Talk:Tamils/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with seven cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I will work on some of the issues. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have done the best I can and removed all unsourced sections, dead links I have tried to find or replace. I have also removed weasel words etc. Do let me know of any more issues after you guys run the report again. Kanatonian (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding K. Kamaraj images for prominent tamils

Kamaraj is widely acknowledged as the "Kingmaker" in Indian politics during the 1960s.He was instrumental in bringing to power two Prime Ministers, Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1964 and Indira Gandhi in 1966. He was awarded India's highest civilian honour, the Bharat Ratna in 1976. i think that he was eligible.getnow 10:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perumalnadar (talk • contribs)

Adding 3 new images of 3 prominent tamils

I am adding three new pics of famous tamils and who are much more recognizable. Mdmday (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

First, a 4X4 panel is too large and ugly. Second, Kamal Hassan and P. Chidambaram are not exactly the most famous and most recognisable in their fields. third, per WP:BRD if someone challenges your additions, discuss in talk page before readding them. add only if consensus is reached. Here i am not agreeing with two of the three pics, you are adding. Unless we reach consensus here dont add them back. Adding before consensus is reached is edit warring--Sodabottle (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Being "ugly" is subjective, unlike you i don't find it ugly. Kamal Hasasn is probably the most popular contemporary Tamil film actors as Rajni is actually a Marathi. Chidambaram is the HM, he is the most senior Tamil politician in the country and the most recognized tamil face among the non Tamil population. Mdmday (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

concede the first point. i like odd numbers, so i am partial to 3X3. i will drop that. But i still dont agree with Kamal and PC. For instance i dont know how PC has become the "the most recognized tamil face among the non Tamil population", he keeps fairly a low profile. Jayalalitha and Karunanidhi are much more recognised than him. And we already have one person from Tamil entertainment field - ARR who is much more recognisable and prominent than Kamal Hassan. If we want a more prominent Tamil from entertainment field M.I.A is a much more recognised face worldwide than Kamal Hassan. If i have to pick one more from entertainemnt and politics, i would pick MIA and karunanidhi/Jayalalitha. --Sodabottle (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

PC is the HM of India, HM is among the most visible and influential leaders in our country, Jaya and Karuna are known but only to Tamil people, not pan India or Pan world. Kamal is a veteran actor with a career span of over 50 years, he is much more senior than Rehman and is as well known as Rehman(if not more) specially if we talk about "face value". MIA is really not well known, she is only known to most people for her music in Slumdog Millionaire. Mdmday (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What you say is true if we consider only India, but we have to consider recognition worldwide. MIA is far more well known in the world than Kamal (who is known in southern indian states and a few northern urban centers and virtually unknown outside india). HM post is influential in India but PC's isnt that visible India (his style).

I think we have reached an impasse and talking past each other. I will post in the India noticeboard to get more opinion. If no one responds/add inputs in say a week, i will self revert and add your images (as you are only adding more and not replacing, and inclusion is always better etc). Are you ok with this?--Sodabottle (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Are us serious, Kamal is famous all over India, he is well known in almost every part of India and also among the NRI population. MIA is not even known in India, many people haven't even heard of her except S millionaire and PC is visible in India...he is the most visible man in government after Gandhi family and Manmohan Singh....he held the position of FM earlier for almost 5 years so his fame is not new either.

I will like to get those pics back on the page as u said "inclusion is always better...". Mdmday (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Like i said this is not about "india alone". its about recognition world wide. Anyway i have posted in the india noticeboard. If no one adds anything more to this discussion, i will self revert in a couple of days and readd your images. --Sodabottle (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Referring the discussion from Notice board.

there are 'n' number of famous tamil people across globe. A person 'popular' for a user might be 'un popular' for another. The argument will be never ending. My suggestion would be we can have seperate sub divisions for each industry and keep their images there. Dumping all cine actors and politicians won't look good for a standard page. If you start with kamal, some one will come up with Rajni. If u say he is not from tamilnadu, again a abig fight will start from there. someother will cpme up with Vijay, Ajith, Silambarasan, Danush etc., etc., and the list will be never ending. Similarily for politicians. Though there are 'n' number of world known personalities, dividing them into groups inside the article will be a solution to accommodte all of them. Still its better leave as such in my opinion. Wasifwasif (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wasif has got a very valid point on issues that would arise when we deal with top-film stars. I reckon Rahman is good enough for his international standing. In my opinion Sellapan Ramanathan would be the Tamil Politician with highest international standing. Opinion would of course vary on this. As for scientists, I would prefer either MS Swaminathan, CV Raman or Venkarataraman Ramakrishnan rather than Abdul Kalam. No offense meant to Kalam, but anyone who is into science would agree that the three scientists that I have mentioned in the earlier sentence have better contribution to science per se. --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

it is all subjective and arguments can be made for both and against a lot of candidates. i would recommend a poll in the India noticeboard page and hope non-Tamil editors' opinion will be helpful. we can make list of candidates for Science, Sports, politics, entertainment categories and conduct the poll either here or at the noticeboard. --CarTick (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's come up with some ground rules so that we can create something like this that is tamper proof German people. Kanatonian (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Kamal is not known anywhere by non-Tamil population outside India,Muralitharan is not known in non-cricket playing ountries.I don't think cricket is a game played by more than 20 countries.M.I.A represent the Tamils of Eelam/Lanka/Ceylon.She voices for them and she is widely known in the western world[[[User:Arun1paladin|Arun1paladin]] (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)arun1paladin]

Ground rules for pictures

1. Max number 10 25 using German people collage as an example
2. No living people Living people acceptable except for politicians ?
3. Should be notable
4. Diapora has 25% 20% of the slots
5. One each for a field
6. Women have 50% of the slots
7. 25 Categories including sub categories to match 1

Thanks for the initiative. we have to begin somewhere. I am not sure if these ground rules are acceptable to everyone to begin with. I am particularly concerned by 2nd and 4th rule. 10 seems less. "German people template" looks good. I feel identifying categories and people first to be the best first step. --CarTick (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I am just adding the names randomly. i havent even checked to make sure if we have images for all of them. please feel free to create categories and add names and we will see what we can do once we have a big list of candidates. i assume we have consensus to add Valluvar and Rajaraja Cholan by default. --CarTick (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No living people idea would be good for politicians but not be the best for others especially sports. --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hiding this as it's getting a bit difficult to use, use the table instead

1. Indian Politicians [Def. Presidents, Prime Miniters and Cheif Ministers] M. Karunanidhi J. Jayalalitha C. N. Annadurai Periyar E. V. Ramasamy I'm afraid not a Tamil by origin R. Venkataraman K. Kamaraj Rajaji 2. Non Indian Politicians [Def. Presidents, Prime Ministers, Ministers] Sellapan Ramanathan Approved Samy Vellu (no image) S. Rajaratnam (no image) Lakshman Kadirgamar (no image) 3.Cinema [Def: Winner of prestigious awards] Kamal Haasan A. R. Rahman Sivaji Ganesan 4.Sports [Def:Winner of prestigious awards] Muttiah Muralidharan Viswanathan Anand Vijay Amritraj (no image) 5.Science [Def:Winner of prestigious (Nobel...) awards] C. V. Raman Abdul Kalam Venkatraman Ramakrishnan Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Srinivasa Ramanujan 6.Philosophers [Def:Internationally recognized] Ananda Coomaraswamy 7.Writers Avvaiyar R. K. Narayan Tiruvalluvar Approved 8.Indian Business people [[Def:Forbes billionaire list] Shiv Nadar Approved Indra Nooyi Kalanidhi Maran 9. Non Indian Business people [Def:Forbes billionaire list] Raj Rajaratnam (no image) Ananda Krishnan (no image) 10. Musicians M. S. Subbulakshmi 10.1 Pop musicians [Def:Winner of prestigious awards] M.I.A Usha Uthup (no image) 11.Journalists [Def:Winner of Prestigious awards (PEN...) awards] Taraki Sivaram (fair use) Krishnan Guru-Murthy (no image) George Alagiah 12.Indian Rebels Lakshmi Sahgal (no image) Veerapandiya Kattabomman Person of Telugu origin 13.Non Indian Rebels Pandara Vannian 14.International/UN officers Navanethem Pillay Radhika Coomaraswamy (no image) Kumi Naidoo - Director of Greenpeace Is he Tamil? Naidoo seems to be Telugu Naidoo, Reddy, Govendar, Pillay and Chetty are common last names of South African Tamils. 15.Religious figures [Def:Contributed to a major change or founded a major religious school, very influential in the religion of contemporary Tamils] Adi Shankara (statue or painting)not Tamil, a Kerala Nambudiri Disagree with the strike out, during his time Kerala dids not have an independant ethnic identity, only after the 13th century. Kanatonian (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Arumuka Navalar (statue or painting) Ramanuja (statue or painting) Bodhidharma 16.Indian Monarchs Rajaraja Chola (statue or painting) Approved 17.Non Indian Monarchs Cankili I (statue or painting) Approved 18.Indian Tamil language revivalists Maraimalai Adigal U. V. Swaminatha Iyer 19.Non Indian Tamil language revivalists Kumaraswamy Pulavar C. W. Thamotharampillai 20.Reunion/Mauritious/Seychells Tamils [Def:Most notable Tamil from Reunion/Mauritious/Seychells] 21.Malaysian/Singaporean Tamils [Def:Most notable Singaporean and or Malaysian Tamil] Peter Velappan Secretary general of Asian Footbal Association [1] 22.European Tamils [Def:Most notable Tamil from Europe] M.I.A Approved 23.South African Tamils [Def:Most notable Tamil from South Africa] Navanethem Pillay Approved 24.West Indian/US/Australian Tamils Indra Nooyi Approved 25.Canadian Tamils [Def:Most notable Tamil from Canada] Indira Samarasekera Approved

Discussion

A good initiative. Ground rule number 2 won't help much. Its not necessary that a person should die for him to be recognized as world renown. that doesn't make sense to me. Similariy traditional muscians is still a sub heading under entertainment. so removing it.Wasifwasif (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

How about defining each category, for example for Business people, the richest Tamil guys by Forbes list of Billionaires ? Kanatonian (talk)

good idea. once we have all the names and images identified, we will decide the number and choose the ones for which we have unanimous support and all others could be chosen by a poll atleast for a month. --CarTick (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few more to the above list. As far as the no of images I think 9 seems ideal, but on no account should it cross 12 (3 x 4). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure under what category does Krishnammal Jagannathan fall under. We might have a picture of her soon, although am not 100% confident about that. --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry no free image available which is unfortunate as she was awarded Right Livelihood Award aka Alternate Nobel Prize. --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 21:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please undo any change if you guys feels that I over stepped . Kanatonian (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No.	Name	Category	Nationality	Politics	Music	Cinema	Sports	Science	Business	Literature / Journalism	Religion / Philosophy	Monarchy	Activism (Social / political)	Governance (non-political)	Free image?
1	M. Karunanidhi	Indian Politician	India	Y	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
2	J. Jayalalithaa	Indian Politician	India	Y	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
3	C. N. Annadurai	Indian Politician	India	Y	N	Y	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	Y
4	Rajaji	Indian Politician	India	Y	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	Y
5	R. Venkataraman	Indian Politician	India	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
6	K. Kamaraj	Indian Politician	India	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
7	Sellapan Ramanathan	Non-Indian Politician	Singapore	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
8	Samy Vellu	Non-Indian Politician	Malaysia	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
9	S. Rajaratnam	Non-Indian Politician	Singapore	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
10	Lakshman Kadirgamar	Non-Indian Politician	Sri Lanka	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
11	A. R. Rahman	Entertainment	India	N	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
12	Sivaji Ganesan	Entertainment	India	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
13	Kamal Haasan	Entertainment	India	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
14	Ilaiyaraaja	Entertainment	India	N	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
15	M. S. Subbulakshmi	Music	India	N	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
16	M.I.A. (artist)	European Tamil	UK	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	Y
17	Usha Uthup	Music	India	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
18	Viswanathan Anand	Sports ?	India	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
19	Muttiah Muralitharan	Sports	Sri Lanka	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
20	Vijay Amritraj	Sports	India	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
21	C. V. Raman	Scientist	India	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
22	Srinivasa Ramanujan	Scientist	India	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
23	Abdul Kalam	Scientist	India	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	Y	Y
24	Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar	Scientist	US	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
25	Venkatraman Ramakrishnan	Scientist	US	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
26	Indra Nooyi	American Tamil	US	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	Y
27	Shiv Nadar	Indian Commerce	India	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	Y
28	Kalanidhi Maran	Indian Commerce	India	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N
29	Raj Rajaratnam	Non Indian commerce	US	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N
30	Ananda Krishnan	Non Indian Commerce	Malaysia	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N
31	Avvaiyar	Literature	Indian	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	Y
32	Tiruvalluvar	Literature	Indian	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	N	N	N	Y
33	R. K. Narayan	Literature	Indian	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	Y	N
34	Ananda Coomaraswamy	Philosopher	Sri Lanka/US	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	Y
35	Taraki Sivaram	Journalist	Sri Lanka	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N
36	Krishnan Guru-Murthy	Journalist	UK	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N
37	George Alagiah	Journalist	UK	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	Y
38	Rajaraja Chola	Indian Royalty	India	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	Y
39	Cankili I	Non-Indian Royalty	Sri Lanka	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	Y
40	Navanethem Pillay	South African Tamil	South Africa	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	Y
41	Kumi Naidoo	International activist	South Africa	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	Y
42	Arumuka Navalar	Non Indian Tamil revivalist	Sri Lanka	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	Y
43	Bodhidharma	Religious leader	India	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	Y
44	Rajagopala Chidambaram	Indian nuclear scientist and renowed metallurgist	India	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N

• I'm replacing the above list with the table, I'll complete the table with the rest of the items from the list in a few minutes. The list was just getting too difficult to parse through with all the modifications and multiple title sections etc. —SpacemanSpiff 18:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

great idea. looking at the table, it becomes clear to me that we are unfortunately limited by unavailability of free images. we may end up having ourselves to contend with narrow set of fields and choices which may not be much different from where we began. I believe we need to ramp up effort to getting free images of these personalities, while dont know how. --CarTick (talk)

We can get a lot of immages by writing to the correct orgsKanatonian (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am working on a few pics Kanatonian (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi. I am giving my simple suggestion here. Firstly people who we are going to place should have the norms meet, including Popular figure, made significant contribution on their field, universal following & appeal. Lastly I would suggest to give more preference on people who have made contribution on civilian grounds sacrificing their own personal life in achieving so. I also suggest including 20 people in the list is a must and as example, check this out Italian people.

My choices and leaving it for open talk here,

Thiruvalluvar, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, Srinivasa Ramanujan, C. N. Annadurai -- 1st Row

Rajaraja Chola, C. V. Raman, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, K. Kamaraj -- 2nd Row

M. S. Subbulakshmi, Muttiah Muralitharan, M. S. Swaminathan, Viswanathan Anand-- 3rd Row

Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, C. Rajagopalachari, Indra Nooyi, A. R. Rahman -- 4th Row

Bharathidasan, Ilaiyaraaja, Vijay Amritraj, Sivaji Ganesan -- 5th Row

I know some names may change here,since it requires larger consensus. But only thing I strongly say, keep atleast 20 people in the list, since we have enough people waiting in the list to cover. looking for some interesting valuable suggestions.

Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You version ofthe list seems to be mostly restricted to people of Indian origin and of recent origin. What si wrong with Bodhidharma, M.I.A. for example Kanatonian (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I know that the list i suggested will not be the final. so i am open for possible changes here and there. Yes certainly I support adding Bodhidharma. But not so sure of M.I.A.. I know and heard of her. But including here representing Tamils, not so sure. But if all ok. I am also ok. Finally and very importantly, I will be happy if the list includes as per Italian people standards like rows in order and including minimum of 20 people as we have many waiting in the list like these: R. Venkataraman, Subramanya Bharathy,

C. Subramaniam, Dhanraj Pillay, Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader), S. R. Srinivasa Varadhan etc., --- Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

M.I.A's photo is essential .She is a popular Tamil in the west.She is not from India unlike us.Muthaiyah Muralitharan doesn't represent the Tamils of Eelam (arun1paladin117.193.196.97 (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC))

A new, improved montage

File:Tamil Montage.jpg

I have made a new montage based on the achievements by people in the State. Just have a look at it, I feel its much better than the present one. So, I removed Muralitharan's image based on the fact that he has not achieved much and replaced Ramanujam's pic with CV Raman as he has won the Bharat Ratna. The people highlighted here are Thiruvalluvar, Rajaraja, Rajagopalachari, MS Subbulakshmi, CV Raman, Kamaraj, Abdul Kalam, Viswanathan Anand and ARR. Also, we are able to distinctly view each person in this one unlike the one used. Plz put forward your opinions. Cheers! Secret of success (Talk) 07:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Totally un acceptable. Not representative at all. Two Congress politicians and non from the Dravida parties. No representation from outside Tamil Nadu. --216.123.169.252 (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Music too is divided into classical Carnatic form and many popular genres vs Tamil Isai

The traditional classical Tamil music is known as Tamil Isai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.169.252 (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Tamils are not indigenous/native to any part of Sri Lanka, but to the Tamil country.

The claims in this article that the Tamils are indigenous to north and east of Sri Lanka is not surported by the references given. Kanatonian has reverted my edits without giving any reasons.

1st sentence in question: The indigenous Veddhas are physically related to Dravidian language-speaking tribal people in South India and early populations of Southeast Asia, although they no longer speak their native languages. The reference given is britannica.com and even that does not say any of the above sentence is claiming. What genetical studies show is that Tamils have no genetic affinity to the Veddas. Can the person who wrote this sentence at least say, which dravidian speaking tribes, Veddas are genetically related to, and what are the studies which show these relations?

reply to 1st sentence:

"The Pre-Dravidian jungle tribes of Southern India include the Kadir, Paniyan, Irula, Kurumba and Vedda."Baron Solly Zuckerman Zuckerman, Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, Government Museum (Madras, India) - 2000

"Next after them came another primitive stock, to which the Sakai of Malaya also belong, including the Veddas of Ceylon, the Irula of the Nilgiris, the Panyer of the Wynaad, and many other jungle tribes.."Out of Eden: the peopling of the world - Stephen Oppenheimer - 2004 --MThekkumthala (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my point, these tribes are non-Dravidian and pre-dravidian, so tell me, what do these tribes have to do with Sri Lankan Tamils? These tribes are not Dravidian or Tamil. The ones in south India have either adopted dravidian languages or their languages have got dravidianized, and the Veddas' language has got Sinhalized.

Anyway you are trying to mix these tribes too. As your own sources say, these are pre-dravidian tribes. On page 157, Oppenheimer says that Veddas are a Proto-Australoid tribe, while the Kadar and Paniyan are of Negroid type. So even the tribes are numerous and unrelated and absolutely all of them are not at all dravidians and are PRE-DRAVIDIAN tribes. How can this be relevant to the Sri Lankan Tamils, who are supposed to be dravidians? The sentence under discussion which I deleted yesterday, is totally wrong and is not supported by any scholarly work and a fake reference is given. Even your own sources have proven that, the sentence is totally wrong and trying to present a distorted and fake view. --SriSuren (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

=> Note added 9th January 2012: MThekkumthala has taken off the "citation needed" tag, and has just left the same fake reference. Also he has not been able to give another source which backs up the claims in the sentence in question but has infact proved my point that the Veddas are not Dravidians as implied by the sentence, and the fact the some south Indian tribes have adopted Dravidian languages has no relevance to the Sri Lankan Tamils. Therefore this construction of the sentence with carefully put together pieces cannot be accepted. Kanatonian undid my edit, under 2 minutes (see revision history), and has not yet provided a source nor has he said why he undid my edit. This edit under question first appears here, done by a user who has been blocked for sockpuppetry. If a reliable source which clearly states all the things which are implied in the sentence, is not given within 7 days, I am going to reinstate my edit, i.e I'll delete that sentence. I really do not have to wait even one minute to delete it, as it is referenced with a fake reference, but you have 7 days. --SriSuren (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

=> => Note added 12th January 2012: MThekkumthala has reverted my edit (see his edit #470855300, which is actually a revert) and taken away the "citation needed tag" again (2nd time): when the discussion here has proven beyond any doubt that the statement and the claims made in it is not supported by the citation given, The citation given is this. It is just a few sentences on the Veddas. Moreover I see that he is arguing for the complete opposite here and here and here and possibly other places, i.e he is arguing that Dravidians are not related to the Austroloids and clearly distinguishing the Dravidians from both what he calls Austroloids and Negritos. His own arguments and references do not support this sentence in this article, which he is hell bound on keeping to promote a political view, while arguing for the complete opposite in the Dravidian people's article!!! The fact is that Veddas are not related to the Sri Lankan Tamils genetically or linguistically and the sentence under discussion here is purely a false construction, which is not even in the reference given.MThekkumthala's behaviour is disruptive and totally dishonest and he deliberately conceals facts and distorts facts to promote a political agenda. This is not acceptable. Therefore I am reinstating the "citation needed" tags and request him to come to an agreement here, before he reverts my edits. You have appr. 4 days remaining to find a reference which supports your claims, before that sentence is deleted. --SriSuren (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ -¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ -¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ -¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ -¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ -¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ -¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ -¤ - ¤ - ¤

2nd sentence in question: It is believed that cultural diffusion, rather than migration of people, spread the Sinhalese and Tamil languages from peninsular India into an existing Mesolithic population, centuries before the Christian era. This is a sentence which is a distortion of the discussion in the reference given. It goes without saying that the Sinhalese language cannot diffuse from anywhere, since it is not found anywhere else and was formed in the island from a primitive Prakrit, while the Tamil language was formed and developed in Tamilakam and still found there. And the movement of Tamils from the Tamil country is very well documented in Tamil literature itself, eg. Yalpana Vaipava Malai.

Also, the theory that Tamils are the original inhabitants of the island is not a scholarly theory, but a political claim. Mentioning these fringe theories in Wikipedia brings down the quality and reliability of Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia.

Therefore I am reinstating my edits and will be correcting other edits too. If this is to continue I want a dispute resolution, with Wikipedia administrators present. This section is also present in the Sri Lankan Tamil article and there is a lot of stuff in that article too, which are completely false and references do not support what is claimed. SriSuren (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ -¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ -¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ -¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ -¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ -¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ -¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ -¤ - ¤ - ¤

This is what a search on one of the two references given to support the theory that the Tamils are the original people of SL returned:

A. "History of Ceylon Tamils" by V. Natarajan:

B. The other being this: Manogaran, C. Ethnic Conflict and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka In this book, out of the blue, the author claims that the Yakshas and Nagas mentioned in the Mahavamse MUST have been the ORIGINAL Tamil people. :) --SriSuren (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

How can these (i.e A and B, note that A does not even exist) be regarded as scholarly theories? --SriSuren (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The section on Sri Lankan Tamils in the article says: "There is little scholarly consensus over the presence of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka..." but in the opening paragraph itself, the editor(s) STATE the highly disputed and contraversial claim that Tamils are native (meaning indigenous) to Sri Lanka as a FACT!! If there is no scholarly consensus as the editors themselves have acknowledged, how can they state that the Tamils are native/indigenous to Sri Lanka? Moreover, for some thing to be native or indigenous to a specific place it has to originate/be formed in that place, the length of time is not the issue. Tamils and the Tamil language originated and formed in Tamilakam, therefore that is where all Tamils are native to. Also the article defines Tamils as one ethnic group, and then states that the Tamils are native to Tamil Nadu AND Northeast of Sri Lanka; which literally means that Tamils in Tamil Nadu are also indigenous to Sri Lanka. While in the article on "Sri Lankan Tamils" it is stated that Sri Lankan Tamils are a section of the Tamils who are indigenous to Sri Lanka. The questions which arise from these contradictory claims which each of them taken separately contradicts each other too, are many - one being: how can some Tamils be indigenous to Sri Lanka while other Tamils are not? The conclusion is that some editors are trying to pass off politically motivated fringe theories about Tamils being indigenous to Sri Lanka as accepted facts. --SriSuren (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

again there is no controversy in claiming Lankan Tamils were indigenous people.

https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=book+#hl=en&safe=off&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=sri+lanka+indigenous+tamil&pbx=1&oq=sri+&fp=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&cad=b--MThekkumthala (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The books on the first page of your search results, do not equate the term indigenous with native, or original inhabitants and some of them are talking of Tamil Nadu Tamils, who ofcourse are indigenous to Tamil nadu. As explained earlier, indigenous also refers to populations/communities which were present in a given country, prior to the colonial powers came to our countries. What is claimed in this Wikipedia article on Tamil people, is that the Tamils were the original people and that they are native to Sri Lanka, in the same way they are native to Tamil nadu. This is a politically motivated claim, and not the real situation at all. The migration of Tamils to Sri Lanka happened after the Tamil nation was formed in Tamilakam and the colonization of the north and east of Sri Lanka by the Tamils, is very well documented in historical documents and inscriptions of the Tamils and the Sinhalese. Native/indigenous people evolve into distinct nations, in their own territories, they do not come ready-made as the Sri Lankan Tamils did. --SriSuren (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I am totally confused with the discussion here. I only reverted Srisurens removal of a cited sentence, nothing to do with Vedda's. Infact I have now rewrote the sentence to mirror exactly what the citation says. Kanatonian (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Names for Sri Lanka in Sangam literature

The user MThekkumthala has reverted (see his revision # 470855052 done today 12th January 2012, which is actually another of his reverts) my referenced edit twice:
-His first revert: 7 January 2012‎‎, Reason given : unreliable sinhalese source!!
Then he opens this discussion in my user page, claiming all sorts rubbish, and says that I can do my edit if I give him 3(!) reliable sources. !!
--I reinstated my edit with reference to the Madras University lexicon, on the 9th of January, after the discussion since it was clear that it was not the reference the trouble was with, but the trouble was that he doesn't want to include this information.
-His second revert: Today (12th January 2012), he reverts my edit again. See his edit (revision # 470855052). Reason given: no consensus.!!
What does he want as reference? The whole of the Sangam literature in their originals? MThekkumthala please state what are your criteria for a reliable reference? --SriSuren (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a need to clarify which sources have more weight. --MThekkumthala (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? You are trying to confuse and start a discussion about sources, either because you do not know what you are disputing, or because you are just plain and pure dishonest. This is not about secondary sources, but about the names which were used for Sri Lanka in the Sangam literature, sources being the bulk of Sangam literature, itself. You'll first have to erase the whole bulk of ancient Tamil literature spanning over two millenia, and then come back and talk about sources, if you want to dispute this. Problem is you are trying to change the ancient landscape and territories attested by Tamil literature itself, to fit the Tamil separatist agenda - very futile attempt. --SriSuren (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion about Singhalam versus Eelam is a red herring, both words are not needed to make the point as cited by the reliable sources. Kanatonian (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is, in that sentence Eelam is used to give a specific impression, i.e that Sri Lanka was a Tamil country, because Eelam got associated with the Tamil seperatism, in the last decades. So, if Eelam is to be mentioned Cinkalam should also be mentioned to balance the weight. Cinkalam is the name used in the list of 18 countries and also in the list of 56 countries, so it is not just another name, and it was outside Tamil territory. As for your socalled cited information: no citation has been still given for the reverts you did, (some of) which I have listed above to get explainations from the opposing editors. The message one gets, when one reads this article, especially the parts and references on/to Sri Lankan Tamils is that, it is a failed attempt to construct history, as parts of it contradicts with other parts and also what is being claimed elsewhere or established facts - Eg. like what I have already proven about the sentence about the Veddas in the discussion with Mthekkumthala. When you compare this jumble of distorted and dubious statements, which you call 'cited information', to the Sinhalese people's history, one immediately gets the impression that they have a well defined history, with a natural flow, while Tamils just have a list of dubious pieces of incidents or isolated occurances of potsherds, which cannot be linked to an independant Tamil country in the island in anyway or a continuous independant Tamil kingdoms/settlements (until the invasion in the 13th century and the establishment of the Jaffna kingdom); at best, this "list" proves that Tamils coming from the mainland have had small settlements with purposes connected to the Sinhalese people and have been interacting with the Sinhalese. Therefore much of what you call 'cited information' is, either distorted statements of which some have fake citings and many of the sentences in this jumble of sentences do not make sense, either taken alone or as a whole. The point to be taken is that one cannot construct or change history, because it has already happened. I still want the citation to the sentence about the Veddas. --SriSuren (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sri lanka has been known as Lanka right since the days of the Ramayana was written most Sangam Literature and all ancient Hindu,Buddhist,Jain text use that name .İlankai or Eelam in Tamil. It has been refered to as Lankadeepa and later on Ceylon has been used.Any other name will be WP:Undue.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight? Undue weight comes into the picture only when Cinkalam is mentioned? More like supression of information. Also, this is about the names used for Sri Lanka in Sangam literature, not about colonial names. Cinkalam must be mentioned if Eelam is mentioned, that is called balancing undue weight or giving due weight. See also my answer to Kanatonian, above. Sri Lanka was also known as Sinhala in the Mahabharata, which I suppose is one of the ancient Hindu texts you forgot mention, and it predates Ramayana. All the names you mention are derived from the word Sinhala, except Lanka/Ilankai. --SriSuren (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a not WP:NOTAFORUM about Political issues what you said is not relevant here SriSuren you said in you reply to Kanatonian above The point is, in that sentence Eelam is used to give a specific impression, i.e that Sri Lanka was a Tamil country, because Eelam got associated with the Tamil seperatism, in the last decades. So, if Eelam is to be mentioned Cinkalam should also be mentioned to balance the weight. Please political issues are not a reason if Eelam/Ilankai was used so be it if Cinkalam or Lanka is used so be it .We will stick with WP:RS sources.Please note there are few others are also involved sadly 2 of them are blocked .We need to get them also involved.We do not want an edit war .We will make the changes only after getting WP:RS sources Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Suren, I agree with you, using the sentence known in Tamil litrature as Eelam, Dravidian speaking tribals, all these are POV sections intend to convey a narrow point of view. It was addeded by people who add them and then run away from these articles for us to deal with it later. My contention is using known as Cingalam is also a POV especially from a Sinhalese nationalist point of view. The article Eelam deals with all etymological connotations in a neutral manner where it indicated Thomas Borrow a famous Dravidian language expert questions the Sinhala->Eela derivation. So let's leave it at and leave both the words out of the sentence and just deal with the subject matter in a neureal point of view. Kanatonian (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

IP 174.116.247.61's edits

IP 174.116.247.61 has been adding Bodhidharma in the montage in hte infobox. He seems to be aware of the controvery -Bodhidharma/Birthplace sources over bodhidharma's lineage. When such controversies and disputes exist, please dont put them in the montage. Only clear cut and uncontroversial choices have to be included in the montage. I have already removed your additions a couple of times - please dont add them again. If someone disagrees with your additions discuss them and try to establish consensus.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree Kanatonian (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Bodhidarama new section

He has to be added to the list of Tamil people. So I want all you Tamil guys to help find proof, eg video, website, articles that he was a Tamilian. We must not let the other people make us forget our history. If we all find proof, then Bodhidharma will be on the article of Tamil people. Our Tamil History must not be forgotten and changed by any outsiders.

Thank you

அவர் தமிழ் மக்கள் பட்டியலில் சேர்க்க வேண்டும் வருகிறார். எனவே நான் ஆதாரம், எ.கா. வீடியோ, வலைத்தளம், அவர் ஒரு Tamilian என்று கட்டுரைகள் கண்டுபிடிக்க உதவ அனைத்து தமிழ் தோழர்களே வேண்டும். நாம் மற்ற மக்கள் எங்கள் வரலாற்றில் மறக்க செய்ய விடமாட்டேன் வேண்டும். நாம் அனைத்து ஆதாரம் கிடைத்தால், பிறகு Bodhidharma தமிழ் மக்களின் கட்டுரையில் இருக்கும். நம் தமிழ் வரலாறு எந்த வெளி மறந்து மற்றும் மாற்ற வேண்டும்.

நன்றி — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.247.61 (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you change the history?

History cannot be changed just be editing these articles as per one's convenience.why was the statement which testifies presence of Vedic religion was being deleted? Nijgoykar (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is about Tamil people, Vedic religious viewes developed in the Gangetic plains and spread around the world. Kanatonian (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is about Tamil people's relation to Vedic religion. Since they do have mention in Tolkaipiyam, it is justified, in the first place that there is mention of Vedism (and it predates the oldest Sangam Literature) by merit of mention.

Secondly, Vedism predates the evidence, this was the object of discontent between Sodabottle and I. Evidence has been provided as proof and this evidence has also been deleted."History cannot be changed just be editing these articles as per one's convenience.why was the statement which testifies presence of Vedic religion was being deleted?"

Please do not counteredit before you supply evidence Kanatonian.I.e-leave the page until after consensus/mediation, like Sodabottle has said. I'm going to revert the changes as that was how it was when mediation was initiated.the object of discontent? whose? Personal opinions do not count here.Tamil Culture would have not been what it is now at all if acculturation has not happened.If Buddhism,Jainism and Vedic religion had not influenced it.Cultures do not flourish without give and take. Then what about the Velirs,Agastya rishi? is that not also an object of discontent ? Supported by the argument that Tolkāppiyam has mentioned Vedism (among others); the Sanggam Era does not predate Vedism. Sodabottle contends that that was the view of Michael Danino whom I quoted so other citations were provided. It is indeed agreed upon that the oldest extant work of Tamil literature was written by Jains. Demonblader (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Demonblader

Looks like you are treating creating a encyclopaedia project as a WP:Battle about a POV you seem to care very much. What is the relevance of the discussion we are having here about the time line of Vedic religion and Tamil people ? What is clear is just like Cambodians, Vietnamese, Malays and many others Tamils were introduced the Vedic principles along with Buddhism and Jainism and any other religions from North India at some point in history. What is the relevance of mentioning that one showed up few years before others in the WP:Lead? I fail to see the justification of your edit other than to create controversy. If you want to write in details about timelines the correct place is Religion in ancient Tamil country not Lead of the Tamil people article. Also your arguments are not well written or coherent. I had a hard time following it. So try to break it down into understandable bits so we can discuss about it. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have also decoupled the realtionship between Sangam era and spread of Vedic religion, Buddhism and Jainism so that the sentences stand on their own without any controversy . What is your opinion ? Kanatonian (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

hiding the truth, calling it controversial. One might think that it is not I that have special interest here. What's with the hate? WP:NP The relevance of 1)Vedic Religion or any of the other main religions affecting Tamil religion like Buddhism and Jainism are simply that they did have a role to play in Tamil people and culture becoming who and what they are today. 2)The relevance of the timeline is such that there is a clear detailing of how these influences came about. 3) There is no controversy about fact 4)Read the guidelines, this is not to be about subject content! A few years and a few hundred years are different, and it is simply that one culture begin to fade where another began. These aren't arguments yet, Kanatonian, just me laying the background out for further study and consensus. 1) It is agreed among scholars that Jains did write the oldest extant Tamil literature and that Buddhists were an influence to this culture. 2) That customs of Vedic Religion are mentioned in this piece of literary evidence. 3) That this is relevant because it is a cultural and religious influence rather than simply religious; it is part of what defines Tamilians thus rendering necessary a timeline. :::Kanatonian, that's better but doesn't quite clarify the 'controversy'. It isn't a statement of fact. I'm reverting it.

Vedic & Puranic Culture—Literary Evidence An early text, the Tamil grammar Tolkappiyam, ..first or second century AD,[*] is “said to have been modelled on the Sanskrit grammar of the Aindra school.” ..shows that “the great literature of Sanskrit and the work of its grammarians and rhetoricians were well known and provided stimulus to creative writers in Tamil.." The Tolkappiyam adopts the entire Rasa theory as worked out in the Natya Sastra of Bharata.” It also refers to rituals and customs coming from the “Aryans,” a word which in Sangam literature simply means North Indians of Vedic culture ; for instance, the Tolkappiyam “states definitely that marriage as a sacrament attended with ritual was established in the Tamil country by the Aryas,”..uses the same eight forms of marriage found in the Dharmashastras..mentions the caste system or “fourfold jathis” in the form of “Brahmins, Kings, Vaishyas and Vellalas,” ..calls Vedic mantras “the exalted expression of great sages.” http://micheldanino.voiceofdharma.com/tamilculture.html

Zvelebil, Kamil. 1973. The smile of Murugan on Tamil literature of South India. Leiden: Brill. - Zvelebil dates the Ur-Tolkappiyam to the 1st-2nd BCE, that eventually shaped the culture of the Tamilians.

Aiyangar, Sakkottai Krishnaswami (1923). Some contributions of South India to Indian culture Calcutta University readership lectures. Asian Educational Services,. pp. 429 pages( see Chapter II, The pre-Buddhist character of Brahminism in the Tamil country, pages:48-58). ISBN 8120609999, 9788120609990. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

Many authors however, ascribe the work to Jaina traditions and the earliest of the possibly many authors, who has been identified as Tolkappiyanaar to a heterodox Jaina order. S. Vaiyapuri Pillai has suggested that Tolkappiyanaar may have belonged to a heterodox Jaina grammatical tradition called aintiram(a view which other scholars like Burnell, Takanobu and Zvelebil share)...

Demonblader (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Demonblader

Kanatonian, all our views are incorporated in the last edit, why are you resuming the editting? I'll return it to how it was during mediation, okay?. Sorry for attempting to incorporate provided input. Reason for reverting: Pending mediation Demonblader (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)demonblade

The significance of this edition to WP:LEAD is that it clarifies what is wrongly stated there, that Sangam literature is pre-existent compared to Vedism with WP:LEADCITE WP:MOSBEGIN. Not drawing any comparisons between the two as one is religion and one is literary work, the edit seeks to provide that Sangam Literature was influenced by the community surrounding Tamilians of that time. You're right, Kanatonian, this is not a WP:BATTLE. But the viewpoint added is WP:NPOV. I see the interest in changing the article for you as you may be of the viewpoint that one actually predates the other but the problem there is WP:WIN WP:SOURCES. It's a common ideology, but not relevant encyclopedic content.

Remember WP:AOBF [multiple reverting]] In short: Edit is 1) relevant 2) verifiable 3) apolitical Another thing, Religion in Ancient Tamil Country and this article cannot have contradicting fact. I will consider editting that too. Thanks for the tip. Your edits on the Tamil People page.. Don't revert without discussion.

Not a single mention of atheism

Dravida movement, leftists form an influential of Tamil Nadu history and society. One of their core ideologies is atheism and yet it not even mentioned in this article as though if Tamil atheists do not exists. In fact atheist movement in Tamil Nadu is probably one of the strongest, except maybe for Kerala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.132.5 (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

the atheist movement was influential for a brief period in the 20th century in Tamil Nadu. In an article that covers Tamils from all over the world and their history of over two millenia, it is unsurprisingly not covered.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Aringar Anna

Hi, The image of ANNA has got deleted from commons for some copy right violation. can some one upload ANNA's image with proper copy rights?. Wasif (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

File:AR Rahman 140x190.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AR Rahman 140x190.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 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. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:AR Rahman 140x190.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Tamil, Hindu, Vedic, Agama

How come the Tamil-people are called Hindu, while Hinduism is called Vedic, but Shaiva Siddhanta is based on the Agamas, which are non-vedic? The more I edit on Advaita-related articles, the stronger my impression that Indian culture is very heterogenous, and that Tamil-culture is kind of subordinated to Vedic c.q. Neo-Advaita culture in the descriptions of India. Are those impressions correct? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

ZFrom my extent of knowledge, Tamil people's native religious life or labelled as Native Dravidian religion is comparable to Taoism of China.It comprises of several spiritual exercises rather than a institutionalised religion as no text refering to this practises were found in Tamil literature, however Thirumandhiram if not mistaken the 5th volume of Tamil Saiva Canon provides some hints to those spiritual practices.Besides that the Sangam literature in those classical period were more towards secularism and cosmopolitanisme rather than religious and this further complicates to find a clearer picture about Tamil people's native religion.Tamil people firstly came under foreign religious influence by Jainism around 600 BC,followed by Buddhism in 300BC and Hinduism somewhere in 200-100 BC.Brahminism gained royal support of kingdoms somewhere in 5th AD,although no Vedic practices known to be performed by the kings in those era, later yes.In 6th AD Bhakti Movement pioneered by Tamil Saiva Nayanars and Tamil Vainava Alwars gained the royal patronage and this movement and it ideologies is Agamic in nature.It helps to eliminate vedic practices(cause of Brahminisn) in Tamil temples and replaced it with Agamic and emphasises Tamil language as the religious language.On the other hand Shaiva Siddhanta and Sri Sampradaya is a religious body/streams which amalgamate the Vedic knowledge with the Bhakti movement which is a serious deviation from the original Bhakti practices which emphasise Salvation to achieve God rather than superstitious Vedic practices.This Shaive Siddhanta and Sri Sampradaya started in 13th-15th if not mistaken.I see(my personal opinion) that this movement's philosophies as extensions of North Indian philosophies which were blended with previous religious culture of Tamils such as Native Dravidian religion(includes non-instutionalised early Shaivism, Mother Goddess worhips,Murugam worships),Bhakti movement, Buddhism and Jainism.These both practices further deliver impressions as you mentioned.Far later other type of native Tamil worships also were assimilated through Sanskrit oriented rituals, however Tamil pantheon survives.Tamil religious life to be true, it really suffers from foreign ideologies interference which later assimilate it.It seems that Vedic ideologies has no importance among Tamils rather than results of assimilation.In terms of Tamil Culture, it refers to culture of whole Tamil population and it is not bordered by any religion.--Tan Meifen (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

H Tan Meifen. Your response confirms some of the impressions I have; thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Template

Have a look at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 27#Template:Infobox Tamils. User talk:SpacemanSpiff found strange reason for the deletion!? Does the template disqualify FA? If so, how? --Tamil23 (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

First and foremost reason is that the image used in the template (and that currently in the article) crept in when no one was looking and it is of dubious copyright status as the source images and their licensing is not identified. The file is now under deletion process at Commons. Secondly, content has to be page driven given that the content passed through the FA process, so that changes can be tracked on this page. This is not a reference link or a list that can be sectioned off into a separate template, content in the infobox is linked to that on the page -- it can not and should not be separated. Finally, template redundancy is a big issue, e.g. even {{Infobox Indian jurisdiction}} has been replaced by the more common {{Infobox settlement}} as maintenance of these redundant templates is impossible. —SpacemanSpiff 18:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

POV

There's way too much POV nonsense that's been creeping into the article. This is not a website to promote Tamil nationalism, it's an encyclopaedia. Anyone wishing to promote Tamil nationalism is free to visit blogspot and other such avenues. —SpacemanSpiff 17:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I've had to revert again, and none of the POV pushers seem to be interested in saying why this belongs here, but admonish the rest to discuss on the talk page. —SpacemanSpiff 20:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This content must have creeped into the lead these past years, it wasn't there at its last featured article review (This version), wonder if it would make it through another review. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Analyze

I have analyzed this text and have found good infomation about tamil people but no offensive content. This is a free encyclopedia and every opinion should be respected. Please discuss before deleting a large part of the article.

This text contains important infomation about Tamils ​​as

• Language / ethnic groups
• Place of origin
• Emigration to other countries
• colonialism and its consequences

• The last part of the text bring to the point

That Tamils are citizens of different country and belonging to different caste and religion, all that what they unites is their love for Tamil language and culture. This feeling is called Tamil nationalism. The desire for a Tamil state is a side effect of this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:120b:c3d8:e480:d08c:8a22:1c71:a71c (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is the text that was deleted

Tamil people (Tamil: தமிழர், tamiḻar (singular) ?, or Tamil: தமிழர்கள், tamiḻarkaḷ (plural) ?), are a Dravidian ethnic group who speak Tamil as their mother tongue. The majority of the Tamil population ​​living in South India, where they have a regional autonomy in Tamil Nadu. The Sri Lankan Tamils are Tamil people who are native to the island of Sri Lanka and descendants of indigenous peoples such as the Nāka people of Nainativu.[7][8][9] They living mainly in north and eastern parts of Sri Lanka. The Hill Country Tamils, who have immigrated from India as plantation workers during the British colonial era, living in the hills region of central Sri Lanka. The ancient Tamil people from Malabar Coast were the early inhabitants of Maldives.[5] Earlier and during the 10th century Sri Lanka was occupied by the Tamil Empires of South India, this has led to significant growth of historic Tamil population in Sri Lanka. Historic and post 15th century emigrant communities are also found across the world, notably in Malaysia, Singapore, Mauritius, South Africa, Australia, Canada, Réunion (France) and the UK. With 77 million population, Tamils ​​are the largest stateless nation in the world. Originally, Tamil people inhabited and ruled the Tamil Homeland. During the colonial period, the Tamil areas in mainland India became a part of British India. In Sri Lanka, the Tamil areas was under the control of Portuguese, Dutch and later British.This situation completely eradicated the political notion of Tamils and reduced them to a minority status under political model implemented by British on their process of liberating their colonies They ​​were active in the freedom movement of India and other countries. After Independence, they ​​became citizens of India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and other former colonies. Independent of their religion, caste and country, most Tamils ​​follow the ideology of Tamil Nationalism characterized by the patriotism to the Tamil language, culture and desire for an independent Tamil state.[10][11][12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:120b:c3d8:e480:d08c:8a22:1c71:a71c (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you kindly reply to the post above Talk:Tamil people#POV? the actual issues on why it was removed is mentioned there. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned before this nonsense about Tamil nationalism doesn't belong here; you are however free to create a blog elsewhere and educate the world of your views. While a good chunk of this text is POV, some of it was removed because it's just not sourced and/or in the article and the lede should be a summary. It is a free encyclopaedia, but not every opinion gets real estate here. We go by what reliable sources have to offer and we don't provide far fringe POV any real estate in our articles. Period. —SpacemanSpiff 10:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Spaceman,this is not a place for Paarpanar/Brahmin nationalism or Sinhala Extremism aka Sri Lankan nationalism too.I think that the Tamil Eelam issue deserves few lines in this issue.I think you can have issues with the language and neutrality of the topic but You cannot say that the issue doesn't belong here.After all we cannot write about Tamil Eelam in Arabs page.I think that few lines about the issue must come under the Tamils of Sri Lanka section

(202.71.142.219 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC))

Not all Tamil speaking people are of Dravidian ethnicity

The opening sentence in the lede says "Tamils are a dravidian ethnic group", edited by an IP without sources. However, there are many online sources (both historic & scientific) that say "Tamil speaking brahmins/tam-brahms" are indo-aryan/aryan/non-dravidian people who settled in the tamil land. So, is this page only about "ancestral/native" tamils? However i see brahmin individuals listed under the "notable tamils" section and in the infobox. And for those who argue that "they may not be non-natives", i must say that controversial & challenged data with contradicting sources calls for either "changing the description of these people" or "removal of certain indivuduals" from the lists & the infobox. Defining ethnicity as "the state of belonging to a social group that has a common cultural tradition" in this case, the cultural traditions of brahmins vary from that of the other tamils.

Sources:

• Regional+Cultural origins: [2] - The paragraph starts with "occupation of South by people from the North possessing or professing Aryan culture", refers to "Vadagalai Iyengars" & "Vadama Iyers" (certain sub-sects of Iyengars & Iyers, who happen to be tamil speaking brahmins) under that category. And please don't come up with "Does it mean north of the tamil country or North India?" goof-ups. Reading the entire page of the source, one can easily find out that the author has given a "North Indian + Aryan culturual" origin for these brahmin communities

• Cultural Practices that form an integral part of one's ethnicity: according to these sources [3], [4], [5] the Vadakalai branch of Iyengars base their life and worship on agamas, which they call pancharatra samhitas/agamas - a tradition which is of Kashmirian origin. source:[6], [7]

• Etymologies of tam-brahm caste names: [8] - Iyengar or Ayyangaru is the honorific plural of Ayya which is an eroded version of Arya.

• Historic works by renowned foreign (neutral party) authors : [9] Pg.13, Madras in the Olden Times by James Talboys Wheeler - The author says "The Brahmins next appeared on scene; a people altogether different, and belonging not to the Tartar or Turanian race, but to the same great Arian Race as the Greeks & Romans"
  

• DNA/Race oriented differences : A 2007 study on genomic affinities among 43 global populations revealed that Iyengars and European-Americans were grouped into a separate cluster, based on allele frequencies.[10](Pg.5, Fig.2-Unrooted Neighbor Joining Tree of 43 Global Populations, A Genetic Structure of the Early Immigrants) Among the nine caste populations of Tamil Nadu that were tested, Iyengars along with Iyers formed a separate cluster.[11](Pg.4, Results: Genomic Affinities among Populations, and Fig.1 Unrooted Neighbor Joining Tree - Nine caste Populations of Tamil Nadu, A Genetic Structure of the Early Immigrants).
  

Note: According to Fig.1 based on which the tamil nadu castes alone are discussed, the results are based on relative similarities/distances among the 9 castes tested. But the closest similarities are seen in FIG.2 where Iyengar brahmins are clustered along with "european-americans". Infact they form a closer cluster with white americans than with Iyers(the other tam-brahm community). But Fig.1 simply shows relative similarities/genetic distances among the 9 tamil nadu castes. That being the case, i suppose Fig.2 that took 43 global populations into account, gives a more accurate picture than fig.1.

Some wiki editors are not taking genetic studies into account as the field is still open to interpretation, as they believe, and they avoid it in order to restrict editors from indulging in own research & POV pushing that may go unnoticed. While the above results are obvious, you may invite editors working on WP:Genetics, just in case there are users who want to challenge them and/or interpret them diffferently.

Tamil may be an ethnicity. But it seems that may not be true in the case of tamil brahmins. According to the sources tamil brahmins are both culturally & racially/genetically different from that of the other/mainstream tamils. These sources don't speak of race-mixing or intermarriages, but rather indicate these castes to be different and foreign compared to the regular tamil populace. They are too big to be omitted. It seems "brahmins may not be ancestral tamils/dravidians". So, either we have to change the article's title to "Ancestral tamil people" if you want to define them as a "dravidian ethnic group" and remove the names & photos of brahmin individuals from the infobox, or "stop portraying all Tamils to be dravidians". Even if any editor here provides sources that contradict these ones, it still calls for these changes as "challenged/controversial materials" are to be removed and/or changed. Or, these people could be mentioned as exceptions to the dravida ethnicity, in the lede note. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity is a minefield. As a result of mixing with other ethnic groups no ethic group can claim to be "pure". You may be correct in saying that some Tamils have Aryan ancestry but the overwhelming will be Dravidian. Similarly not all north Indians are of Aryan descent, they may have other ethnic backgrounds such as Dravidian. The Dravidian peoples article states that "Dravidian people are people whose native speech belongs to the Dravidian language family". The Tamil language is a Dravidian language. Therefore Tamil people are Dravidians. Please also bear in mind that this article has passed the high standards required to be a Featured Article.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Dravidian people aren't an ethnic group or a race. They are people who speak Dravidian languages. Even if you are correct that Tamil Brahmins are "Aryan" they still qualify as Dravidian people because they speak a Dravidian language - Tamil.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the whole article(Dravidian people wiki' page)> Under the section "classification", dravidian has been described as an "ethnic group". If the lede says something different, then the editors have summarized the page wrongly and have presented it that way in the lede. I can't help it. It's just another wiki article, not a citable source, which has failed in the GA criteria, probably because of the summary in the lede. My revert was right. Hari7478 (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Additionally ethno-linguistics is also defined as "cultural linguistics". That again doesn't correspond to "linguistics alone". Both "ethnicity" & "ethno-linguistics" have a lot to do with culture, and not just the language alone. If the editors in the past have failed to provide sources that say otherwise about a small group within, and if this has been overlooked while awarding the "featured" status, that doesn't mean that the new sources don't qualify for addition/modification. I'm pretty sure about my edits. Hari7478 (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(Now you're prepared to talk. If you're so sure of yourself why remove my post on your talk page? I note that you also remove other posts on your talk page, including warnings.)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. You have only added your assertion that not all Tamils are Dravidians in the lead, you have not added it the main body of the article. I tried to remove ethnicity/race from the lead earlier but you re-inserted it. All of this suggest you are trying to make a point or just bash Dravidians.

As a compromise I suggest the following for the lead:" Tamil people (Tamil: தமிழர், tamiḻar (singular), or Tamil: தமிழர்கள், tamiḻarkaḷ (plural)), also known as Tamilians or simply Tamils, are a people who speak Tamil, a Dravidian language. "--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you're linking "tamil" to the tamil language page(where in the lede note it says "tamil is a dravidian language"), it makes the "dravidian language" addition to this page unnecessary. I would rather say we continue with the "dravidian ethnic group" thingy, and add a brief description about the tam-brahms as an "exception", in the lede. That way, we wont be leaving anything out from the version(that got the "featured status"), and at the same time some additional data with reliable sources wouldn't hurt. By the way, i simply like to keep my barnstars and remove the other messages, including praises. You personally attacked me on my talk page which you shouldn't have, and most of all "wiki doesn't encourage moving article talk discussions to user talk pages". Hari7478 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I posted on your talk page was that you were ignoring this discussion - you made two edits (1; 2) without discussing here. It was only after I made a post on your talk page you resumed this discussion.

Why do you wish to bring up ethnicity? Why do you only want to include it the lead - why not in the main body of the article? What point are you trying to make?

New compromise, I am willing to leave out Dravidian language: Tamil people (Tamil: தமிழர், tamiḻar (singular), or Tamil: தமிழர்கள், tamiḻarkaḷ (plural)), also known as Tamilians or simply Tamils, are a people who speak Tamil. "--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be just fine. And please don't try to dupe me. I'm not the one who brought up ethnicity in the lede. I've been seeing the lede section with mention of "dravidian ethnic group" for a long time in this article. But when i provided sources that say indian tamil brahmins are aryan & not dravidian, and when i tried to make the corrections based on this, now you're willing to remove it from the lede. Whatever, I'm okay with this version. But there's always some anon ip who wants to re-add it. It often happens in tamil & kannada related articles, i suppose. Let's make sure it doesn't happen. I repeat: your last version is good. Hari7478 (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You have not proven that Tamil Brahmins are Aryan, all you have done is provided some dubious genetic studies and some original research. You have been told in other discussions about using genetics to push you own point of view but yet you still do it. You didn't just try to remove Dravidian from the lead, you also removed the navigation template - you were clearly trying erase all reference to Dravidian in this article. This follows a long pattern of anti-Dravidian editing. Nevertheless I am willing to accept the compromise to avoid further conflict.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Those genetic studies are not dubious. In other articles, we agreed not to bring up genetics due to conflict in ways of interpreting them. We reached a consensus that "we leave out all genetic study related sources from those pages". Otherwise no one called those research papers dubious. Apart from the genetic study, i've provided two secondary sources from foreign authors that say tamil brahmins are aryan and another source regarding the etymology of Ayyar/Ayyangar surnames that say "ayya" in Ayyer and ayyengar is an eroded form of arya. You are welcome to ask any admin to review my sources. Now, let me list some responses of yours that might not exactly fall in line with "TP guidelines". First of all, providing diff of my edits and/or tp discussions in other pages, here in this article's talk page calls for an ANI complaint. Adding more support to your behavior is your "repeated name-calling" in this article'a talk page. Now that everything is settled, i hope you stop this behavior already. I've been too patient here. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent reverts

These removals are without foundation, the images all have licences, and are all free. Stop removing them. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Happened again, something fishy is going on. In the past month, there has been a sudden spike in editing this article, mainly these images; I've counted more than five users (some newly registered + IP) removing these images and adding their own for no apparent reason. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2014

In the related groups.. Please remove Aryans ( Tamil Brahmins)

They are the same people are are not a different group!

Just a different Varna .. thats all! They still fall under the (Tamil people) category.

175.136.32.17 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a piece of source for the purpose of verification. And be more clear when you make an edit request. Suggest this way, "Replace XXX with YYY" or "Add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Regards, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Tamil people

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tamil people's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "hindu1":

• From Thanjavur Nayak kingdom: "The colourful world of the Nayaks". The Hindu. Retrieved 2008-06-14.
• From Thanjavur: "Scope of digital mapping exercise in city likely to be enlarged". The Hindu. 24 December 2011. Retrieved 28 December 2012.
• From Sivaji Ganesan: "Literary Review / Book Review: The making of an actor". The Hindu. 3 August 2008. Retrieved 5 May 2011.
• From Tamil cinema: Blast from the Past – Marmayogi 1951, The Hindu 14 March 2004
• From Jallikattu: "Bull chasing, an ancient Tamil tradition". The Hindu. Retrieved 2014-01-13. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"without a nation of their own"

To people who are restoring "without a nation of their own" in the intro, please provide a verifiable source. I couldn't find anything like this in the source currently cited in the article (N. Subrahmanian, pp. 150-158). If I'm wrong, please provide the exact quote.

The term "stateless nation" conjures up an image of a repressed, helpless group. While this might be true for Sri Lankan Tamil people in the context of the SL Civil War, it's not applicable to the Tamils as a whole (e.g. those living in India or Singapore). If you want to retain this phrase in the intro, please provide a clear reference. utcursch | talk 01:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Collage ancient figure

There must be someone who was good in both prose and poetry during ancient times . I don't have much knowledge . I think these pages might be handy .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangam_literature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Great_Epics_of_Tamil_Literature --C E (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Proper picture of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar

Someone must add his picture which is according to guidelines . He is a Nobel laureate .— Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicEmperor (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Moving

@RGloucester: Next time you move an article, don't forget to also move corresponding talk page archives. I had to do it for you. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Featured Article Review

As was noted here almost five years ago, the article isn't up to Featured Article standards and should therefore be taken to a review. The article has in fact deteriorated since then with a variety of problems including the following:

1. Poor quality sourcing has crept in, including from hobbyist mirrors, unreliable sources, hobbyist websites, outdated sources etc
2. Synthesis of sources to stretch the meaning
3. Random usage of images with no context
4. Inconsistent quality of writing
5. Undue weight to certain aspects, thereby affecting comprehensiveness

I will be compiling a more detailed list on the sourcing etc for the FAR. —SpacemanSpiff 10:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Haven't checked in detail to see how far short it is of FA, but even a quick spot-check shows issues of the type you list, and more. For example, in the Jallikattu section:

• the first para is poorly written and unsourced POV OR that someone most probably just wrote up from what they have heard without consulting any sources;
• the second and third para are cut-n-paste copyvio from this (cited) newspaper article; and
• the fourth paragraph is disjointed with the rest of the section and it's unclear what parts are sourced/important.

And, none of the sources (2 newspaper articles; 1 collection of newspaper columns) are of the quality one would like to see in a featured article. Also, does this topic even need a section of its own, or would a couple of sentences/para be more due? There are also MOS problems with the section, but those are not even worth listing till the other issues are settled.

An FAR seems warranted. Hopefully though, the article can be saved from being delisted, or at least improved in the process. Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A Request

Dear active editors of the Tamil People page. Please remove Ellalan as a prominent Tamil at your discretion in light of the following.. While I can not speak for all SL Tamils.. I can say that at this point in time in history having Ellalan as a prominent Tamil harms the interest of the SL Tamils in SL.. Sinhalese Chauvinists often cite Ellalan to claim the foreignness of SL Tamils in SL thus at this point in time, as per the reconciliation in SL, it is of my opinion that Ellalan be replaced with someone more suitable. Thank you for your considerations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NesJan (talk • contribs) 22:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I have done and added Velupillai Prabhakaran .There have been request since 2005 per 2005 here and 2009 here.Prabhakaran whether one likes him or not is the best known Tamil Leader worldwide and has fought for over 30 years for Tamil causes .Surya Thalivar (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If you admire Prabhakaran so much go and find a free iamge.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tamils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090202174036/http://www.flonnet.com:80/fl2301/stories/20060127003610200.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl2301/stories/20060127003610200.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080612085446/http://www.flonnet.com:80/fl2301/stories/20060127003610200.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl2301/stories/20060127003610200.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080214141743/http://www.diversitywatch.ryerson.ca:80/backgrounds/tamils.htm to http://www.diversitywatch.ryerson.ca/backgrounds/tamils.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tamils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080529221016/http://www.flonnet.com:80/fl1816/18160950.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl1816/18160950.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130619060246/http://tamilnadu.com:80/arts/therukoothu.html to http://tamilnadu.com/arts/therukoothu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tamils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100513190952/http://www.censusindia.gov.in:80/2011-common/censusdataonline.html to http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-common/censusdataonline.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for tamil.berkeley.edu/html/chapter_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130903165502/http://www.archaeology.lk:80/http://www.archaeology.lk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Dinithi-Volume-1-Issue-4.pdf to http://www.archaeology.lk/http:/www.archaeology.lk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Dinithi-Volume-1-Issue-4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Mix of BCE and BC

There's supposed to be just one in use. Which was first used in this article? 2.102.184.22 (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tamils. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070303072704/http://www.royalacademy.org.uk:80/ra-magazine/winter2006/features/heven-sent,47,RAMA.html to http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/ra-magazine/winter2006/features/heven-sent,47,RAMA.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140808051427/http://www.business-standard.com/indi/storypage.php?autono=290977 to http://www.business-standard.com/indi/storypage.php?autono=290977
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050208230112/http://www.flonnet.com:80/fl1816/18160950.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl1816/18160950.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Are Tamils a stateless nation or only Sri Lankan Tamils?

Indian tamils are not stateless, it has to be the most absurd thing i have ever come across, it's very biased propaganda. Tamil Nadu is where majority of Tamils live and we don't identify anything other than Indian and Tamil. Tamil is one of many official languages of India and also has classical language status. 117.192.218.44 (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Tamil is not only an official language but a national language in Sri Lanka, that is not a good argument and does not explain why Tamils are no stateless nation. Tamils in Tamil Nadu supports a Tamil state in Sri Lanka. Tamil organizations, parties and the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu demand an International Investigation of Sri Lankan war crimes and a UN referendum among Sri Lankan Tamils on the formation of Tamil Eelam.

Tamils as a whole are a stateless nation. Tamil claim to be a nation but there is no sovereign Tamil state, That's why Tamils are a stateless nation ( a nation without a sovereign state). Indian Tamils dont need to ask for a separate state to be a stateless nation. If Tamils consider themselves a nation and somewhere in the world exists a movement for a Tamil state, then Tamils as whole are a stateless nation. To claim that Sri Lankan Tamils are stateless nation and India Tamils not, makes no sense, because both are the same ethnic group and so also the same nation.Vatasura 15:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Difference between stateless people and stateless nation

Tamils are not a stateless people, because most Tamils are citizens of Sri Lanka, India or other countries. Tamils are a stateless nation, because as a nation, they don't have a sovereign state.Vatasura 16:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither do majority of ethnic groups in India, yet we don't go around claiming we are "stateless nation", which is absurd. This concept of stateless nation only applies to Sri Lankan Tamils who are demanding Tamil Eelam NOT Indian Tamils. Some political movements in Tamil Nadu may support Eelam nation but that does not mean we want to leave India. There is difference between Indian Tamils and Sri lankan-Tamils when it comes to politics, we are fully absorbed into Indian identity and society and have always been. Same can't be said about Sri Lankan-Tamils and Sinhalese in modern times.

When you say that all Tamils are stateless nation you clearly have ulterior motivation, you want to imply that Tamils in India, Malaysia and Singapore are demanding separate Tamil nation, which is just wrong. You seem to have hard time differentiating between "support" and "demand" for Eelam nation. 117.192.218.39 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

State and Nation in South Asia By Swarna Rajagopalan - Covers basic aspects of how Indian Tamils and Sri Lankan Tamils view the idea of stateless nation. Only Sri Lankan Tamils see themselves as stateless nation in almost all sources i have found. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=q7Yz5aGeoTsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA82#v=onepage&q=Tamils&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.218.39 (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

We have not even finished our discussion and you're already imposing your POV on Tamil people. Probably you have a ulterior motive to divide Tamils and to deny the Tamil nationalism.The entire Tamil population belongs to a nation and this Tamil nation has no sovereign state, which makes Tamils to the largest stateless nation in the world.

Tamil organizations, parties and the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu demand an International Investigation of Sri Lankan war crimes and a UN referendum among Sri Lankan Tamils on the formation of Tamil Eelam.

Why do you support something that you do not demand? Yes Tamils in India, Malaysia and Singapore demanding openly a separate Tamil Eelam (a tamil state) in Sri Lanka.

Not only Sri Lankan Tamils deal with an independent Tamil state. Tamil secession movement even existed in India in the past. Indian government had added a legislation that outlawed anyone wanting independence from India and so the Tamil secession movement in India got weaker. You can not deny this because it's history.

A famous quote by Tamil poet Kannadasan about the Tamils as stateless nation.

“ There is no state without Tamils, there is no state for the Tamils. ”

“ தமிழன் இல்லாத நாடு இல்லை ,தமிழனுக்கு ஒரு நாடு இல்லை. ”

I think you dont understand the meaning of this.Vatasura 18:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Only person who is imposing anything here is YOU with your "77 million tamils being stateless nation" are you insane? It's obviously propaganda! You'll be laughed at your face if you asked anyone from Tamil Nadu about wanting separate nation for Indian Tamils or to join Eelam.

Again, just because some Indian parties have solidarity with Sri Lankan Tamils for Eelam state does NOT mean Indian Tamils want to secede from Indian union, even you know that.

I too can quote Indian nationalist Tamils left and right but you already know that Indian Tamils and Sri Lankan Tamils are politically different today, just because we show solidarity with Eelam Tamils does not mean we want to secede from India. 117.192.210.109 (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

So far, only you have a problem with Tamils being stateless nation, but I will not call you insane, because I also appreciated your opinions. Personal attacks and accusations without evidence should anyway be avoided. I can only take responsibility for what I say and not what you think. You ignore completely the fact that Tamils are a Nation without a sovereign state. You dont try to understand the concept of stateless nation and repeatedly writing about Indian Tamils and secede from India. You are literally making a mountain out of a molehill. Tamils are a Nation without a sovereign state = stateless Nation, so simple. What Tamils in India feel for Tamils in Sri Lanka is called "cross-straits nationalism". Just because some Indian parties have solidarity with Sri Lankan Tamils, seriously? What about the students who protested in 2013 or people like K. Muthukumar who committed suicide in Tamil nadu.Vatasura 05:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vatasura, I don't know what the debate is about, but I don't see any statements being made by you with support from reliable sources. So, please take the objections from the IP seriously and respond to them before thinking of adding content to the article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that a stateless nation can be deemed to exist when, as Vatasura states, an ethnic group does not constitute a majority population in any country of the world. A separate demand for such statehood may/may not persist, but it does not change the status of such a population. In the case of Tamils, there have been both political and armed movements for such a cause in Tamil Eelam. Recognition of demand from one section and absence of it from another section of the population, I believe, is immaterial, to the cause. Eelam Tamils and Indian Tamils are no two different ethnic groups, so while the demand for statehood may not exist in India, and only in Sri Lanka, doesn't change the fact that Tamils both in India and Sri Lanka are a stateless nation. Also, take into consideration the intense Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu and the historic struggle by political parties to establish a Dravidian homeland independent of the Indian Union.

Some scholarly sources: 1. [12] 2. [13] 3. [14] 4. [http:// www.worldlibrary.org/articles/tamil_nationalism]

--CuCl₂ ^{(chat spy acquaint)} 21:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry. This is also full of WP:OR. For Wikipedia to say that the Tamils worldwide constitute a "stateless nation," we need a reliable source (or several such) that says exactly that. Otherwise, we would be inventing it out of our own brains. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Indian Tamils, Sri Lankan Tamils, Malaysian Tamils, British Tamils, Canadian Tamils, Singaporean Tamils, all are aware that they are Tamils and there is no Tamil state. An important point is, that Tamils in India call themselves Indian Tamils and not Tamil speaking Indians. Tamils were Tamils even before there was states like India and Sri Lanka. The Indian government feared an independent Tamil state for Tamils in Sri Lanka would lead to the same for the Tamils in Tamil Nadu. Why would it lead to the same for the Tamils in Tamil Nadu, if Indian Tamils dont want to leave India? Does India not trust Indian Tamils? Howsoever, I think, Copperchloride understood what makes a stateless nation. He is right, it does not matter, if India Tamils want a separate state or not, because it don't change the fact that Tamils are a stateless nation.

Kautilya3, I dont know what source you expect, but you are asking only sources from me. I see almost no source by IP, for his claim that Tamils are no stateless nation. Which opposition of IP was not respond by me? Vatasura 21:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Muvendar, A general point, citing the content of other Wikipedia articles is really only helpful for policy issues or very general content issues. Unreferenced content on one Wikipedia article cannot be used to justify content discussion points made on another article. The Stateless Nation article you have cited seems particularly low grade, and has already been tagged for additional references. Also, the intro text you quote, "A stateless nation is an ethnic group, religious group, linguistic group or other cohesive group which is not the majority population in any nation state. The term implies that the group "should have" such a state, and thus expresses irredentism" as well as being unreferenced appears very pov and selective to me and I have just now tagged it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Stateless nation again

The lead currently says: Tamil people with a population of about 77 million living around the world are one of the largest and oldest of the existing ethno-linguistic cultural groups of people in the modern world to exist without a state of their own. The phrase "without state of their own" points to the page stateless nation. This claim has been contested above as being the most "absurd thing." User Vatasura, who seems to favour this wording, needs to produce reliable sources and quotes from them that establish that the "Tamil people" regard themselves as "stateless nation." Failing that, this claim will be deleted. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

“ The Tamils are the proud owners of a rich treasury of literature. Though they are an ancient race, still they dont have a country of their own. In India they occupy a state called Tamil Nadu, which has no sovereign status. ”

Scenes From Tamil Classics by Sellathamby Sriskandarajah, 5 p.

“ The Eelam movement which has been a regional South Indian phenomenon from the beginning, is becoming an international movement as well. Tamils constitute a linguistic group with a rich and proud cultural heritage and a relatively large, western educated, wealthy diaspora. But, as the World Confederation of Tamils puts it, There is no state without a Tamil, but there is no state for the Tamils. Tamil Nadu though it is the "country of Tamils" is a regional state in India and not a nation state. There is understandable resentment that while smaller ethnic group, like the Sinhalese, seen to have states, Tamils are a nation without a state or a "trans state nation". ”

The Separatist Conflict in Sri Lanka: Terrorism, Ethnicity, Political Economy by Asoka Bandarage, 20-21 p.

Can you show me on the map where you see a Tamil state? Vatasura 04:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Kautilya3. As per the definition of Stateless nation A stateless nation is an ethnic group, religious group, linguistic group or other cohesive group which is not the majority population in any nation state. So, How the tamils which are millions in numbers don't have a state of their own? FYKI, Tamil Nadu was separately created for Tamils in India! Tamil Nadu itself means The Land of Tamils or Tamil Country. Even It's official language is Tamil. Over 60 Million lives in the Indian State Tamil Nadu. This concept of stateless nation only applies to Sri Lankan Tamils and not to Indian Tamils. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 08:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vatasura: Here I'll show you a tamil state (Click-here) MBlaze Lightning -talk! 08:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vatasura: Thanks for focusing on sources finally. However, I don't see the sources establishing the claim made in the lead.

• The Sriskandarajah book is a self-published work and does not count as a reliable source. The work is literary work, not political, and we have no idea of the author's credentials for making political assessments. He further looks like a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee. How can any one expect him to speak for Indian Tamils?
• The Bandarage book is indeed an excellent source published by Routledge. But the book is primarily about Sri Lankan Tamils and it makes few claims about the 77 million Tamils. The Eeelam movement (for Sri Lankan Tamils) is supported by South Indian Tamils, but there is no separatist movement for South Indian Tamils themselves or a claim that they have become a stateless nation. The World Confederation of Tamils is not saying that all 77 million Tamils should become a nation-state. It is only asking for a state somewhere for Tamils, which would be satisfied if there is a Tamil Eeelam state for Sri Lankan Tamils. So, once again, I don't see a statement making a claim about 77 million Tamils forming a stateless nation.

Note that I have already accepted at the WP:DRN that the Sri Lankan Tamils form a `stateless nation' according to reliable sources. But this is not the same as saying that all Tamils of the world form a `stateless nation'. Having said that, I like the Bandarage source and I would be happy to write a section summarising the arguments made here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Describing Tamils as stateless isn't as "absurd" as editors claim. Here in Wikipedia we go by what WP:RS say and Vatasura has provided one, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z by James Minahan, which categorises all Tamils, not just those in Sri Lanka, as stateless. This source is used in dozens of Wikipedia articles. Editors are deliberately misusing the term "state" and that fact that that there is a "state" called Tamil Nadu, to deny the fact that Tamils are a stateless nation. State has several meanings. Tamil Nadu is a type of constituent state but in the context of stateless nation state means sovereign state.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Can you give a page number or a quote that establishes that all Tamils form a stateless nation? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Try reading from page 1843.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have read it. It doesn't say anything relevant to the topic. What is the point you are making? - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

So, the inclusion of 71 million Tamils in a book called Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations isn't relevant to the topic? Now whose being absurd.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. What you are doing is called WP:SYNTHESIS and it is prohibited. `Stateless nation' is a sufficiently intricate concept that we can't make inferences like that. Any statement on Wikipedia in contentious areas needs explicit support from a published reliable source. If the claim is in fact true, it should be possible to find a reliable source that makes exactly the same claim, given how many hundreds of sources seem to exist on stateless nations. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Obi2canibe and User:Vatasura, this article is not exclusively about Sri Lankan Tamils. There are many Tamils mostly in Tamil Nadu along with Rest of India. Tamil Diaspora exists in Singapore, Malaysia also. Using stateless nation at the lead is purely not following NPOV. Greek Legend (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Greek Legend - that's the whole point of this, and the previous, discussion. A WP:RS has been provided to show that all Tamils, irrespective of where they live, can be categorised as a stateless nation. Just because you disagree with the statement does not make it WP:NPOV. Kautilya3, citing Minahan isn't WP:SYNTHESIS - it is one of the main sources of the Stateless nation article. And please point me to the hundreds of reliable sources that exist on stateless nations. Both of you, please be reassured that stating Tamils are a stateless nation in a Wikipedia article isn't going to lead to the destruction of mighty Bharat.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Here they are [15], some 55,000 of them. If none of them says that Tamils are a stateless nation, then Wikipedia should not say it either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

None? Let's have a look. The first item is "Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z" by James Minahan - wait a minute...haven't I heard that mentioned already?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, mentioned and dismissed. You are making no progress. Find a statement that supports the claim made in the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Who talk about Sri Lankan Tamils? But, as the World Confederation of Tamils puts it, There is no state without a Tamil, but there is no state for the Tamils. Tamil Nadu though it is the "country of Tamils" is a regional state in India and not a nation state. There is understandable resentment that while smaller ethnic group, like the Sinhalese, seen to have states, Tamils are a nation without a state or a "trans state nation". The World Tamil Conference clearly speaks about all Tamils. Sinhalese were mentioned as a smaller ethnic group which means they speak of all Tamils and not only about Eelam Tamils who are smaller than Sinhalese. Additionally Tamil Nadu has been mentioned as a non sovereign State. @Vatasura: Here I'll show you a tamil state (Click-here), MBlaze Lightning are you claim that Tamil Nadu is not a part of India? But what really absurd is, that some people claim that Tamils are not a stateless nation but a subgroup of Tamils are a stateless nation. Vatasura (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether you think it is absurd or not, there are plenty of reliable sources that say it. Here are they are again (copied from WP:DRN discussion):

• Put simply, the worlds stateless nations — Kosovan Albanians, Kurds from Turkey and Iraq, Tamils from Sri Lanka, Chechens from Russia, Ibos and Ogoni from Nigeria, and hundreds of other tribes and ethnic groups...
• A stateless nation exists whenever or wherever an imagined political culture that functions in ways that permit a people to conceive of themselves as a nation finds itself lacking its own sovereign, independent state.... Modern examples abound: the Palestinians in Israel and Occupied Territories as well as Gaza; ... the Tamils in Sri Lanka; the Chechens in Chechnya; ...
• In order to escape persecution from the Sri Lankan government, which has suspended the Tamil population's rights as citizens, a large number of Tamils have fled the island... These far-flung Tamils, together with their compatriots in Sri Lanka, constitute the stateless nation of Tamil Eelam, which is reflected in these scattered groups' presence on the World Wide Web.
• Tamils in Sri Lanka have no state and are seeking to create their own sovereign state of Eelam based on their right of self-determination. They are a stateless nation oppressed by alien Sinhalese colonialism and domination.

In contrast, you haven't produced a single authoritative source that says that Tamils form a stateless nation. The `trans state nation' view is purportedly of tamilnation.org (now tamilnation.co). But whom does this web site represent?

We should really focus on the sources and read the sources instead of engaging in WP:FORUMy debates. That won't get us anywhere. We have had enough WP:OR on this topic. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

A authoritative source has been produced, Minahan, but you have dismissed it because it goes against your WP:POV. The sources you have provided above show that Sri Lankan Tamils stateless nation, but that does not prove that other Tamils aren't a stateless nation. Can you provide a WP:RS to show that other Tamils, particularly Indian Tamils, aren't a stateless nation?

A quote from Minahan (page 1849) - "Nationalist sentiment...often focuses on the unity of all Tamil territories in South Asia in a Greater Eelam". What does this mean to a Hindi nationalist?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ha! You have excised all the inconvenient portions of the passage to push your point. The full passage reads:

Nationalist sentiment, particularly strong in Sri Lanka, around Madras on the Indian mainland, and among the Tamil diaspora, often focus on the unity of all Tamil territories in South Asia in a Greater Eelam. The majority of the population of Tamil Nadu supports demands for greater autonomy within India, while supporting the Eelam Tamils of Sri Lanka, but only a minority seek complete separation from India.

This is a far cry from all the 77 million Tamils of the world imagining themselves to be a `stateless nation'! There is still no RS for the claim made in the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

References

New sources

If you believe your sources support your claim, then these sources support my claim.

• Other stateless Nation include Karen, Gypsies (Roma or Romani), Karelians, Tartars, Tuvans, Chechens, Sami, Uygurs (pronouced Vigers), Tibetans, and Tamils. (AP Human Geography)

• Thus, the necessity arises to spur up comparative research on specific nationalisms as embodied in various nation-states (India, Romania, Nigeria, Bolivia, the USA etc) and pursued by stateless nations/national movenment (eg the Catalans, the Kurds, the Zulus, the Tamils, the Mayans). (unknown author, 2004)

• The Tamils were amongst many in the world that had no "state" to represent them internationally (Udalgama, de Silva, 2014)

• There are many "stateless Nations": Groups of people with a common sense of identity who do not have a state to represent them on the world stage. The Kurds, the Tamils, the Tibetans, the Basques and the Chechens are some examples of this phenomenon (Haynes et al, 2013)

All Tamils are part of the Tamil nation. This nation has no state and that means they are a stateless nation, this is the bitter truth.

WP:DRN: Closed as failed. The latest statement by one editor(Kautilya3[16]) indicates an unwillingness to resolve the wording of the lede collaboratively: 'What exists in the lead is WP:OR not supported by RS. It is also not discussed in the article body, as it should be. Once this DRN case closes, I intend to delete it.' The purpose of dispute resolution should be to discuss what should be in the article, not to simply state what we plan to edit in the article. The other editor (Vatasura), if not satisfied, is advised that a Request for Comments may be a way to resolve this issue. obi2canibe is right, you claim mostly everything against your statement as WP:OR.Vatasura 02:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just because some people think its divide India, we can not allow them to divide Tamils. Stateless nation has directly nothing to do with separatism. Stateless nation is a political term for nation without a state. Even Romani people are stateless nation, they have neither a homeland or a movement, but they are a nation without state.Vatasura 03:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. I will look at them. By the way, I am continuing to do here exactly what I think the DRN case should have done, viz., to examine the sources. It failed because it didn't do it. I am not going to debate what `stateless nation' means because the scholars say that they don't have a definition. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vatasura: Sorry for the delay. It took me a while to study the sources. Now that I have, here is my response. First of all, we need to distinguish between sources that have actually studied the Tamils and those that mention Tamils in the passing. The latter may or may not have studied the issues. Or, they may simply be repeating what they think is consensus among the communities or academics. So we really need to focus on the sources that have studied the Tamil issue in depth.

• The Udalgama and de Silva article from which you quoted a sentence says this:

The violent war waged against the state by the LTTE is seen as a classic case study in "separatism." With the increased emphasis on "one state for one nation," the LTTE became a prime force to create a separate state for the Tamil population acorss the world. The Tamils were one ethnic group amongst many in the world that had no "state" to represent them internationally. The Tamils are a dispersed population, in diaspora around the world, with no legitimate homeland. The LTTE propagated this ideology throughout their efforts to win over their own state by separating the North and East of Sri Lanka under a flag called "Elam." Such rationalization for violence defined LTTE as a separatist group. They believed that integrating with the dominant group would compromise their identity. Hence, the separatist ideology found justification for the existence of LTTE was actually based on identity politics.

Note that this entire paragraph is about the ideology propagated by the LTTE. The sentence you quoted is also part of this ideology. It is not a statement of the authors. This article title, "Group violence against the state," is merely documenting the LTTE violence against the Sri Lankan state. It has nothing to say about the Indian Tamils.

• The Princeton Review book is an exam prep book, not a text book or a scholarly source. It mentions Tamils in passing. However, note that its definition of a stateless nation is entirely counter to yours:

Stateless nations: Although many culture groups are politically represented or are part of larger political entities, there are some stateless nations, where a culture group is not included or allowed share in the state political process.

So it is not enough, according to this prep book, that a national group is without a state. It must be excluded somehow from "the state political process." Good luck trying to show this for the Indian Tamils!

• The Jeffrey Haynes book is another example of a passing mention of Tamils. There is no substance here, at least as far as stateless nations are concerned. I might also note the deliberate Eurocentricism of this book. The UK, USA and France are apparently the prime examples of states where national identity is the same as political identity. India and Nigeria aren't. And, all the stateless nations exist over there, Tamils, Tibetans and so on. The Puerto Ricans, the Hawaiians, the Qubecois, the Welsh and the Scots etc. are not stateless nations. We are the civilized people with national identities, they are the ones with stateless nations. Phew!
• The Middle East & South Asia Folklore Bulletin, whatever it is, I can't get hold of it. As far as I can tell, it is grey literature put together by a University department, which shut down when the funding ran out. I can't tell who wrote the words you quoted, whether it was a research paper or a review article, or whether any of this was peer-reviewed and published. I can't make any sense of the sentence you quoted: "specific nationalisms" of India etc. which were then "pursued" by stateless nations like Tamils etc? It is not a reliable source.

I know you feel that I am shooting down everything you come up with using some excuse or the other. But the point of fact is that there are no Indian Tamils who regard themselves as a "stateless nation." What you are trying to prove is blatantly false. You are merely trying publish the slogans fed to you by LTTE, without actually making any effort to understand what is going on. If I do see actual evidence that there is statelessness among the Indian Tamils, I will be quite happy to write about it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this dispute can not be solved without neutral assistance. We can not always run in circles as source, rejected, source rejected. I have now followed the advice of Robert McClenon and started a RFC. No matter what the result is, I accept it and hope the same from you. Vatasura 17:45, 01 April 2016 (UTC)

References

RfC: Tamils as a Stateless nation

The consensus is that "without a state of their own" should be removed the lead of the article Tamils.

Cunard (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Some users think Tamils as a whole are a stateless nation and favor the keep of "without a state of their own" in lead.
• Some users think only Sri Lankan Tamils are a stateless nation and favor the remove of "without a state of their own" in lead.

Should "without a state of their own" keep or remove from lead of article Tamils? Vatasura 17:45, 01 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - See the discussions above "Are Tamils a stateless nation or only Sri Lankan Tamils?" and "Stateless nation again".Vatasura 17:45, 01 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove - The idea of a national state is founded in outmoded nationalist and racist ideas. If it causes controversy, just delete it. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove though not for any of the reasons invoked above by OpenFuture who brings ideology ("the idea...is...outmoded...and racist") into the discussion. Wikipedia does not shy away from controversy, either; controversial subjects simply "require far greater care to achieve a neutral point of view." Irrespective of irrelevant argumentation, we should indeed delete the phrase to exist without a state of their own (from the sentence "[Tamils] are one of the largest and oldest of the existing ethno-linguistic cultural groups of people in the modern world to exist without a state of their own") because, as explicitly noted in the whole of current, prevalent Anthropology and Sociology, nation and nation-state have never been and still are not synonymous. The fact that a tribe, a race, a nation, etc, exists without possessing a state of its own does not impart any additional information of value since the fact is already there, in the relevant entry. Information about the struggle of Tamils for independence should, of course, be included (per the notability rule) but the phrase in question is a blatant violation of the foundational obligation for a neutral stance. -The Gnome (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove - To summarise the extensive discussion that has taken place above, I don't see any evidence that the Indian Tamils, the vast majority of the world's Tamils, have claimed either "nationhood" or "statelessness." They are by and large comfortable in the multinational state that is India. According to James Minahan, The majority of the population of Tamil Nadu supports demands for greater autonomy within India, while supporting the Eelam Tamils of Sri Lanka, but only a minority seek complete separation from India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS to show that the majority of a group must be seeking independence in order to be classified as a stateless nation? Do you have WP:RS to show that the majority of Scots, Québécois, Welsh, Catalans, Kurds, Chechens, Basques, Ibos, Ogoni etc are seek independence?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS to show that if any number of people from an ethnic group, no matter how small their number, are seeking independence then the ethnic group must be classified as a stateless nation? -The Gnome (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No, but a WP:RS has been provided which classifies all Tamils as a stateless nation.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A number of other sources, also reliable, denote Tamils as a nation without using the word "stateless." For more, see Dravidian peoples. Does one reliable source suffice for a characterisation in Wikipedia, moreover of a whole nation? I wonder. -The Gnome (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Tamils have been included in the Stateless nation article since the table was inserted in September 2012. This is because one of the main sources for that article, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z by James Minahan, includes all Tamils irrespective where they live. Wikipedia isn't here to judge what is right or wrong or push a particular WP:POV. It is here merely to replicate what WP:RS state. Minahan is a WP:RS. Those who oppose classifying all Tamils as a stateless nation haven't tried to remove Tamils from Stateless nation but have chosen to attack Tamils. This itself shows WP:POV on their part. They are also trying to place an unsourced high barrier, namely that the "vast majority" of a group must have claimed nationhood or statelessness to be classified as a stateless nation, in order to prevent Tamils being classified as a stateless nation. If that high barrier were applied to the all groups listed in Stateless nation most would have to be removed from that article as there is no evidence that the "vast majority" claim nationhood/statelessness. Even high profile groups such as Scots and Québécois would have to be removed as they have rejected independence several times in a democratic vote.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 11:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Researcher James Minahan's criteria for inclusion of an ethnic group in the category of stateless nations are that "individuals within the group identify themselves as a separate nation, have adopted at least some trappings of a state (especially a flag), and have formed a nationalist or political organization." These are one person's criteria and, accepting that his work qualifies as a reliable source, his work could be quoted. But why these criteria are to be mandatory for the whole of Wikipedia is not readily apparent. You may perhaps want to elaborate. -The Gnome (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that at all, quite the opposite. As The Routledge Handbook of Ethnic Conflict says, "there is no decisive definition of a stateless nation. For each criterion regarding shared culture, language, religion, or territory that could be brought forward as part of a definition, an exception may be found". Those opposed to classifying all Tamils as a stateless nation are trying to use a rigid definition to exclude Tamils. Tamils may have a constituent state, their language may be official and the majority may not support independence but that does not mean that they aren't a stateless nation. They may be an exception. What we have is a WP:RS which classifies all Tamils as a stateless nation.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Being a Tamil yourself, your stance is somewhat understandable. However, this is Wikipedia and NOT some battleground of national aspirations - and the existence of one single source stating something does not mean at all that the respective definitions in the encyclopaedia must follow suit. I asked you before and I ask you again: Does one reliable source suffice for a characterisation in Wikipedia, moreover of a whole nation? Me, I do not think so. -The Gnome (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Remove This is one of the reasons I put this up for Featured article review, the source is clearly not a reliable source, anything published doesn't become reliable. Quite frankly, the whole article is of sub par quality compared to a few years ago. —SpacemanSpiff 17:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove per Kautilya3's argument. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove per argumentation by The Gnome and Kautilya3. One can very well argue that the people involved have a state of their own. India. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove: One author's mixed primary and tertiary work applying an idiosyncratic definition isn't enough for us to go on. Most Tamils are in India, and consider themselves Indian citizens, not "stateless". That's a term with a very particular definition, being misapplied by the author in question. By Minahan's definition, every single random nationalist movement, no matter how minority and impractical, is a "stateless nation" the moment some of them start waving a flag they made up one day. See WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE; it's not encyclopedic to include every possible label anyone ever comes up with, and labeling random groups of people "stateless nations", a doubly confused and ambiguous term, by criteria that don't actually make sense, is a great example of material we don't need to include. Furthermore, "nation" has multiple meanings, and "ethno-regional group" is a off-beat, archaic, and confusing one that we should avoid except in the rare cases that RS consistently use it (e.g. for several Native American nations, recognized as such by treaty with their major former antagonist nation-state; and Wales and Scotland but not Cornwall and Northern Ireland, since the former also have an established legal relationship, as nations within a larger entity, as the result of former military struggles (and not that it's Wales and Scotland, not the Welsh and the Scottish as ethnic groups, that are recognized as British nations).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove per argumentation by The Gnome and SMcCandlish. Borsoka (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep and Reword to make their situation clear. Regardless of the nationalist feelings in the Sinhalese-Tamil (+ Indian-Tamil) relations, it is obvious that Tamils are a stateless nation. They have no sovereign state of their own. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove The Indian-Tamils reside in a multi-national state and thus cannot be referred to as a stateless nation. It can be argued that the Sinhalese-Tamils are also not a stateless nation, bu rather reside in a state under apartheid-type conditions. A group qualifies as a stateless nation only if their members are regularly expelled from any state they reside in. Tale.Spin (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you deny that Tamils are a nation? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Tamils do not constitute a majority or recognized as the major ethnic nation in any country, hence, the notion of 'stateless'ness is quite applicable. A nation with a state has its own independent government, judiciary and several cultural institutions for the interests of the ethnic group, and the Tamils have none of that. --CuCl₂ ^{(chat spy acquaint)} 19:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment - The RfC is confusing. The question in the RfC title and the question you have posed in text are the opposites of each other. I suggest you change the RfC title to a neutral statement such as "Tamils as a Stateless nation." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Tamils. 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/20131028175927/http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html to http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124105732/http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2005/01/30/fea28.html to http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2005/01/30/fea28.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617043012/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-4-98530-Strangers-to-their-roots-and-those-around-them to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-4-98530-Strangers-to-their-roots-and-those-around-them
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904034700/http://www.harappa.com/arrow/stone_celt_indus_signs.html to http://www.harappa.com/arrow/stone_celt_indus_signs.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5983_1657214%2C00430014.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201061259/http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b66_263.pdf to http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b66_263.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archaeology.lk/http%3A/www.archaeology.lk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Dinithi-Volume-1-Issue-4.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/ra-magazine/winter2006/features/heven-sent%2C47%2CRAMA.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tamils. 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://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement4.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130908091821/http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications_and_papers/cop2010/census_2010_release1/excel/t1-11.xls to http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications_and_papers/cop2010/census_2010_release1/excel/t1-11.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110319062539/http://tamilsociety.org/ to http://tamilsociety.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tamils. 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/20160209120819/http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_chp-deputy-chairman-govt-employing-sri-lanka-model-in-southeast-with-curfews_408755.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_chp-deputy-chairman-govt-employing-sri-lanka-model-in-southeast-with-curfews_408755.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160310171450/http://www.nritoday.net/community-news/207-dec-08-world-tamil-economic-conference-and-tamil-diaspora-meet-in-chennai to http://www.nritoday.net/community-news/207-dec-08-world-tamil-economic-conference-and-tamil-diaspora-meet-in-chennai
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427073449/http://www.eelavar.com/jaffna/pageview.php?ID=578&SID=119 to http://www.eelavar.com/jaffna/pageview.php?ID=578&SID=119

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kalarippayattu.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I noticed that the pronunciation given at the beginning of this article is [ˈtæmɪl]. While I have heard this pronunciation plenty of times before, I've also heard the pronunciation ['tɐmɪl] quite a lot. It's definitely an English-language pronunciation and not just the pronunciation in the Tamil language: the latter has a [ɻ] sound and what's closer to an [ʌ] sound in lieu of a [l] and an [ɐ] in the latter, respectively (among other differences).

the Oxford English Dictionary not only includes ['tɐmɪl] as correct, but does not include ['tæmɪl] as a possible pronunciation. So, at the very least one reliable source (and a very authoritative one at that) supports ['tɐmɪl] as correct pronunciation. It doesn't explicitly say ['tæmɪl] is incorrect, and I'm not saying we should remove that pronunciation. But I do think there is sufficient reason to include ['tɐmɪl] as a pronunciation as well. I also would like to make this change on other similar articles, e.g. Tamil Language (which actually has some other things wrong with its pronunciation guide, although this is probably not the right discussion page to outline them).

I doubt that the above is particularly controversial, but I'm also curious about whether or not this is a regional difference. Virtually every person I've heard say [ˈtæmɪl] has been from the UK or the US, and I virtually always hear Tamils and other Indians say ['tɐmɪl] (or occasionally ['tʌmɪl]) when speaking in English. If it is a regional difference, it could also be indicated in the article that the former is the US/UK and the latter is Indian English. But that much is just speculation, so I was wondering if anyone with more knowledge on the subject could shed some light on this so I can find some sources that might talk about the distinction? I haven't found anything about it but I only did a somewhat cursory internet search.

Thanks! Emptybathtub (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Stateless nation

The book "Encyclopedia of stateless nations" is quite explicit: for inclusion, a group must "share one important characteristic: They self-identity as a distinct people with enough cohesion to seek some sort of greater self-government". Tamils are included. So, according to the author, Tamils are a stateless nation.

Someone without an axe to grind should take a look at the previous discussions on this topic. They reek of nationalism and bias. Tewdar (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, people seem to be having severe problems with the concept of a "state", in the usual geopolitical sense of a sovereign nation-state. Tewdar (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Another (reliable, scholarly) book describing Tamils as a "stateless nation":

The Kurdish Question and Turkey: An Example of a Trans-state Ethnic Conflict By Kemal Kirişci, Kemal Kiri s ci, Gareth M. Winrow

(pg. 3) Tewdar (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Or a "nation without a state", anyway... Tewdar (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So I added it as a source. So, now there are two reliable sources. Tewdar (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So now there are FOUR reliable sources describing Tamils as a stateless nation, one of them talking about the Tamils of Sri Lanka", the others with NO such qualification.

You might not AGREE with this assessment, but it is obvious that several political scientists and others class Tamils as a stateless nation. It takes some real special pleading to conclude otherwise. Tewdar (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

And I have removed them all. Minahan is not reliable, per discussions at WP:RSN, and two others were passing mentions. The other of your four was not viewable to me but no matter - we have had umpteen discussions and an RfC about this issue and your boldness appears to run counter to past consensus. Worse, you have completely ignored WP:LEAD. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The past "consensus" was just bullying, mainly by people who had no clue about even basic concepts like "what is a state"

I agree that the disputed statement appears to violate WP:LEAD without further elaboration in the article.

Here's another reference you may like to look at:

Transnational Ethnic Dimensions of Third-Party Interventions in Civil Wars M Austvoll - annual meeting of the American Political Science association, 2006

The "theory" that Tamils are indeed a stateless nation seems to be generally accepted amongst political scientists. Certainly, it should at an absolute minimum, be mentioned in the article.

Tewdar (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

BTW Minahan's book is cited by many on Google Scholar, and was apparently reviewed by Fukuyama, though I haven't read the review. Have you? Tewdar (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it (and I am pretty new to this issue), a part of the difficulty is the semantics surrounding use of the word Tamils. Context is likely to be very important in evaluating sources. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to read Google Scholar. I do need to consider the consensus of the community, who presumably have done their due diligence. Consensus can change and you are welcome to attempt such but the book in question was, I think, demonstrated to be full of errors and the author to have no specific expertise. Check for his name in the RSN archives. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't quite know what you mean. Some sources simply describe the Tamils of Sri Lanka as a "stateless nation", as thry are obviously more visible. Others, including scholarly sources, Minahan aside, explicitly and unapologetically describle all Tamils as comprising a stateless nation.

This doesn't seem very controversial, at least outside of south Asia. Tewdar (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, if Wikipedia doesn't consider Minahan reliable, then fine. But there are lots and lots of sources, admittedly not specializing in this issue, who describe Tamil people as a stateless nation.

Again,the previous debates on this subject have been of a very poor standard, essentially of the "I don't think they are a stateless nation, so there" variety. Tewdar (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

And please, read "Transnational Ethnic Dimensions of Third-Party Interventions in Civil Wars" (M Austvoll) (page 11) - surely the American Political Science Association is a good enough source for the "community"? Tewdar (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

We do not accept passing mentions. Please consider WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

IVC

@Sitush: nor do they "largely descend" from the IVC, if I recall correctly; 75% southern hunter-gatherers, 25% IVC. Those post-Harappan folks were as intrusive to the south as the Indo-Aryans were intrusive to the north. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this related to my recent removal of the Science Direct source? - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Science Daily, but yes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Tamils are not largely descend from the IVC. Kanatonian (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I am also slightly concerned about another passage, for which the citations will need to be rescued from the history. We say

Dravidian influence on early Vedic religion is evident; many of these features are already present in the oldest known Indo-Aryan language, the language of the Rigveda (c. 1500 BCE), which also includes over a dozen words borrowed from Dravidian. This represents an early religious and cultural fusion or synthesis between ancient Dravidians and Indo-Aryans, which became more evident over time with sacred iconography, flora and fauna that went on to influence Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism

but are we conflating the Tamil ethnolinguistic group and the Dravidians here? I am weak on this but have the feeling that the two are not synonymous, although there is a relationship between them. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The actual DNA evidence from Narasimhan study shows that both the Tamil Paravar and Nadar castes are over 50% Indus periphery in ancestry. So at least for those castes, they do largely descended from the IVC. Expect the Vellalar and other Dravidian agriculturist castes (reddy, naidu, velamas etc) to have higher average Indus periphery %. And most Tamil Dalit castes to have higher AASI % than Indus periphery. Read Narasimhan study. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/292581v1.supplementary-material Metta79 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Best to ignore genetics. - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Genetics have the final say in determining descent. Its why we do genetic tests to determine parentage. This is a peer reviewed scientific source, it has more value than someone's incorrect opinion.Metta79 (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No. See the discussion currently visible at WT:INB, which also has links to past discussions. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)