Talk:Dravida Nadu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Tamil Nadu (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in March 2012.


Untitled[edit]

This was a real misleading by the user Vikram singh. This is so nasty article to break India. And it is another cheat by North Indians by giving the name STAN Instead of Nadu.

Dravida Nadu, Dravida Desham etc are correct. But I never give importance to this article and it have to delete from Wikipedia. Other wise it will make problems in south India. The Back bone of India is South India.

We are Indians. South Indians are real Indians. we reached to South India from river Indus. Thus there is no South India. Only India. Great India. Selavaraj 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dravidistan[edit]

Accoring to Wikipedia policies, an article may be marked for deletion only if it is either blatent vandalism, nonsense, advertisement or copyright violation. This article does not meet any of these criteria. If you have problems with the name and want to call it Dravida Nadu then raise this in the article talk page and let the community decide.

This article documents a true event in the history of Tamil Nadu. Your arguments that it will somehow influence Indian unity is bogus and is not a concern of Wikipedia. - Parthi talk/contribs 09:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Request you to pl. change the article's name to DravidaNadu. The current article is written in a half-backed manner perhaps with an agenda. It is akin to writing that NSCN fights for a (NagaNadu/Naga-Istan/NagaRashtra/or any other word I fancy) instead of 'NagaLim' which is correct.I wonder why a die-hard anti-hindi rebel would suggest an 'ISTAN' first place . There are no references to this 'newly invented' name from any reliable source to cite. On the contrary, 'DravidaNadu' is used extensively in the writings of EVR and Anna. Even by wiki's policy, this creative naming amounts to Nonsense. Shame on Wikipedia that some people can hijack these articles and not allow any change to it. I would expect atleast the moderators to be knowledgeable of the topics they seek to control. Sure the article has the right to exist, but with proper, correct name. Free Wikipedia from stuffing malinfo.

thanks.

Reverts[edit]

The following statements are being reverted over:

  1. This movement was largely based upon racial elements of the so called Aryan Invasion Theory propounded by Orientalists such as Max Mueller and Robert Caldwell
  2. there is no clear racial dividing line between north and south India
  3. Many north Indians are dark-skinned and many south Indians, even among non-Brahmins can be light skinned

Statement (1) is common knowledge, though I agree the involvement of Caldwell etc. needs to be cited. So the statement should stay. (2) is also true, I don't think there's any proven genetic differences, so we should keep it. (3) is trivial and irrelevant so that can be deleted. Please discuss if you disagree. Lotlil 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree on all three points.Gnanapiti 17:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The last revert was done by the troll who was just wikistalking me meaninglessly reverting my edits. Gnanapiti 17:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Gnanapiti, I think all of us will be lot more productive if we save the name-calling, though I have been guilty of doing so too. Let's wait till Wikiraja responds to this thread, before making the next edit. Lotlil 18:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lotlil and to add, I also think that this article needs to be merged and redirected to either E. V. Ramasami Naicker or Tamil Nadu politics or some such thing. Dravidistan was a short lived dementia of a deluded few and is certainly not important enough to merit its own article per WP:UNDUE. P.C.Alexander also writes it off as a non-starter. Sarvagnya 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about undue in this case; this is the single worst 'ideology' that has plagued TN this past century, your favorite subject pales in significance compared to what this movement eventually achieved, though indirectly. I feel this article needs to be expanded. Lotlil 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. This is part of a greater 'design' and should be explained in that context. That is why I proposed the merge. As for 'Lemuria', well.. being the 'fountainhead' of all the nonsense(of which "dravidistan" is a minor footnote) it probably is more significant than you think. Another reason that I think this article deserves to be merged is because, I cant see how anybody can expand this triviality. If and when they do, we certainly can split it off into a 'dedicated' article. I havent come across any serious mainstream RS sources that discuss Dravidistan exclusively. otoh, there's plenty of bonafide research out there which treat kumari kandam/lemuria at length(only to debunk it, of course). The way I see it, this article has no hopes of growing beyond a stub. Anyway, I leave it to consensus and dont intend to push it any more. Sarvagnya 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The article was biased towared the Dravidians aren't a race point of view, so I reverted it on this edit. The introduction of Max Mueller as one of the first proponents of the Dravidian theory was added to discredit the idea that Dravidians are a race. Max Mueller appears to be an Out of India advocate and concludes the Dravidians are dark Aryans rather than a separate conquered race. Calling the Aryan invasion theory "so called" is one of the prohibited words that serves to discredit the Aryan Invasion point of view. Although there may be no clear physical distinction between North and South Indians, the addition of this statement is a straw man. I don't believe people with the point of view Dravidians are a race deny that there has been mixing across the Dravidian speakers and the Indo-European speakers over the last 2000 years. They just believe the Dravidian speakers have more Dravidian ancestry in general while the Indo-European speakers have more Aryan ancestry in general. Of course there are exceptions, the Brahmin men and other high caste men crossed caste lines to marry low-caste Dravidian women, blurring the Dravidian and Aryan races among the high caste. High caste Brahmins and others who violated the status quo were demoted to the low-castes. The addition of the information about light-skinned low castes is another strawman of the Out of India Camp against the Aryan Invasion Camp.----DarkTea© 21:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you an academic expert? Didn't think so. Your statements are original research. There is little to no discrepancy in foreign DNA between Brahmins and other castes. The Brahmins are not some foreign invader group that subjugated the "native Dravidians" or Dravidistan. The Brahmins are really just as Tamil as Vellalas, Nadar, etc. The only difference is that Brahmins were at the top of the hierarchy and other high caste individuals such as Periyar despised Brahmins for various reasons, this is a known fact.Bakaman 03:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
My statements are regarding a neutral point of view for the article. The Aryan Invasion version of the history of the caste system is not original research when it is not included in the article. The link you provided does not refute the Aryan Invasion theory. It says that high castes and low castes are different genetically, bolstering the Aryan Invasion theory.----DarkTea© 03:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It is OR because it is your opinion. The link debunks the AIT on a genetic level, noting that discrepancies of DNA between castes are minuscule.Bakaman 04:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
As it was, the article was biased in favor of the Out of India Theory. There has been no original research on my part.----DarkTea© 04:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Gnanapiti: Please refrain from name calling and personal attacks, as it is self damaging in the end. If you are unhappy with certain edits, explain so in a civil matter. Furthermore, please read up on Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you. Wiki Raja 05:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merger to Tamil Nationalism[edit]

This article seems to be a less researched and more biased variant of Tamil Nationalism. I propose that it's contents be merged with the former. Kingsley Joseph (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It also seems apparent that the use of the term "Dravidistan" to refer to the Tamil sepratst movements seems to have very few sources. The proponents of the movement seem to have used the term "Dravida Nadu" or "Dravida Desa" to describe their proposed nation. A removal of the term "Dravidistan" would also be appropriate.
Tamil nationalism may refer to Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism, which is completely different. What in the article seems "less research based" or "more biased" to you? This article has better sources, both in terms of number and quality (scholarly research papers and books published by third parties). The move to "Dravida Nadu" can be considered, though; the term Dravidistan was mostly used by non-Tamil speakers (such as Muslim League politicians), I suppose. utcursch | talk 10:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Brahmin / non-Brahmin[edit]

Currently the lead states it was a state proposed for "non-Brahmins" and provides two offline references. can anyone please paste here what exactly the reference says?. Because, in the early 40s, the JP/DK was forced to clarify that they won't exclude brahmins from Dravida nadu and after 1949 DMK did not state anything about caste based exclusion.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the relevant sentence should be changed to something like "The concept had its root in a movement whose aim was to end the alleged Brahmin dominance in the Tamil society". utcursch | talk 15:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Periyar with Jinnah and Ambedkar.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Periyar with Jinnah and Ambedkar.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 November 2011
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.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Names of People[edit]

It is very silly to refer to people by the "cult" names given by devotional bhakthas. A case in point is E.V.Ramasamy naicker. It is ridiculous to keep referring to him as Periyar , when others have different opinions about him. So, if the name Periyar is used instead of E.V.Ramasamy , then Siriyar is equally good since that is the view of ordinary, rational, non-Bhaktha people. Refer to any individual by their ordinary name , and not by by adulatory titles. It will only invite other non-adulatory nick names — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.76.99 (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

PAKHIGHWAY's edits[edit]

PAKHIGHWAY:

  • The following references added by you make no reference of Dravida Nadu: [1][2][3][4][5][6]
  • The following are not WP:RS - [7][8][9][10]
  • The others only mention that some Twitter users trended the hashtag #DravidaNadu, which is not same as the Dravida Nadu movement. Adding 3 large paragraphs on this is WP:UNDUE. Not to mention that you conveniently left out the part that mentions that major political parties refused to support these users.

Wikipedia is not a place to spread your anti-India rhetoric. utcursch | talk 15:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)