Jump to content

Talk:Dravidian peoples: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Austroasiatic link: adding reflist
Line 127: Line 127:


:::::* '''Better wording''' : According to Basu et al. (2016), the ASI are earliest settlers in India, possibly arriving on the [[Peopling_of_the_world|southern exit]] during [[peopling of the world]].{{sfn|Basu|2016}} [[Special:Contributions/117.192.210.36|117.192.210.36]] ([[User talk:117.192.210.36|talk]]) 18:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::* '''Better wording''' : According to Basu et al. (2016), the ASI are earliest settlers in India, possibly arriving on the [[Peopling_of_the_world|southern exit]] during [[peopling of the world]].{{sfn|Basu|2016}} [[Special:Contributions/117.192.210.36|117.192.210.36]] ([[User talk:117.192.210.36|talk]]) 18:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


::: Hi JJ, the "Austro-Asiatic people" in Basu (2016) are just the present-day speakers of [[Austroasiatic languages]], nothing more and nothing less. The hypothesized AAA are the ancestral population of these speakers. There is no reference whatsoever to the 19th century idea of "Australoid" people. According to Basu (2016), both the ASI and the AAA were part of the original "Out of Africa" migrations, but they don't say how they got distinguished later. - [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 16:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::: Hi JJ, the "Austro-Asiatic people" in Basu (2016) are just the present-day speakers of [[Austroasiatic languages]], nothing more and nothing less. The hypothesized AAA are the ancestral population of these speakers. There is no reference whatsoever to the 19th century idea of "Australoid" people. According to Basu (2016), both the ASI and the AAA were part of the original "Out of Africa" migrations, but they don't say how they got distinguished later. - [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 16:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:41, 26 March 2016

Former good article nomineeDravidian peoples was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed

Mythology?

Shouldn't in this article the fact be mentioned, that according to Srimad Bhagavatam 8.24.13 the Manu Vaivasvata, son of the sungod Surya, brother of Yama and founder of the vedic ("aryan") society in India after the great flood, is called "the king of Dravida"? That this contradicts the "Arian Invasion Theory" must not be mentioned explicidly.--87.178.207.98 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ETHYMOLOGY

In Ukranian and Russian
 ancient is DREVNI. 
Because Eastern-Iranics Jas,Ossetians,alans,Sarmatians,Scythians lived in  Ukraine
modern East Slavic has 40% of it's words ethymologically related to the Indo-Iranian languages including Sanskrit .
Dravidians  in Sanskrit means the Ancient ones .Edelward (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which has nothing to do with the actual etymology of drāviḍa - how could it? A Sanskrit word cannot have been derived from Ukrainian or Russian. If you want to talk about the etymology of DREVNI you are on the wrong page. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Dravidian peoples

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 Dravidian peoples'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 "Sengupta2006":

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⚡ 13:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamils

I understand that Tamils may be the most 'proud' people who are dravidian, but that doesn't mean you should flood the people infobox with tamil people. For example, Thiruvallar is put first in the infobox (and although he may be great), he was the father of Tamil literature etc. However, Adi Shankaracarya was an Indian saint known all over India known for his principles of Advaita which changed Hinduism to what it is today. That is one example. Subramaniya Bharti was a tamil poet, (significant in Tamil Nadu), but not very known and important outside of it. Keep in mind that Tamils are not the only Dravidian peoples, and if anything, are possibly the furthest in genetics to the actual 'Dravidian' people from the middle east who brought the language over. There must be diversity represented by this infobox as that is the purpose of it. It actually looks extremely unorganized and ridiculous as of now, especially how it was said earlier that Dravidian history begins with tamil history. It is mentioned that the Katar is a 'Tamil' Dagger, while it is not said that Kalaripayattu is a martial art of Kerala.Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is way too much of the Tamil POV in this article. ManofManyTrophies (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Dravidian peoples

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 Dravidian peoples'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 "Kumar":

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⚡ 18:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pandian never mentioned as Dramira in stated sources

I verified the sources stated in wiki for Dramira which mentioned Pandian. But 3 sources quoted in wiki never mentioned Pandiya as Dramira. So I am going to remove those contents related to Pandian of Dramira. The links for 3 sources given below.

  1. Strabo Volume 15, Chapter 1, Section 4 [1]
  2. Strabo Volume 15, Chapter 1, Section [2]
  3. The cyclopædia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia By Edward Balfour [3] --Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scytho-Dravidian people of Maharashtra

This article does not talk anything about the existence of Scytho-Dravidians of Maharashtra. I am adding a passing note with credible evidence. Kindly check the below URLs. My only request - discuss on this page before making abrupt changes. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=LnoREHdzxt8C&pg=PA31&dq=scytho+dravidian+maratha&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAGoVChMIl5nD0YD6yAIVxsamCh0SDgSd#v=onepage&q=scytho%20dravidian%20maratha&f=false https://books.google.co.in/books?id=8WNEcgMr11kC&pg=PA71&dq=scytho+dravidian+maratha&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAmoVChMIl5nD0YD6yAIVxsamCh0SDgSd#v=onepage&q=scytho%20dravidian%20maratha&f=false

Amit20081980 User talk:Amit20081980 09:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dissimilar

Reci et al. does not say

"... (ASI) who are distinct from ANI and dissimilar to all other known populations outside South Asia." diff

What it does say is

"the ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other" (p.489)

and

" India contains deep-rooted lineages that share no common ancestry with groups outside of South Asia for tens of thousands of years." (p.489)

That's something different. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly! My point is ASI is restricted to South Asia, which you can see on Harrapa Ancestry Project and various other admixture calculators on Anthrogenica. I think you seem to have mistaken that i said ANI is restricted to South Asia. But, it should be mentioned that ASI is unique and restricted to South Asia. 117.192.210.83 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another point, when you vaguely state ASI being "clearly distinct from ANI" without having to explain who ASI are related to or not related to only brings up more questions. It's important to state that ASI is unique to South Asia or that they're not related to groups outside South Asia.117.192.210.83 (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reich does not say that ASI is "restricted" to South Asia; they say that the Indian population is build up from two ancestral components. We report what the sources say; the rest is WP:OR. And yes, that rings up more questions; so what? That's how science works! Basu et al. (2016), though, have got something more to say on ASI:
"The absence of significant resemblance with any of the neighboring populations is indicative of the ASI and the AAA being early settlers in India, possibly arriving on the “southern exit” wave out of Africa. Differentiation between the ASI and the AAA possibly took place after their arrival in India." (p.1598)
So, Basu does say something like "dissimilar," but, in regard to the "neighboring populations." They also say that the ASI may have been (or descend from) the first settlers in India. I've added a note. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but ASI is unique to South Asia, if it was wide spread then it would show up in European or African admixture calculators but it does not.
Even Moorjani et al. (2013) states that : "Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent."117.192.210.36 (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC) / — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannadiga (talk • contribs) 06:36, 26 March 2016[reply]
"not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent" is not the same as "dissimilar to all other known populations outside South Asia." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reich et al. (2009):

" One, the ‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other."

And please, don't remove sourced info as you did in these two edits diff diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regrading this- "Northern Indians and higher castes are more related to Eurasian and Caucasian people, while southern Indians and lower castes are less related to Eurasian and Caucasian people." :- The wording (Eurasian & Caucasian) is strange when it should be West Eurasian while Eurasian can mean anyone from Asia & Europe, and caste should not be emphasized knowing how sensitive this would be, it will only create conflicts.
Better wording - "Northern Indians are more related to West Eurasians, while southern Indians are less related to West Eurasians." 117.192.210.36 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another point : "According to Basu et al. (2016), the ASI are related to the "Australasians", the earliest settlers of India." I can't find source for this, and Australasians or Papuans do not show ASI admixture in calculators but Austroasiatic would be more appropriate term to use here. We still do not know who ASI is other than this component being restricted to South Asia, see conversation here[1] and here as well [2] Please do not classify people into racial types. 117.192.210.36 (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4965-POST-EURASIA-14-RESULTS
  2. ^ http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3539-Eurogenes-K13-Results
You're right; Basu also uses the word "Austroasiatic". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you also removed again sourced content: "higher castes," "lower castes." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention why, see highlighted "Regrading this" - "caste should not be emphasized knowing how sensitive this would be, it will only create conflicts." especially, considering current political scenario, do show some sensitivity. 117.192.210.36 (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything "insensitive" in the content you deleted. We don't cover up facts in the name of some imagined social good. It is not our job to do so. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcrose not, there is nothing to cover up but it can still be explained better without having to use highercaste/lowercaste terminology as it will cause conflicts, i'm sure you know that. "Northern Indians are more related to West Eurasians, while southern Indians are less related to West Eurasians." is accurate and not demeaning. 117.192.210.36 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the same edit, you changed the link from Australoid race to Austroasiatic languages. I can understand why, but this is not about languages, but about genes and peoples. I've changed the links again, to Negritos, which is the AAA we're talking about here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think linking to Austroasiatic languages fine. We seem to have close correlations between language families and the genes. We should definitely not link to the old racial types such as Australoid and Negrito, unless we have RS that do such linking. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not fine. I absolutely dislike this term Negrito, but ASI and AAA is not about languages, but about people. The Austroasiatic languages article says nithing about migrations. If "Austroasiatic" is a better term, and used by WP:RS, then we could move that article. But... Lipson et al. (2014), including David Reich, used the term as recent as 2014 in Nature. And Aghakhanian et al. (2015), Unravelling the Genetic History of Negritos and Indigenous Populations of Southeast Asia, was published by Genome Biology and Evolution, Oxford Journals. So it seems the be a quite common term. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to remove it until we have better clarification in the future, we still don't know who the ASI were. See here, people are still discussing to find it's component and admixture. [1] What you added in the note regrading ASI "possibly arriving on the “southern exit” wave out of Africa." is better explained than racial classification. I have removed "According to Basu et al. (2016), the ASI are related to the Austroasiatics, the earliest settlers of India.[2]" as Basu does not mention it being Negritos but Austroasiatics. The note you have added is better explained and we should keep that. 117.192.210.36 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4425-Looking-for-ASI
  2. ^ a b Basu 2016.
Hi JJ, the "Austro-Asiatic people" in Basu (2016) are just the present-day speakers of Austroasiatic languages, nothing more and nothing less. The hypothesized AAA are the ancestral population of these speakers. There is no reference whatsoever to the 19th century idea of "Australoid" people. According to Basu (2016), both the ASI and the AAA were part of the original "Out of Africa" migrations, but they don't say how they got distinguished later. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hided contents

At the talkpage, the table of contents is contained within the to do list, and collapsed. At the main page, the TOC is also collpased. Which template is being used here, and where? And how can we get back to the standard display, both for the talkpage and for the main article? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the issue with the Table of Contents on the talkpage being part of the to do list, by forcing it lower on the page. Generally table of contents are made automatically by the system. The collapsed TOC issue I think may be something on your end as they are both showing fine on mine, perhaps a setting or you may have collapsed them prior and it has remembered the setting. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mcmatter: thanks! A "remembered setting" does indeed seem to have caused my second problem. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dravidian_peoples&oldid=712067542"