Talk:Kumari Kandam

Redirection

I've just redirected Kumari kandam (lowercase) here. It contained the same barely legible and at times incoherent text inserted here by 61.247.245.72 (talk · contribs), which I've also reverted. If someone more patient and knowledgeable is able to extract additional information from that, feel free to check the history. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

I made some minor modifications in this page today. Very, very little is really known about the legend and lots of additions have been made over the millennia, but I think I have managed to modify or add a bit to what was here before.

--Anup Ramakrishnan 16:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hoax removal

I have removed the reference to tamilguardian.co.uk. This was a literal hoax by the 'great' Graham Hancock and the single irregular, shapeless structure off the coast of Poompuhar has been proven to be a natural rock formation by conventional oceanographers more than three years back. Numerous such structures have been found all over Asia, Africa, Europe and North America at similar and even greater depths.

Anup Ramakrishnan 01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Myth vs fact

Kumari Kandam is a myth. Claims about it are unverifiable (not merely unverified). I have added the OR tag to it, since unverifiable content is considered Wikipedia:OR. Discuss here if you disagree... ॐ Kris 07:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Kumari Kandam is a myth. And the myth has been explained according to what is available in the epics Silappathikaram and Manimekalai. In fact, the article starts out by indicating that it is a 'legendary' landmass. As long as the subject is notable, and the article is clear in indicating that it is a myth, I think it's fine. Are we going to purge WP of all articles related to myths?

Also, I think what is in the article is mostly what is in the epics (except for the map etc). So, I don't see why the article was tagged with OR. --Madhu 17:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Madhu. There is nothing called unverifiable legends. When its agreed that its a myth there is no need of the WP:OR tag. I am removing it since there had not been a reply to Madhu for a month now and in case if someone else is concerned please do not catergorise me removing the tag as vandalism and discuss it here. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 14:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is in response to the removal of some references and period of antiquity by User:Dougweller. If it did, it had to long ago due to continental drift. Whereas that mountains of land had sunk with sages and literature is true and mentioned in literature, the time-period and magnitude of land submerged may be unverifyable but the Kandam certainly did not exist in the past 2009 years. Also, a legend or myth is a "STORY" with happenings in the realm of possibitlity but is untrue and is not descibe a real happening. Existence of Kumari Kandam in the past could be true/ untrue/ true to some extent, but it is certainly not a legend. 59.92.54.209 (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Legends aren't necessarily untrue - I have not idea where you got the idea that they must be untrue. And, as it happens, the only accounts we have of Kumari Kandam are legends. Describing it is a legendary continent is perfectly appropriate. -- Arvind (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am quoting from Silappadhikaram: "பஹ்ருளி ஆற்றுடன் பன்மலை அடுக்கத்துக் குமரிக் கோடும் கொடுங்கடல் கொள்ள" (Sorry, I could not bring the letter "aitham" into this keyboard) - "The terrible sea swallowed the river Pahruli and the many ranged mountain Kumari". Tamil literature hardly speaks of Tamils being chased out of North India into south; but it remembers that the Tamil speaking land extended further south into the sea in the hoary past. This cannot be a conclusive evidence, but cannot be rejected out of hand either. - Gopalan evr (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy

This is obviously racism. It is a known fact that there have been great tsunamis in the past that have sunk parts of the region. It is thought that a part of Sri Lanka has been submerged by two tsunamis. Similarly parts of India might have submerged as well. But understand that India and Sri Lanka separated many millenniums ago. By hiding it under your mythical land means that Thamilnadu has found a new way of creating a new reason for separating from India and also invading Sri Lanka. It is thought that Maha Meru is situated in Afganistan. All languages on earth were merely corrupted Tamil dialects? JUST BE REALISTIC. (Written with the signatures of "Hiranya kasup 20:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)" and "User:124.43.102.94 19:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)")

Mr. Hiranya - It is unfair to complete your observation about Kumari Kandam and it seems half backed. Ofcourse like you living faraway from the respective origin and Culture you will not able to understand. Hence please visit, TamiNadu Coastal bed like Ramanathapuram, Vetharanyam, Tuticurin and KanyaKumari, and try to live in each place for about a Year time, Then you may right your observation which could be fairly considerable. Robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinSelvaraj (talk • contribs) 04:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, take a long and deep break. Don't forget, we're all conspiring against you here ... ;-) --Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. You really shouldn't rework your texts in user discussions as if it were Tamil history ... Pun intended. And please don't delete your signatures, that's also not nice. Once more ;-) --Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 21:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with racism. The name Kumari Kandam is mentioned in earlier literature work and thats how we came to know of it. Just like how you interpret the BhagavadGita and Puranas and believe that nuclear technology existed during Mahabharata time. And you strongly believe that all your epics are true historical events. How do you relate this with invading Srilanka? You statement shows who is an obvious racist - "Thamilnadu has found a new way of creating a new reason for separating from India and also invading Sri Lanka". Grow up guys.. Arun 10:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Section on Atlantis moved here from article page

South of the World was very important because there did live people who did build great civilization and contributed to bring their knowledge in the upper parts of the world. The most mysterious name that comes in mind is Atlantis (Atlan Island).

ATLANTIS which the whole world was looking for so long is the Land of Atlan or Atlas, the Sun Land that was located in the South Asia. Which big island is still in that part of the world now? AUSTRALIA. There is even the name Atlas (inside it) still.There were many islands around the big Island. Some of them are still around now. From that beautiful part of the World the Paradise Civilization has moved and rebuild in many other parts of the world like Asia, Africa, Europe, and Americas. For that we have so many similarities in all the old civilizations that were build to copy the Highest Civilization of the Golden Age which was in Atlantis. For that many people have planted in their mind the Lost Paradise idea. But we are not that lost. Atlantis lives and we find it still in the remains of the Southernlands; Australia, New Zeland and many islands around it as far as the Pacific Ocean. After the Natural Destraction maany of the Atlantians were relocated. That is the reason that the Atlantian "models" did show later everywhere in Europe, Americas, Asia and Africa. India and Somalia, Iran and Egypt, Greece and Italy is the main direction of these great people (superhumans)who did move from the Lost South Civilization to other lands where they created new civilizations. There were other direction of their move up to Asia and Americas. This red, olive skin people did contact with other white, yellow and black race people and they did changed them and their life. But after many years pass and many of the people of the Sunland did forget their past. But never they lost their contact with the Southern World. Did Phonicians and Egyptians later go to Atlantis; Autralia and other islands? Yes they did and not just them but everyone who still knew where has come from or knew that there was a big island somewhere in the south. And they did go there and visit from different directions, from the Mediterain sea, passing around Africa or direct from the Dead sea and Asia. Australia was the land of the Giants too and this round continet was called Sunland. Its red skin people did mixed with Asians and Africans and Europeans to come back again one day as a mixed race to the Land where the Golden Age's knowledge has come from.

Sure. I never believed in stuff like that, but your arguments have changed my heart. Count me a believer now. -- 134.95.5.107 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sangam literature does not mention Kumari kandam

Please correct this statement. Also footnotes/refs are only pointing to Cilappatikaram and Manimekalai which are post-Sangam. Cilappatikram mentions "kumarik kOTu" where kOTu is taken to be "mountain" by one medieval commentator and "banks" by another. The editors should trace the origin of the phrase "kumarik kaNDam" to other sources. perichandra1 19:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Lemuria (continent)?

I think this article may be safely merged with Lemuria (continent): as most public proponents of Kumari Kandam use this name synonymously with "Lemuria" (tamilized "Ilemuria"), and as the emergence of that lost continent motif mainly goes back to the end of the 19th century, being intrinsically linked to the concept of Lemuria (in terms of history of science; see Sumathi Ramaswamy's "The Lost Land of Lemuria"), it should better be a subchapter of that article. Much information here and there is redundant, while in Lemuria (continent) there is much information complementary to Kumari Kandam. Actually (and rightfully so), there is already a short subchapter on Kumari Kandam in Lemuria.

In time that sub-entry may grow beyond a certain point, and then it could be shifted back into an own "main article", as is usual in Wikipedia (like e.g. History of England as a main article complementary to England). But in its present state, Kumari Kandam is to short (and - imho - of a quality too poor) to stand on its own. -- Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding that in the talk page for Lemuria (continent), Kumari Kandam also figures very much as a topic for discussion. Wikipedia may gain as a repository of knowledge by having also these discourses merged, as they are basically on the same topic, just as seen from different cultural angles. -- Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think that is a good idea. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I oppose the merge. Both products of dementia alright.. but Lemuria and Kumari Kandam exist(ed) as seperate entities until Tamil nationalists, in seeking to give their nonsense some modicum of credibility, tried to conflate the two. The two articles deal with seperate things and need to be seperate. Sarvagnya 02:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know (and take from S. Ramaswamy's book that has won much academic acclaim), the idea of Kumari Kandam (as it is understood today) didn't really exist before it was merged with the concept of Lemuria. There are some very disparate places in the huge corpus of classical Tamil literature referring to actual or mythical submerged areas of land, plus the isolated mentioning of a submerged "Kumari Kandam" (without an explanation of what that may have been). In the end of the 19th century all these loci have been rounded up, "put in order" and "made sense of" by Tamil litterati, thus being made into a standardized narrative under the heading "Kumari Kandam" - equaling it from the very beginning with Sclater's concept of Lemuria which arguably inspired that process. By the way, I am not at ease with your description of these concepts as "dementia": in Sclater's times, the concept of Lemuria seemed like a very serious and scientifically progressive idea, while the concept of Kumari Kandam also had its role in the development of a Tamil national consciousness. The problematic thing is that it obviously became very early something like a self-runner: its proponents at some time stopped to check back with geo-sciences, thereby missing the paradigm-shift from a theory of vertical to horizontal continental movement in the middle of the 20th century (Wegener's plate-tectonics). It was only then that the theories of Lemuria and Kumari Kandam stopped being scientifically viable.

I suggested the merger because there were only isolated fragments of nowaday's Kumari Kandam narrative (without the idea of a Kumari continent) before the emergence of the Lemuria concept, and thus Kumari Kandam as well as Lemuria are intrinsically linked almost from the very first beginning. And I think that this "almost" doesn't justify a separate existence for a Kumari Kandam article. In the history of thought, Kumari Kandam equals with Lemuria from its modern beginnings when some Tamil scholars started to read and interpret their classics suddenly in ways totally different from before. Should the community decide not to merge the two articles, then the greatest part of the Kumari Kandam article should still be moved and integrated into the Lemuria article, and the remaining article should become an article dealing with the history of Kumari Kandam as a motif in Tamil nationalist mythology. But I doubt that anyone would write a Wikipedia essay like that during the next few years, and thus (for the time being) it would be the cleanest way to simply redirect "Kumari Kandam" to a sub-entry in Lemuria (continent). Let it grow there over the years, and when the time is ripe, turn it into a separate "main article". -- Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 03:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are sure on the points you have mentioned, then please go ahead with the merge. Merging overlapping articles that need expansion is quite a good way to get the important points into one article first. If it should turn out that Kumari Kandam deserves its own article - after this topic has been expanded - then it could just be split off again. Just allow a few more days for discussion. Zara1709 16:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It does seem as if Kumari Kandam was heavily indebted to Lemuria. I still don't see a problem with keeping the two articles separate. Just make sure they cross-reference one another. --dab (𒁳) 14:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Maldives?

The Maldive Islands were a lot more substantial during the last Ice Age when see levels were 300ft lower than they are today, and maybe the Chagos too. It is a myth of course, but could these islands have formed the basis for that myth? best, 194.80.106.135 (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Popular reference

sorry to be out of turn... but should there be a reference to it showing up on popular culture or whatever?

its on an episode of Secret Saturdays, which does all sort of legends and stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.218.143 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some user has changed all references to Tamil to Telegu. This is despicable. Please do not vandalize wikipedia. The IP was 76.99.239.156 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.22.193 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Kavatams

Adiyarkkunallar, a 12th century commentator on the epic, explains this reference by saying that there was once a land to the south of the present-day Kanyakumari, which stretched for 700 Kavatams from the Pahruli river in the north to the Kumari river in the south.

I don't find Kavatam as a unit of distance anywhere. Is there another spelling? How long is a Kavatam? Thanks. 99.9.112.31 (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)NotWillDecker

See [1] No one knows how long it was meant to be. Dougweller (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was useful, and quick! It's an interesting book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for bringing it to our attention. Yep, looks like a good book, we probably should use it more. Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Broken links

A short account on Tamil and (Tamil literary) history by C. V. Narasimhan That's a broken link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Kummari Kandam Home of the ancients that became the pitrs

It seems to me that there is a connection between Kumari kandam and the home of the pitrs, which is mentioned in the Mahabharata located at the south. In the story of Savitri and Satyavan Yama went with Satyavan to the south and later it is stated he went to the region of the Fathers (which means the Pitrs). Therefore the home of the Pitrs must have been located in the south from India. Also the story of the Boar Avatar of Vishnu shows, that the balls of mud, Vishnu as the boar was shaking from his tusk, meant the Pitrs, which were according to that story falling to the south. That last story explained the Pitrs to have been arisen at the big flood, which was also mentioned in the Puranas. This flood must (because of the yuga counting and other reasons) be the flood which is also mentioned in the Gilgamesh-Epic, which is dated in the Old Babylonian Kinglist at about 33.000 BCE (according to another source at about 36.000 BCE). This land in the south of India must therefore be the home of Manu and his brother Yama (the iranian Yima) and therefore the home of the vedic people (so called Aryans), because from there Manu must have come by ship as surviver of the flood. So in my opinion it is highly probable, that this land in the south means Kumari Kandam. All This is of course OR, but I think, it would be important especially for indian people because it's about their history.--87.152.225.78 (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Kumari Kandam sourcing & pov issues where I wrote that this article "has been heavily rewritten. It appears to me that the editor doesn't understand our sourcing policy, the section on evidence supporting the existence of Kumari Kandam is at least to some extent original research, with sources not discussing the subject.It's got some dubious sources, eg Kumari Kandam Allathu Kadal Konda ThenNaadu(Kumari Continent or the Submerged Southern Country), 1941, K.AppaDurai and The International Society for the Investigation of Ancient Civilizations was founded in 1979 by Dr. R.P. Anjard and Dr. N. Mahalingam (used in two other articles - is it an RS? It seems to be the source of an odd map of India.[2]. Then there are claims such as "The language spoken by Australian tribes, African tribes, Andaman and Nicobar tribes and Lakshadweep tribes are identical to Tamil language. So, there are high possibilities that there might be a connecting land which exists in between India, Australia and Madagascar" sourced to the K.Appadurai mentioned above, Viyakkavaikkum Tamilar Ariviyal(Amazing science of Tamil people), Maathalai Somu, and Linguistics research books of Ma.So.Victor. There are other dubious sources and external links, and the article is now pretty biassed in favor of the reality of Kumari Kandam. Thanks." Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comment gives an wrong perception to others as if all the references are wrong. Please list down what are all references which needs to be corrected. I revisited the references once again and I found only the below two references needs to be changed.

# International Society For The Investigation Of Ancient Civilizations, Editor N. Mahalingam

# Linguistics research books of Ma.So.Victor

As an Admin, guide me in this...

The article is not trying to prove that Kumari Kandam is real...The article speaks about the data which supports the claims of existence of Kumari Kandam along with their references from researchers...And nowhere else, it is mentioned that Kumari Kandam is real/exists...--Maverick (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems imbalanced to me, but the point I was making is that all of the evidence, for or against, needs to be from sources that discuss Kumari Kandam. That's basic policy.

I'm also dubious about Kumari Kandam Allathu Kadal Konda Then Naadu(Kumari Continent or the Submerged Southern Country). In a discussion of the renaming of places on maps history professor Sumathi Ramaswamy[3][4] notes that in response to the replacement of native names with western names on colonial maps, " one of nationalism’s most important gestures is to cartographically replace such colonial toponyms with native names, many of which are frequently neologisms. The renaming of Lemuria as Kumarik-kantam or Kumarinatu in Tamil maps is very much an illustration of this car tographic version of the invention of tradition. Each such act of (re) naming constitutes a form of “toponymic possession” and “territorial consecration” through which a new place called Kumarikkantam is cartographically incorporated into a Tamil horizon of meaning and memory. That this act or cartographic (re)nomination is clearly intended to (re)claim Lemuria for a Tamil project of loss is clear from three striking examples. In 1941 K. Appadurai (1907-89) published the first monograph in Tamil on Lemuria, revealingly titled Kumarikkantam allatu kafalkonta tenndfu (Kumarikkantam, Or the Southern Land Seized by the Ocean), a book that continues to be in print still today.107 Although the bulk of the book is based on the life and times of the Tamils of Kumarikkantam, which is, in turn (bizarrely enough), modeled on the life and times of Cerve’s Pacific Lemurians (a fact left unacknowledged by the author), the two maps included in the monograph are derived from the Theosophical cartographies of Scott- Elliot. Entitled “Llemuria: Pantai Nilai” (Lemuria: Ancient State) and “Llemuria: Kurukiya Nilai” (Lemuria: Shrunken State), they are near- translations into Tamil of Scott-Elliot’s 1904 world maps that showed the giant continent of Lemuria sprawled virtually across the entire earth. But there is one important difference. The continent—which is left unlabeled by Scott-Elliot—is now explicitly identified as “Kumarikkantam,” the Tamil orthography boldly etched across the part of the map that lies directly to the south of present-day India. And it is in this form that Scott-Elliot’s original occult maps have circulated in Tamil India since the 1940s"[5].

She has also written a paper[6] published in The Journal of Asian Studies, "History at Land's End: Lemuria in Tamil Spatial Fables" which looks very useful for this and other articles. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I started writing about Kumari Kandam in both 'for and against' view...But, I found that the reference data about Kumari Kandam is scattered and had many views from many people...Most of the references which talks 'against' Kumari Kandam, won't talk 'for' it(Neutral point of view)...And vice versa...So, I thought it would be better that instead of concentrating on both 'for and against' at once, first to concentrate on the references which has 'for' part and then concentrate on the references which has 'against' part...If you see the article, there is a topic with name 'Data that supports and rejects the claims of existence of Kumari Kandam'...I already wrote about the sub-topic 'Data that supports the claims of existence of Kumari Kandam'...I am planing to write about 'Data that rejects the claims of existence of Kumari Kandam'...The article is under construction...To avoid confusion, now, I marked this article as 'Under Construction'...--Maverick (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you are an Admin, I wanted to bring my concern to you that the time I started restructuring this article, I found that the article was heavily biased towards the 'against' part of Kumari Kandam, eventhough there are many reference data from researchers which talks about 'for' part...NPOV dispute on this article should have been raised that time itself...I wanted to clear my current understanding as it plays an important role on my opinion about how Wikipedia works...In the article, I didn't touch the already existing 'against' part...But, I started writing the 'for' part...My current understanding is that when the time the article was heavily biased towards 'against' part, the NPOV was not raised...and when the article has more data for 'for' part and looks biased towards it, the NPOV is raised...It looks that way for me...Correct my understanding if it is wrong...--Maverick (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick response, NPOV doesn't call for equal time, the article should make it clear what the mainstream view is. See WP:FRINGE. Also, the nationalism aspect needs to be clear. Longer response later. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at the new version tells me that the article pushes the pseudo-historical POV by using fringe sources and synthesis. For example, "the language spoken by Australian tribes, African tribes, Andaman and Nicobar tribes and Lakshadweep tribes are identical to Tamil language" - this is plain nonsense. As is the point about similarity between some species found in India and Madagascar - that is explained using plate tectonics, not some legendary landmass that sunk a few thousand years ago. Connecting the archaeological finds at Dwarka to Kumari Kandam is just one among the many examples of poor synthesis in the article. Several claims of "Kumari Kandam" being mentioned in ancient texts (sourced using fringe books) are just plain wrong: Many of these ancient texts don't mention "Kumari Kandam" - they talk about things like a flood, or some small sunken landmass. The connection of these to Kumari Kandam is a result of pseudo-historical writings that cannot be cited in a Wikipedia article. utcursch | talk 04:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

One among the many examples of poor synthesis in the article - Admin, Please avoid weasel words. To correct the article, I need proper data that what are all things which are the examples of poor synthesis in the article.

To clear the confusion between Kumari Kandam and Lemuria,

Kumari Kandam/Kumari Naadu/Kumari - Legendary sunken landmass mentioned in Tamil literature.

Lemuria - a hypothetical "lost continent" posited in the 19th century to account for discontinuities in biogeography.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Tamil nationalists came to identify and associate Kumari Kandam with Lemuria.

The references which I gave, mentions the lost/sunken landmass as Kumari Continent/Kumari Country/Kumari ruled by Pandyan Kings, the same way to denote our India Country, we use the term India. Please verify your references. Since, data that supports the claims of existence of Kumari Kandam are not my views and not my claims, I changed the topic name from Data that supports the claims of existence of Kumari Kandam to Data given by Kumari Kandam researchers to support their claims of existence of Kumari Kandam. And, I added about plate tectonics in the point. --Maverick (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I've done as much as I can with this. Someone else will have to take it from here. @Dougweller: Simonm223 (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Utcursch

//Many of these ancient texts don't mention "Kumari Kandam" - they talk about things like a flood, or some small sunken landmass. //

How do you assume that is some small sunken landmass? If the word kandam is not in sangam text means then what? Even the word district (Maavatam) which was formed in colonial period is not in sangam texts. Can you claim sangam text don't have the word district (maavatam) and so madurai (Now it is also a district) is a pseudo historical capital city of Pandyas?

Please talk only with the availability of primary and secondary sources.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Maverick

Most of the references in article are primary source. For example 17th reference mentioned primary source sangam text Kaliththokai, Song Number:104 as reference. We can't translate primary source directly in article and claim like this in wiki. But if the same source is supported by the secondary source means we can add here. For Example any one of the historical research scholar mentioned that Kalithokai text as reference in his book to claim Kumarikandam facts means we can add that secondary source as reference.

But if the same secondary source is refused by another secondary source we should add both of them. (Ex: sumathi ramasamy)--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I got the copy of Sumathi Ramaswamy's book around a month back, and I've been reading it. It actually opposes most of the things currently written in this article, and clearly establishes that the Lemuria-Kumari Kandam is pseudohistory. Also, many other cited references fail verification. I'll clean up this article in a few days. utcursch | talk 19:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Languages Claim

I'm thinking that WP:DUCK should probably apply to these claims. It's self-evident that the languages cited are not identical to Tamil considering that this involves at minimum four distinct language families (Dravidian, Australian, Niger Congo and Austronesian). I didn't delete it without discussion on the first round because of the three references jammed onto it but, come on, seriously, it's nonsense. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Ancientlemuria.jpg (the map)

The image (a scanned map) has been deleted at Commons as copyvio. Thanks to User:172.9.22.150 for spotting this. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Supercontinent: Ten Billion Years in the Life of Our Planet

This book by geologist Ted Nield has some interesting material.[7] pages 45-46. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Orissa Balu

It seems that this proposed source is only about potential authorization to allow a proponent to eventually explore the waters and is from last year... It doesn't highlight any current research details or critically evaluate the context. It might perhaps be an argument for Balu's notability at the BLP article. —PaleoNeonate – 16:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)