Talk:Dravidar Kazhagam

message: It is very clear that some aspects of this article lack neutrality and present a one-sided view, perhaps one influenced by a cited source ("Periyar: Father of the Tamil race"). Particular places where this bias is self-evident include:
*References to the people supporting these positions as the "forward classes".
*"Another burning question which has been engaging the Dravidar Kazhagam actively since 1983 is that of the helpless Tamil population in Sri Lanka. Though Tamilians had been attacked off and on by the Sinhalese for a number of years, from 1983 the plight of the Tamils became miserable because the Sri Lanka government seemed to convince at the atrocities committed against the Tamils. Some Tamil groups equipped themselves and tried to meet the challenge of the Sinhalese militants."
*"Nedumaran heroically sailed to Sri Lanka, videotaped the plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka and on his return, went straight to New Delhi to meet Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to apprise him of the situation in Sri Lanka. Rajiv Gandhi refused to meet him and thus showed his indifference to the sufferings of the Tamils in Sri Lanka."
*"Indian papers reported that the Indian Government was spending at the rate of rupees one crore per day for maintaining the IPKF in Sri Lanka. The general public then realized that making the Indo-Lanka pat was a historic folly on the part of the Indian Government awoke to the realities but stood on false prestige and did not wish to withdraw the IPKF."
There may be more subtle biases e.g. in the unreferenced claim that "Its sharp opposition to religion, especially Brahminical Hinduism, was widely popular." There may be some merit in what is being claimed throughout this article, but many of the areas it covers are sensitive and there are other viewpoints, particularly concerning the conflict in Sri Lanka, that are clearly not being represented here. For this reason I tagged the article as having a POV issue. TheGrappler (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "forward classes" refers to middle/upper classes/castes. The phrase is used in the sections titled Mandal Commission Report, which was to "identify the socially or educationally backward" (according to the article). So "forward classes" is not a problem. But the other points do hold and the article should be neutralized. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed neutrality 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion