Jump to content

Talk:Dravidian peoples

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 117.192.210.36 (talk) at 07:26, 26 March 2016 (→Dissimilar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Brahui are not Dravidian

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

WikiProject Dravidian civilizations

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

GA Review

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

I'll be reviewing your article. Thanks, KensplanetTalkContributions

Check out the Good article criteria here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section on Genetics

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

Image

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


80px

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

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

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

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

Etymology

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

Correction of Dravidian People Wikipedia article

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


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

Edit request from 60.254.15.52, 6 September 2010

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

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

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

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


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

Requested move

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

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

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

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

Image

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

Etymology

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

Edit request from 131.246.229.39, 16 January 2011

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

Please edit. Thanks

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

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

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

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

POV comments in genetics section

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

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

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

Call for image

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

social status of dravidians

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

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

Bhil are found in rajasthan as well

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's way too much confusion on this wiki

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

WarriorsPride6565 (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sikkim Woman.jpg

File:Sikkim woman1.jpg

File:Sikkim woman with child.jpg

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

Broken citations

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

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

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

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

entire south dravida?

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


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

fyi, austro-asiatic is a laguage family of which dravidian is not part of.--MThekkumthala (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australoids

There was a clear biased notion implemented by a POV warrior, who's name is Bodhidarma7. He insists on the Australoid nature of the Dravidians, a theory, that was long time back popular. The perception of the scholarship totally changed since then, and virtually all see them as a Caucasoid or a separated Dravidian group.--MThekkumthala (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must second this characterization of the POV warrior. For certain, many austroloid sub-groups in India speak drividian languages, while others speak austroloid languages. This is not an unusual pattern, and it supports that dravidian speakers migrated to areas where austroloid speakers existed and as a result of some cultural influence, some austroloids adopted dravidian tongues. Turkic people in Anatloia are largely not racially turkish though they speak turkish, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayak52 (talk • contribs)

The majority of Dravidian ancestry is non-Caucasoid, which is why they are classified by modern anthropologists and geneticists as Australoid. Furthermore, there is also evidence of a genetic link between Dravidians and Australian Aborigines.
Your becoming tedious. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
check your sources. they are invalid for the wordings used.--MThekkumthala (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of sourced material is censorship, troll. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you can't misreport sources, create extreme POV wordings and ignore edit summaries..all in all that's just sneaky vandalism --MThekkumthala (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of my sources clearly indicate that Dravidians are Australoids. Are you seriously claiming that Dravidians are white? LOL! The majority of their ancestry is not even related to any known ancestry, except maybe Australian Abos.

I suggest you stop wasting my time. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single ref gives this clear Australoid picture. The 1st one talks about ethno history, the second about Australoid/Negroid tribals/Adivasi who happen to speak Dravidian languages. The Vedda tribe belong to the same group and it is well known, that they spoke a language unrelated to Dravidian. And your third source is down.. --MThekkumthala (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you can't read, dunce. The sources are quoted in full at the bottom and they clearly indicate that Dravidians are Australoids. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.at/books?id=toDUP8bcauMC&pg=PA153&dq=caucasoid+dravidians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rYsIT4fJFsLtOaHsxc0K&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=caucasoid%20dravidians&f=false http://books.google.at/books?id=JODaAAAAMAAJ&q=caucasoid+dravidians&dq=caucasoid+dravidians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rYsIT4fJFsLtOaHsxc0K&redir_esc=y http://books.google.at/books?id=kt1Rp1eXRxoC&pg=PA27&dq=caucasoid+dravidians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rYsIT4fJFsLtOaHsxc0K&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=caucasoid%20dravidians&f=false http://books.google.at/books?id=ewE9AAAAMAAJ&q=caucasoid+dravidians&dq=caucasoid+dravidians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rYsIT4fJFsLtOaHsxc0K&redir_esc=y http://books.google.at/books?id=i7ayFbhJ9GcC&pg=PA26&dq=caucasoid+dravidians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rYsIT4fJFsLtOaHsxc0K&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=caucasoid%20dravidians&f=false

and many more --MThekkumthala (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

they are very clear in separating Dravidians and Australoids.--MThekkumthala (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the latest and most comprehensive genetic research, as the section is entitled "genetic anthropology" and all of this unanimously identifies Dravidians as Australoid or Proto-Australoid. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already informed you about Australoid tribes who speak Dravidian. I know you ignore this intentionally to get your vandal behaviourism through. Your sources are totally invalid to attribute the Dravidian people the Australoid race. --MThekkumthala (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And of course you can't simply ignore the sources I've provided for the identification of the Dravidian race. They are not from 19th century --MThekkumthala (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the Australoid race is confined to southern India and the majority of these speak Dravidian languages, then what race are they? Chinese? African? French? This is becoming ridiculous. Historical views of Indian race have already been included, so its difficult to see what your driving at here. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the tribes remain Australoid by race, even when they talk in Dravidian languages.What's the problem in all this? You can't bear the truth, that the Dravidians were an ancient Elite society. --MThekkumthala (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that Australoids are mostly found in the South? as far as i know they are mostly in central and east India.--MThekkumthala (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a map, where you see the Australoids very nicely: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080425/images/25zzmix2big.jpg They mostly speak Austro-Asiatic languages, but also Dravidian and Indo-Aryan. --MThekkumthala (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you wonder why I say you can't read? The Indian Genetic Variation Consortium (2005, 2008) clearly indicates that the population of southern, central and western India is majority Australoid. Elite society has nothing to do with it. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't INDICATE that the south is majority Australoid. They say, the Australoids are majorily confined to the South, West Central.--MThekkumthala (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it.. i'm going to get help. --MThekkumthala (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Caucasoids are mostly concentrated in the northern region of the country, which means that the majority of the population is Caucasoid, as the accompanying maps and separate genetic differences between the Indo-Aryan North and the Dravidian South also indicate. Are you really this stupid? Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and what do they say about Dravidians? --MThekkumthala (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who live in the south are Australoids and most of the languages spoken there are Dravidian. You make the connection. Southern Indians cluster genetically with Tamils, a well-known Dravidian-speaking Australoid group. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I give nothing on your personal opinion. That study is contradicting itself anyway. First they "Australoids" live in west south and central, but only draws the map with South and East?? totally nonsense invalid descrption alltogether. --MThekkumthala (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my personal opinion, it's what the research indicates. The distribution of genetic differences between Indo-Aryans and Dravidians is similar to the racial distribution of Caucasoids and Australoids. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also not forget that autosomal evidence indicates that south Indians and Tamils, an Australoid racial group and one of the largest ethnic groups in India, cluster with each other, away from Indo-Europeans. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no, you indicate it for yourself. Dravidians are a different race. That is clearly written in my sources without any input of my own . and i let books speak about Tamils also. As said before your own opinion has no value --MThekkumthala (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I indicate nothing. My research indicates that Dravidians are a separate race. From one study:

Based on morpholinguistic classification of the Indian population (4): Caucasoid=Indo-European (Rajputs), Mongoloid=Tibeto-Burman (Gorkhas) and Australoid=Dravidian (South Indians) subtypes.

From the second study:

... Population groups inhabiting Tamil Nadu have the distinction of belonging to the Dravidian linguistic family and are predominantly of Australoid ethnicity ... In the study reported here, we attempt to verify the indigenous origin of the Dravidian linguistic group represented by the three endogamous Australoid groups from Tamil Nadu as a separate genetic pool and analyze the extent of diversity and gene flow among them using autosomal microsatellite markers ... The NJ dendrogram also suggests a strong association between the migrant Indian population in United Arab Emirates and Dravidian populations of India [including all 3 Tamil populations in Fig.3], which can be expected since a considerable number of the southern Indian Dravidians reside in the Emirates. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said twice, that there Dravidian speaking Australoids, who live in the South. That doesn't say anything about the people of Dravidian racial stock.--MThekkumthala (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can believe whatever you want. I'll just stick with the evidence, which indicates that ASI ancestry, found predominantly in Dravidians, is related to no other ancestry in the world. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so you having no definite source for your claims for the Dravidian race, only wishful thinking that ANI equates Aryans, but ignore my sources completely.--MThekkumthala (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, my claims are easily sourced, such as in this genetics paper: Since in the current ethnohistoric literature the terms Caucasoid and Proto-Australoid are commonly used to indicate Indo-Aryan and Dravidian ancestry, in this paper we will use the terminology of Caucasoid for Indo-Aryan and Proto-Australoid for Dravidian interchangeably.

Also, Reich et al. (2009) clearly indicates that ASI is found predominantly in Dravidians. As was explained before.

ANI ancestry is significantly higher in Indo-European than Dravidian speakers, suggesting that the ancestral ASI may have spoken a Dravidian language before mixing with the ANI.

Anyway, this conversation is over as I am finished repeating myself. 

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnohistory is as the term indicates history. There is a Cavalli Sforza genetical study, which clearly shows, that Dravidians mostly have Caucasoid affinities. This is a pictural representation: http://bp1.blogger.com/_h5L0bq0pIhY/R_ihGPYvP4I/AAAAAAAAA4U/zw72jacULrE/s1600-h/ce3.gif Now you have been exposed. haha jeaulous pakis..--MThekkumthala (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was 1994, numbnuts. Let's see what more recent studies have to say:
According to Bamshad et. al. (2002): To test whether samples from India could be distinguished in an analysis of samples from all three continents, we added samples from Africa and reanalyzed the data. This time, the best estimate of K was 3, and the assignment to the correct population was >98% for samples from sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and Europe. The samples from southern India were assigned predominantly to the cluster of East Asians (84%), though some of them (16%) were assigned to the cluster containing Europeans.
According to Watkins et al. (2003): A two-dimensional principal components plot of the 31 populations (Fig. 4A) demonstrates clustering of the African, E. Asian, and European populations, with the Indian caste populations located between the E. Asian and European populations (as in the network in Fig. 3).
Indians are intermediate between east Asians and Europeans, with south Indians (Dravidians) being closely related to east Asians. Dravidians cluster genetically with traditionally Australoid populations such as Tamils, as has already been demonstrated. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No mentions of Tamils in those studies.. only tribes..vandal --MThekkumthala (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the contested portions on Australoids and Negritos

Its odd how once one editor is blocked for edit warring over the section on Australoid connections, another one appears with the same sort of edits.

The portions being restored by various editors from around the world and being removed by different South Indian editors (who either do not participate in the talk pages or start off by accusing others of POV pushing):

  • Additionally, this portion has been altered by Nayak52 to exclude the Negrito population from the mix by re-interpreting a line explaining their geographic location.

a source which (when the correct link is loaded) says "Our analyses suggest that major ANI-ASI mixture occurred in the ancestors of both northern and southern Indians 1,200-3,500 years ago, overlapping the time when Indo-European languages first began to be spoken in the subcontinent." MThekkumthala removed "In the same period as the ANI's first appeared," as if the ANIs were not Indo-Aryan (which you changed to Aryan). The original edit was more in line with the sources, MThekkumthala's curiously left out odd bits of information.

These points are sourced. Removal or alteration of them requires sourced explanations for why these sources are incorrect. Any removal or alteration without discussion will be seen as racial-political POV-pushing and nothing more.

Ian.thomson (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Explanation: The source states "The ‘‘Caucasoid’’ and ‘‘Mongoloid’’ populations are mainly concentrated in the north and northeastern parts of the country. The ‘‘Australoids’’ are mostly confined to the central, western and southern India, while the ‘‘Negritos’’ are restricted only to the Andaman Islands (CavalliSforza et al. 1994) (Fig. 1)."
  • Explanation: This statement from a single paper refers to the paper's own use of this categorization. It does not substantiaite the categorization in any way other than in claiming that ethnohistoric literature also classifies it this way. This is dubious and unfounded, and does not substantiate that "Dravidians are generally classified" this way.

-Explanation: The source is a study of three caste communities in Tamil Nadu, it does not cover the state state as a whole. Also, the fact that austroloid racial communities are linguistically dravidian is not unusual, and the adoption of dravidian languages by some of the austroloid tribes may also be observed in Orissa and other parts of India. This does not amount to the larger Dravidian group having an Austroloid racial identification. It is a misleading statement. The fact that Dravidian and Austroloid languages are entirely distinct and no source connects the two is telling (If any such source exists, the POV pushers on this topic would surely have used it already.) The strongest (though unsubstantiated) linguisitc connection with Dravidian languages links them to the language of the Elamite people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayak52 (talk • contribs)

Please do not thread posts (or else it will look like I wrote that portion), and please sign your posts. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General question

How can somebody classify a people with quotation marks. I'm refering to the source http://www.imtech.res.in/raghava/reprints/IGVdb.pdf. This is inappropriate for a serious classification. It was obviously intended to solve the problem of two similar and major, but different morphological types in India. There are more sources, which classify Dravidians as Caucasoids anyway. --MThekkumthala (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm expecting a reaction by Thomson --MThekkumthala (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{rfc|soc}} :This discussion is about, whether Dravidians are generally classified as Australoid or not. There have been historical accounts (19th century), where Dravidians were seen as Australoid, which changed during the time to Caucasoid, which has been supported by modern geneticist accounts. There are different users on wikipedia, who challenge the modern view and say, they are generally seen as Australoid, which has not been clearly supported by the sources they came with. In contrast, we have innummerable sources, who declare the Dravidians as either an own racial stock or Caucasoid, while some trible people, who speak Dravidian today, are indeed Australoids by ancestry. Please see also previous discussions. --MThekkumthala (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mthekkumthala, you can't just add an RfC tag and say "see previous discussions." You need to explain specifically what the question is that you're asking other editors to consider. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mthekkumthala, I'm sorry I actually have a life beyond this site and cannot serve you at your every summon and call, O great rishi! I'm going to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts about this mess. The information you're presenting is often counter to all the sources I've seen (including sources I've seen before this started), and you've rarely presented any reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I just declined a request for full protection, in part because the editor requesting full protection had just made a major edit to the article, and that smacked of trying to intentionally protect xyr version. But at this point, I feel more like blocking than protecting, so you all better cut it out. Have a discussion here, get consensus, and if you can't do it yourselves, use dispute resolution. If you need help knowing where to go for more input, I will be happy to help. If you just want to edit war to the version you're sure is correct, well, I have buttons for that. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then protect the wrong version, this what admins will do to avoid biasing towards the lateset version. The idea is to calm down the situation not to protect one version versus the other. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian, you obviously can't read for someone with a mickey mouse degree in rhetoric. My improvements were merely grammatical ("major edit"?!), apart from that, I merely restored an older version of the passage which had been up for months, before it was deleted for no good reason by Mthekkumathala and a number of other trolls, for obvious racial and political reasons.

You shouldn't wade into what you do not understand. And for your info, this edit war is entirely the fault of Mthekkumathala and co., who refuse to use a talk page to work out differences. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic anthropology section needs updating

This paper and its findings are directly related to the section: Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 89, Issue 6, 731-744, 9 December 2011

Combining our results with other available genome-wide data, we show that Indian populations are characterized by two major ancestry components, one of which is spread at comparable frequency and haplotype diversity in populations of South and West Asia and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50% of the ancestry in Indian populations. Haplotype diversity associated with these South Asian ancestry components is significantly higher than that of the components dominating the West Eurasian ancestry palette. Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP."

Ofcourse we dont have to put the large conclusion except the main gist, like: A later 2011 study by Metspalu et al. On South Asian population have found both the ancestral components to be older and incompatible with the purported Indo-aryan invasion 3500 YBP[1][2].

References

  1. ^ http://www.cell.com/AJHG/fulltext/S0002-9297(11)00488-5
  2. ^ http://www.sananews.net/english/2011/12/more-than-50-pc-of-south-asians-have-indian-ancestry-study/

Nirjhara (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General note on "Genetic anthropology"

There are lots of sentences, which claim "racial mixing" has happened in India. No such claim is made in any of the cited sources. Instead they talk about ancient genetic mixture, with consideration of newer mixtures, which they try to put in racial categories in an amateurish style. I have read a 2011 gbook, where a modern African "specialist" claims, that original Dravidians were of the Negroid (yes the true African type) stock with "Asian influence". What made my day was, when I read one of the genes papers cited here, that claims, that overall Dravidian speaker show very strong affinities, indicating a separate Dravidian race. This chapter mixes professional genetics with amateurish racialism. There should be separate sections for them, else it will remain a mixed bag of mental cases and real professionals, which is very disrespectful to those scientists.--Ancienzus (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to believe that you may be completely correct. In general, I find thing half or more "genetic analyses" are nothing other than racist crap. They're based on small studies with dubious research methodology. Having said that, we need to know exactly what is wrong with the specific papers you are removing. If you could explain here why they are wrong, and what sources you have that show that, we can remove them. Alternatively, if any given source does not meet WP:RS, we could remove it. For instance, if the sources are only front-line scientific analyses, then they're primary sources, and should probably be removed. Could you discuss here what exactly is wrong with each part? Again, please understand, I think I probably agree with your actual position, but I also believe that Wikipedia works best when we do things based on our policies, not based on our own opinions. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dravidian people on the basis of language ? Why ? Dravidian people should be classified on the basis of the region. Thats is Dravida kingdom or region, people belonging to those regions.

Mahabharata links the origin of Dravidas with sage Vasistha. Viswamitra, a king in the Ikshwaku clan, attacked the cow of Vasistha. Then many armies emerged for the protection of that cow and they attacked the armies of Viswamitra. Cow symbolizes land, in ancient Indian scriptures. Thus this war was fought with the tribes allied with Vasista for their own land. Other tribes that were mentioned along with the Dravidas in this incident were Sakas, Yavanas, Savaras, Kanchis, Paundras and Kiratas, Yavanas and Sinhalas, and the barbarous tribes of Khasas, Chivukas, Pulindas, Chinas and Hunas with Keralas, and numerous other Mlechchhas. (1,177)

From the list it seems that it is a compiled list of tribes formerly unknown to the Vedic Kingdoms.

From bharat varsha, In the south, are the Dravidas, the Keralas, the Prachyas, the Mushikas, and the Vanavashikas; the Karanatakas, the Mahishakas, the Vikalpas, and also the Mushakas; the Jhillikas, the Kuntalas...(6,9) Dravidas are the great warriors — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeeHuan1023 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who links these Dravida with the Dravidian people? See WP:RS for the sorts of sources we need. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad theory

Why is the article spreading wrong information as theory that has no basis other than 19th century misinformations?

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-09-25/india/28107253_1_incidence-of-genetic-diseases-indians-tribes



There is explicite denial of this 19th century ignorant divide that must have come out of ignorant people from some tribal lands.

sindhi dravidians

I just want to ask some questions that history reveals that the dravidian culture was originated from moen jo daro the great Indus valley civilization..... so why there is no classification about that..... secondly history reveals that due to the Aryans attack on indus valley's northern boundries currently punjab province of pakistan as well as punjab of india, dehli and some regions of bengal, the dravidian were pushed toward south in the the great Sindh, current province of pakistan, and the southern parts of the great Indus valley now called india.... history also reveals that because of aryan attack the dravidian language of moen jo darro was divided into 16 differnt languages among which are Sindhi, ooddki, Tamil and others.... some of dravidian languages are still spoken among the tribes of great Sindh named as jat, jogi, sami, oodd and bhel, each along with their own accent.... these tribes date back to the period of moen jo darro....

all I want to say that why the indians are sealing the history of others... they are neglecting the fact that all of us the dravidian are from the Great Sindh (Indus valley)... so its my requet to review this article so as the reader may know the real history... thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.52.154.146 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 (UTC)[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, and caste should not be emphasized knowing how sensitive this would be, it will only create conflicts.

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=712000285"