the locational or ethnic qualifier is because the agitation was confined to Madras state (unless we see references to other states) but was a part of a larger theme, that of hindi-ization (this is pretty much borne out by reliable sources) that was greater than the Tamil agitation alone. Anyway, I'm open to other ideas (how about Anti-Hindi agitation of 1965?) but would like to see the date in the title (that way the focus of the article will be clear and it will be better written) and I think we should drop the plural since there was only one agitation in 1965 (though many instances of protest). Do note, however, that dropping Tamil or Madras from the title will invite addition of text that refers to other locations as well. (Addendum: I think that, in general, having a clear title is important because it focuses the article and provides an appropriate constraint for what other editors can add. The current title is too general (it could, for example, include the Punjabi mahasabah agitations as well because there was an underlying anti-hindi sentiment there and it was an agitation). --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 14:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument for specifying year and geography or ethnicity is compelling. On a different note, wasnt Punjab Mahasabah agitation related to state reorganisation rather than official language? Docku:“what up?” 15:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Punjabi mahasaba was related to state reorganization (the separation of Punjab into Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal. However, there was a strong undercurrent of language in all this with the Sikhs taking a punjabi stance and the hindus taking a hindi stance. It is not the same as the anti-Hindi agitations in Madras but my point is that not focusing the article will invite all sorts of stuff into it. The advantage of having a focused article is that if editors with other agendas appear, they can be told 'take it elsewhere'.--Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 01:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)OK, I will try to explain myself better now. All anti-Hindi sentiments do not come under Anti-Hindi agitations. What will help the article is for us to create a new article on all the oppositions of Hindi as national language and have a section on the very top of anti-Hindi agitations article stating This article is about agitations in Madras State and for other... bla bla bla which prevents misunderstanding of editors in the future on what this article is about. If you want to add the year, its OK, but my point is, its not really necessary. We gotto remember that this is an encyclopedia. If someone is looking particularly for the term Anti Hindi agitation, he/she should end up in this article, since these are the incidents that are termed by academics and press as Anti-Hindi agitation (try searching for "anti hindi agitations" with quotes on any search engine and you will see what I mean). I reckon we should start preparing the overall article and may be most of us would have had a change of mind (including me) on the title change. What do you think? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The academic literature tends to refer to it as the anti-Hindi agitation of 1965, often with a specific tamil identification. cf. "The Madras anti-Hindi agitation, 1965" (Duncan Forrester); or "The riots in Tamilnad" (Hargrave). Thus the focus is 1965 and is Madras anyway. And, anti-Hindi agitation can always be redirected to the article. I'm easy with whatever the consensus is but do feel that the article is letting itself open to all sorts of stuff if it is left with a too-general title. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 01:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Not just the header, but please look into the text too. Anyways, my point was, no other anti-Hindi oposition was called  "anti Hindi agitation". If the consensus is still to move the article, make sure you remember that Madras State doesn't just include Tamils. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 10:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The state was still called Madras state even after Andhra and Karnataka became separate states in 1956. Ok guys, I see both of you make excellent points. If having a specific title helps eliminate the ambiguity, let us go for it. I take the liberty to move to one of the names suggested above. Docku:“what up?” 17:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Tamil anti-Hindi agitations of 1965 doesn't make any sense. Looks as if there is a Tamil VS Hindi crisis. If details are to be added make it as Madras anti-Hindi agitations. FYI, people of Tamil Nadu is different from Tamil people. I don't think we can ever find good references that Tamil alone took part in the 1965 agitations in Madras State. Ambiguity would be there only if someone doesn't understand the subject. Anyways, this is rather surprising that such a move has been made. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 17:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: makes sense. RP also suggested this. I dont mind as well. Docku:“what up?” 17:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move proposal

message: # The Riots in Tamilnad: Problems and Prospects of India's Language Crisis
# The Madras Anti-Hindi Agitation, 1965: Political Protest and its Effects on Language Policy in India
#En / Gendering Language: The Poetics of Tamil Identity --CarTick 16:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks carTick. I began my rewrite without posting my collection of sources here as there are more than 30!!. This is going to be one massive rewrite. --Sodabottle (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: sure. I will help you with what I can. I dont have as much access to sources you do. good luck. --CarTick 16:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: sources

message: I propose to proceed like this :
*1) New section on Official languages Act 1967 amendment
*2) Remove current consequences section and move the text to 1965 riot timeline and 1967 amendment runup section
*3) New section on 1968 protests and annadurai scrapping three language formula using legislation
*4) New section on 1984/6 anti hindi week/protests by karunanidhi
*5) New section on later hindi protests (the token variety organised by dmk whenever some hindi wallah proposes something stupid) the latest one being kapil sibal's three language push
*6) New section on 1948 marai malai adigal protest
*7) Rewrite of 1938-42 agitation
*8) A final legacy and impact section at the end of the article--Sodabottle (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds good to me. I added some stuff. I guess I will let you take over and join later once you are done. Besides, the second section (periyar's role) is kind of sticking out like a sore thumb. needs to be better integrated for a smooth flow. --CarTick 13:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  it seems to have been written by a DK fan. we would have to change the whole "role of periyar" to Protests of 1938-42--Sodabottle (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion format

message: though it is implicit what was amended from earlier context, it is is better to write it here again for the sake of clarity. --CarTick 15:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the last line from forrester was technically true as he published the article in 66. we could keep it saying it was the last time it was discussed in 65.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: correct. I gathered it. good idea. --CarTick 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: it would be helpful to quote the exact text of the section 3 of the Official languages Act which ensured the permanancy of both languages. --CarTick 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  They added a lot of stuff to section 3. previously it was only 3 lines without any subsections. the amendment added four more subsections and expanded the first 3 lines into another subsection. 1963 version and Amended version. i think We can say subsection 1  and subsection 5 ensures bilingualism. can you take a look and confirm?. i am not sure if i am correctly intrepreting the legalese --Sodabottle (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the amendment would be very small. Since it contains too much text, we probably dont need to quote it. we could rather describe it how it is described by secondary sources. In fact, your current writing may just be fine if that is how secondary sources describe it. --CarTick 20:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 1967 amendment

message: For the subheadings, should they be renamed as "agitation of 1965" or "1965 agitation" instead of protests?. suddenly "protest" sounds lame to me--Sodabottle (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: it shouldnt matter how it feels to us. Robert Hardgrave calls it riots. Duncan Forrester calls it agitation. both are independent, neutral scholarly work. we can choose either of the terms. --CarTick 17:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  changed to agitation--Sodabottle (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: agitation or protests

message: can we say that AHA was responsible for the language policy in India as it is now? do we have references for that? --CarTick 13:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: yes we can. i think MSS pandian and company have written on it. i was planning to put this in the legacy section but havent gotten around to it.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: absolutely. u are the master of resources. --CarTick 14:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: thinking over it again, 1961 census makes more sense to an issue which took place in 1965. of course, there were agitations before and after, but, 1965 agitation seems to be the central one. dont you think? --CarTick 18:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  they were central to the official language issue. but not before that. the background is for the whole linguistic situation and to function as the starting part of the narrative. since the 37 section immediately follows the background, starting with 61 statistics is little bit awkward. So i rewrote it as a general sitrep : here is india, there are lots of languages; back in the days of the raj, this is how it all began. 61 stats are jarring in such a narrative. Again it all depends how we rewrite the lead. I am currently doing the lead. will post it here in a few seconds. --Sodabottle (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: lead section

message: since this section deals with events across a few years, it is better to mention the year with every date. --CarTick 16:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: done--Sodabottle (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: years in Agitation of 1937-40 and other sections

message: just adding images which are available and I deem appropriate. we can always change our choice as we make better finding. --CarTick 17:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: there is one showing periyar with rajaji in the periyar article. but it looks like a later image from 60s.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found two excellent images in the web. I have written to the copyright holder (Tamil actor Mohan Raman and son of DMK leader VP Raman) asking for permission via CC SA 2.5. Here is the link to the picasa album:
http://picasaweb.google.com/mohanraman/AVRamanFunction31stJanuary1968#
--Sodabottle (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: that is a good find. hope he will agree. --CarTick 19:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  He gave his permission. I have sent him the formal consent form to forward to commons. Once that is done, i will upload to commons and put them here--Sodabottle (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: way to go. --CarTick 14:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: images

message: Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu refer to a series of agitations happened in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu (formerly Madras State and part of Madras Presidency) during both pre- and post-Independence periods. The term encompasses all mass protests, riots, student and political movements that happened in Tamil Nadu, concerning the official status of Hindi in the state and in the  Indian Republic.
The agitations that occurred before Indian independence were conducted against the introduction of Hindi as a compulsory subject in the schools of Madras Presidency. Periyar E. V. Ramasamy and the Dravidar Kazhagam were the principal organizers of the agitations. They succeeded in preventing compulsory teaching of Hindi in the schools in Tamil Nadu.
The agitations of the post-independence period were conducted to ensure the continuation of English as an Official Language and to prevent Hindi becoming the sole Official Language of India. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, descendent of Dravidar kazhagam, spearheaded most of thempopular uprisings. These rebellion agitations helped to shape the current  Official Language Policy of the Indian Republic.
--Sodabottle (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead proposal

message: i worked on the lead a bit. I will look at it later again. u r welcome to improve. --CarTick 23:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: rewrote it a little bit (rearrange, phrases, copy edits etc.)--Sodabottle (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: lead

message: Well seems that the reader's editor of The Hindu, uses wikipedia for research. Feels pretty weird for me to read our words here on a newspaper. Granted, they have done some additional research and worked hard to rearrange our phrases, but the base is still our article :-)). --Sodabottle (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: that is awesome. well, it is a cycle. as long as they make sure they copy from well-researched and cited articles. good job.----CarTick 04:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  exactly my feeling. an hour ago i was sleepily drinking my morning glass of milk and browsing the paper and almost spilled my milk when i saw this. My mom still refuses to believe me when i told her "my words" (sort of ;-)) are appearing in the middle pages of the The Hindu. I have underlined the specific phrases and facts they have taken from here and showing her the comparison between the two articles. Well our 15 seconds of fame! (too bad that only we two would recognize it as such :-)).--Sodabottle (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: pretty dramatic. :) u could write to the author. --CarTick 04:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: When The Hindu gets "inspired" by wikipedia..

message: anybody who reads the article would want to know why Rajaji changed his position so dramatically from 1938 to 1965. did he feel politically isolated and cornered. did he regret his early decisions. or, just he didnt like Kamaraj, as an extension Congress and therefore everything Congress did. just speculating, i have no sources yet. --CarTick 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: mostly fed up with the way indian union was shaping up in the 50s. I think, Rajaji was always a federalist libertarian at heart. He was against the soviet style 5 year planning, centralized command economy, the central govt taking more powers. etc. So when the hindi wallahs were pushing for a homogeneous union he had to oppose them. So i think it had to do with his libertarian leanings than his dislike of all things congress. His writings in swaraj could be evidence for that, but they are not online.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had understood this as the author would have intended, the overall idea was to make sure that South Indians/Tamils to play vital role in national politics. The logic being that if regions which are now Pakistan were still with India, Hindustani would have easily become lingua franca void Dravidian heartlands. Dravidians (especially Tamils) who would have then been an insignificant minority would be in deep trouble. However, the post partition scenario was quite the opposite. The book also claims that Rajaji was against strong center. Probably not worth here but in Rajaji wiki article. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 16:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats a good one. I had guessed different. I think Rajaji got frustrated by the "hindiwallahs" during the framing of the constitution. The Central provinces, united provinces delegates seem to have pissed off everyone except them (urdu, bengali, hindustani, everyone eventually seem to have fed up with them). This Kanchan Chandra book (from page 350 onwards) explains how they frittered away the goodwill in three years between 1946-49.  --Sodabottle (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: interesting stuff. Imagine the constitution was written today, it feels like it was written when many of the Indian states were deep asleep. --CarTick 01:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rajaji

message: nominate for FAR? --CarTick 19:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: shouldnt we go to GAR first?.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i dont know what is the correct way to go forward. nobody cares to do GAR anyway. Besides, i believe the article is FA quality. --CarTick 20:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: what next?

message: This article surely deserves to be a FA and I congratulate Sodabottle and CarTick. I have translated this into Tamil Wiki இந்தி எதிர்ப்பு போராட்டம் pl.--Rsmn (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: i have to admit most and important work was done by Sodabottle. thanks anyway and good job translating. --CarTick 12:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: An excellent article

message: Some IPs and editors have been adding the Dog story by Annadurai in the article. The story itself is relevant and is a good addition to the article. But, the source it comes from is the Tamil Tribune site. It has been contested as a RS and as a POV source before many times (because of the inflammatory separatist statements it carries). The other ref chennaionline has copied it from Tamil Tribune. The dog story as far as i can determine comes from one of Anna's medai speeches and not his Rajya Sabha speeches. I am looking for a book reference (and will eventually find it, when i go through enough library books). We are aiming to take the article eventually to FA status and Tamil Tribune or Chennaionline would not be acceptable to FA reviewers as sources. Even the sangam.org and dmk.in links were questioned during peer review. I will remove the story for now. I will DEFINITELY add it back, when i find a published book that mentions the story. So please don't add the dog story, unless you can find a source other than Tamil tribune (and others which have copied from tamil tribune).
In short : we need a published book (tamil or english), which mentions the speech in full. (if it gives date and place, it would be even more helpful)--Sodabottle (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I broadly agree with your sentiments, but we need a better source to substantiate because a lot of "myth making" has happened with our leaders and it is difficult to distinguish between legend and reality. Give me a few months (i am constantly adding more sources and expanding this article). The Dog story is in my top priority list. I will find a RS by then.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dog story

message: An image used in this article, File:Periyar with Jinnah and Ambedkar.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Periyar with Jinnah and Ambedkar.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: Hi all... it is not Anti-Hindi. it is anti-Hindi imposition. No one protested against schools which taught hindi. Hindi is still being teached by several schools and organizations in Tamilnadu without any disturbances. They were not protesting against Hindi. They were protesting against Hindi-imposition. There is a big difference. If anyone doesn't oppose, I would like to have the title changed to Anti-Hindi imposition agitations of Tamil Nadu.Rajavel 2k12 (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more nuanced than what you're making it to be. Reliable sources refer to it in the current format (and that has been discussed earlier too), so it shouldn't be moved. Besides the actual nature of the agitation is explained both in the lede and in the body of the article. —SpacemanSpiff 06:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a big difference between anti-hindi and anti-hindi imposition. It was a protest against imposition... not Hindi.. I guess the title should reflect the actual meaning of the protest. "Anti-Hindi" makes it sound like a hatred protests which is not the case. Even though the references might mention it as anti-Hindi, it is not true. The title is actually misleading. It should mention as "anti-Hindi imposition agitations in Tamilnadu" or "Protests in Tamilnadu against the imposition of Hindi" Rajavel 2k12 (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Rajavel 2k12's request for title change is appropriate with NPOV policy. The Tamil Wikipedia article title also has been changed as Anti-Hindi imposition agitations of Tamilnadu.--Ravishankar (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone else doesn't object with a valid reason; shall we go ahead and change it?Rajavel 2k12 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: THere isn't a valid reason to change. If you want to get consensus to change, then do so using the process at WP:RM. —SpacemanSpiff 17:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned earlier, the current title is misleading and incorrect; and that is the valid reason to change. It was not a movement against Hindi. It was a movement against Hindi imposition. If you have any valid reason on why the title should not be changed; let us discuss that. Rajavel 2k12 (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have mentioned earlier, en.wiki works on the principle of verifiability and not truth. Therefore, we use the title that is most commonly used by sources. If you have evidence, by way of scholarly sources, to suggest that the title should be different , then you are welcome to open a discussion as per WP:RM and if consensus supports your view, then it can be moved. As of now, I see the current title as the most appropriate choice per sources. —SpacemanSpiff 14:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the title to anti-hindi imposition 

message: I really appreciate the work put in this article. Previous sections on this talk page tell me that User:Sodabottle and User:CarTick are the primary contributors. I really applaud you guys. And please continue improving it if possible and make it an FA. These articles are important especially considering the current atmosphere. - Nirinsanity (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazing work! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://education.nic.in/language_new/lang_overview.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627120533/http://kalachuvadu.com:80/issue-105/page44.asp to http://kalachuvadu.com/issue-105/page44.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110802071514/http://rajbhasha.nic.in/IIContent.aspx?t=enevents to http://rajbhasha.nic.in/IIContent.aspx?t=enevents
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.education.nic.in/cd50years/g/t/49/Toc.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/ijsl.1999.140.1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203092215/http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/18cs.htm to http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/18cs.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505141357/http://www.kalachuvadu.com/issue-106/page32.asp to http://www.kalachuvadu.com/issue-106/page32.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517063603/http://rajbhasha.nic.in/GOLPContent.aspx?t=endolact to http://rajbhasha.nic.in/GOLPContent.aspx?t=endolact
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220050622/http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in/archive/Resumes/04assly/04_02_2.pdf to http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in/archive/Resumes/04assly/04_02_2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105142951/http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in/archive/Resumes/08assly/08_03.pdf to http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in/archive/Resumes/08assly/08_03.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090619081628/http://www.dmk.in/ahindi.html to http://www.dmk.in/ahindi.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article refers to the series of agitations in the past tense. While the radical phases of agitations were in the past, the overall opposition to Hindi-imposition is still alive. Noteworthy incidents have happened even recently. For example: 
* https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/tn-85-year-old-dmk-cadre-self-immolates-in-salem-protesting-against-hindi-imposition-cm-stalin-reacts20221127013059
* https://www.indialegallive.com/magazine/dahi-curd-fssai-language-fracas-karnataka-tamil-nadu-nandini-aavin/
Hence, I request that the tense of the article be changed at appropriate places. Also, sub-sections dealing with individual phases can be made into separate Wikipedia articles. --MS2P (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing agitations !