From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

archive 1

More sources required[edit]

The article content can be easily increased with new sources and somebody can try that. (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The alternate dating section[edit]

Is it being given undue weightage?. Of the two anchors of pre-300 BC hypothesis the ASI has back tracked on the first one - the pot sherd has gone missing [1] and no papers have been published on it. The second pazhani "vaira" discovery is being dismissed by the other group as a single sample result. I believe the section should be shortened and the bulk of the text moved to a footnote.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved it to notes and found citatiosn that question Mahathevan's theorey based on Anuradhpura findings. Infact I found number of journal articleas and academic books now take the view that post Ashokan in untenable. Kanatonian (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Second reading from Porunthal hereKanatonian (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am also a bit disappointed here. I was inclined to believe the early date was genuine, and began to work under the general assumption that the earliest Brahmi epigraphy is found in Sri Lanka. Of course there is a lot of patriotism at work here, and obviously, the Sri Lankan institutions desperately want their inscriptions to be older than the northern ones, but, just for once, it seemed possible that what they wanted to be true also turned out to be the case.

But now it seems as if this was just another stunt of falsifying and massaging data to get the result you desperately needed to be true. This isn't science, or scholarship, it is a disgrace. Since Popper, we know that the best way to test a hypothesis is to try hard to falsify it. These people have done nothing at the kind, they have just thrown the oldest dates they could possibly get away with to the press. At this point, as with so many other topics of Indian antiquity, this seems to boil down to citing a walled garden of die-hard patriots who stick to the early dates. In this article, it appears, this role is taken by a 2008 article published, of all places, in Social Scientist. And, as always with these cases of older-than thou, the real and very interesting topic gets buried under an interminable discussion of the spurious age claims. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a serious problem in all of the wikipedia articles dealing with Tamil-Brahmi and Brahmi with people inserting these claims of early dates based on newspaper articles. If all of this stuff is real, why isn't it showing up in journals? The one paper by Coningham et al. about Anuradhapura gives pretty good evidence that very primitive-looking forms of Brahmi (NOT Tamil-Brahmi) were showing up in the 4th C BCE, and people have generally been accepting that it this could be real, but all this other nonsense in the press is getting ridiculous. I can find press reports about UFOs and Bigfoot - that doesn't mean aliens invented Tamil Brahmi 10,000 years ago. We need to start enforcing reliable sources. I've been trying to apply a light touch by framing these things like "Press reports of blah blah have appeared but not been published academically", but wikipedia is absolutely not supposed to be a collection of tabloid rumors, regardless of whether the reporter thinks the person giving the story is the world's greatest expert. If these findings are supportable, let them be submitted to peer review, and then put them in wikipedia after they've been properly scrutinized by a community of experts. Tarchon (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


Who is he?. is this his full name?. i googled and couldnt find anything. --Sodabottle (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed Kanatonian (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


"Tamil Brahmi was not deciphered as a separate script until the 21st century CE." 20th or 21st?. Didnt mahadevan establish it clearly by the 1970s?--Sodabottle (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

By 1966, how do we state it ? middle 21st century ?Kanatonian (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Mid 20th century.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC) It says, that the age of the Porunthal inscriptions has been proven by a second sample. There is no mention of it in the article. Infact this important information was wholly ignored as the source was implemented. Need to correct it.--MThekkumthala (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The porunthal findings are yet find widespread acceptance - they have not been published in peer reviewed journals yet. Till that happens (usually takes a few years) we cannot and should not take it as the definitive result and use it to supply a definitive dating.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
That's unfortunate. The wording was wrong, when this source was implemented. The other samples were not accepted (sic), but the Porunthal samples have not been debated nor rejected yet. It was simply handled like the other findings in a degrading way.--MThekkumthala (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Porunthal findings are important and infact we had actually used both (initial and secondary) the references in the article. But those references are Newspaper sources. This information will one day get into a peer reviewed journal article or academic books and then it might change the perspective of researchers. Currently as we speak, it should be in the notes section. Also you had introduced that section under epigraphic review, infact Poruthal belongs under Archeological review. Epigraphists are saying Vaira the word found in the inscription belongs to the 1st century CE but Archeologists say it should be 5th century BCE based on carbon dating. Tamil Brahmi is a controversal subject, there are lot of people who say it is not what it is. So we have to be careful giving undue weight to one point of view. Currently as we speak Literary, Epigraphic and Archeological conclusiosn to not concur with a specific date and we should leave it at that. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
People are often excited by newspaper articles, but the best paper that challenges Mahadevan's post 3rd Century dispersal is Rajan, K (2008), "Situating the Beginning of Early Historic Times in Tamil Nadu: Some Issues and Reflections", Social Scientist 36 (1/2): 40-78. Kanatonian (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your points. The Tamil Brahmi topic is a highly sensitive area, which should be treated accordingly. But the text makes a false impression of the earliest findings. In the second article about Porunthal, we have a clear statement, that the dating of the first sample was not accepted by all, because the opposition wanted more samples. With the second sample, they conclude, that it has been proven. However, this is our version, though using the Kishore news article as a source (!) : "There have been number of inscriptions found in Tamil Nadu that have been tentatively dated to 6th century BCE in Adichanallur[10][11][12] and 5th century BCE in Porunthal.[13][6][14] But these early Tamil Nadu dating do not have mainstream acceptance.[6]" There is a mention in the sources, that earlier datings remained doubtful, but the Porunthal datings were not. Then why do we say, that all findings, including Porunthal, have no acceptance? It is a lie.--MThekkumthala (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The text doesnt say "no acceptance", instead it says no "mainstream acceptance" - that means acceptance from peers, scholars, other secondary sources and the like. What we now have is only a single paper published by Rajan K and the second dating confirmation hasnt been to peer review. Once that is done and multiple secondary sources - like other papers and text books - start revising their dating, then the dating is deemed to have "mainstream acceptance". (personally i believe the porunthal findings and wish to see more papers on it, but a single newspaper report isnt going to cut it) --Sodabottle (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Sodabottle, we write what others say and we dont make up our own mind here. When the article says that there is no mainstream acceptance, it actually is based on the paper article where number of scholars are debating it but not fully agreeing with it yet. I have watched this article from 2006, for the longest time it was mostly based on Adichanallur as if it was the only thing important. (Tamil wikipedia still follows that idea) But till today we dont have any journal articles on that findings, but may be Porunthal is a different matter all together.
Anuradhapura findings are even more legitimate and scholars have noted that Mahathevan did not take that finding into account with his post 3rd centuy BCE dispersal theorey. The article lists a number of scholars who say Brahmi came to Sri Lanka long before 3rd Century BCE and it may have come from Sri lanka into Tamilakam before 3rd century BCE as well. What is interesting (not in this article) is that type I of TB is same/identical with Sinhala Brahmi in Sri Lanka. Fundamentally the chronology is wrong, the math does not add up. There is no way one have wait for Ashokan writings to immdietly start seeing thousands of inscriptiosn (in pot sherds) across Tamilakam and Sri Lanka within 100 years, that's why Dhani said it has to be 1st century CE not 2nd Century BCE. Because it takes a long time to spread writing across such a large area. But we cant say all that, we have to wait for the appropriate joournal articles/academic books/seminar publications to come through. Remember Tamil Barhmi is a new field, only since 1966 since we have scholars looking at it and the first scholar who saw it is still active in this field. Kanatonian (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Great articles about Porunthal, another beautiful pictures as well. May be we can write a seperate article about it. Kanatonian (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

reviewing the state of pre-Ashokan evidence[edit]

This site appears to give a straight account of the situation. The background is this:

  • It had been generally accepted that this script had been derived from a Semetic script, developed in Northern India in the third century BC, and spread southwards until it reached Sri Lanka (Buhler, 1896; Winternitz, 1927; Dani, 1963; Von Hinuber, 1990).
  • The first (serious) suggestion that it may be older seems to be due to Deraniyagala (1990).
  • The Anuradhapura (Sri Lanka) Project, Phase I (ASW2), excavated 1989 to 1994, published by Coningham (1999, 2006), found evidence to support a 4th-century date
  • Adichanallur: the 6th-century date published in 2005 seems to be spurious, and purely based on The Hindu headlines.
  • since 2009, there is the Porunthal evidence which suggests a 5th century date

The spurious 6th-century claims have damaged this case, as there seem to be at least two serious candidates, the one from Anuradhapura (4th century) and the one from Porunthal (5th century). The proper way of phrasing things would thus be that the received consensus is a 3rd century "post-Ashokan" dispersal, but that since the year 2000, there have been two serious candidates for a pre-Ashokan date. The measurment of the Porunthal find came in last October, so it is definitely too early to say how this is going to affect the mainstream view. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate what you are trying to do here, but have you finished editing or still in the process ? Because you have left few sentences half incomplete and lost the focus of the article on the diferences of opinion between three different scientic fields (archeology, epigraphy, literry history). Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

literacy in pre budhist india[edit]

Literacy in pre-Buddhist India (before 600 BC)

Please find my collection of papers on literacy in Pre-Buddhist India

Before mature phase of Indus valley civilization (before 2600 BC)

- There are some potters marks but none qualify as full writing

Indus valley civilization (2600 BC to 1900 BC)

1.The reconfirmation and reinforcement of the Indus script thesis (very logical and self explanatory paper)

2.The reintroduction of the lost manuscript hypothesis (the case for this thesis has obviously become much stronger in the recent past)

Post-Harappan India (1600 BC to 600 BC)

1.Literacy in post-Harappan india (obviously literacy in post-Harappan India existed in certain pockets & were limited to very small sections of society- alphabetic scripts were brought from West Asia and the Indus script also continued – this a very logical and self-explanatory paper and anyone can cross-verify the conclusions)

Sujay Rao Mandavilli — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Two theories of origin[edit]

It is extremely vital to avoid insinuating that Tamil-Brahmi is solely a varient of Standard Brahmi. This is under serious contention as per the "The script" subsection. There are a group of notable theorists (I. Mahadevan, for example) who argue for independent origins of Tamil-Brahmi (or Damili). The views of both scholars should be accurately reflected in this article to maintain neutrality.

--தமிழ் வாழ்க; யாதும் ஊரே, யாவரும் கேளிர் 19:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's simply idiotic. A little common sense, please. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV Using the word tentative; "mainstream consensus" does not allow that the article to maintain NPOV. Each ought to be given same weight.

Also, go right ahead in claiming a "mainstream consensus", but prove that such a thing does exist by providing appropriate citations from reliable sources.

In my opinion, NPOV cannot be maintained by issuing arguments solely in favour of one at the expense of the other.

--Avedeus (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If by "independent" you mean that Brahmi originated in the south and spread north to the Mauryan empire, then that's a feasible hypothesis. If however by "independent" you mean "independent" – that Tamil Brahmi is unrelated to northern Brahmi – then that's an idiotic claim, and presumably is pseudo-history that should be removed from the article altogether. And no, we do not give equal weight: we assign WP:WEIGHT according to the degree of acceptance in the academic community. At the Earth article, for example, we don't give "equal weight" to theories that the Earth is round and that it's flat. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Conflicts in Editing[edit]

If we write about one article advantages (Merits) of the thing in article name should be stated first. After that disadvantages (demerits) should be stated. Like wise in Tamil Brahmi article Pre-3rd-century BCE dispersal should be stated first and Post-3rd-century BCE dispersal should be stated next. Like wise you can state in viceversa in Asoka Brahmi Article. So I revert the edit again. I hope User:Kwamikagami will understand this.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, per WEIGHT, the most-widely accepted hypothesis should come first, and ideas challenging it after. — kwami (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

May I know how you state Post-3rd-century BCE dispersal theory is widely accepted? That theoty was expired after 1980's. Now Pre-3rd-century BCE dispersal is only widely accepted. You can compare the number of references, books and authors who supports each theory. Can you list out who are all support Post-3rd-century BCE dispersal and Pre-3rd-century BCE dispersal?--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Authors in Article who supports post theory

  1. Iravatham Mahadevan
  2. Ahmed Hassan Dani questioned the 3rd BCE date
  3. T.V. Mahalingam
  4. Richard Salmon

List of Authors in Article who supports pre theory

  1. Mayilai Seeni Venkataswamy
  2. Rasamanikam
  3. K. Rajan
  4. R. Mathivanan
  5. Natana Kasinathan
  6. K. V. Subrahmanya Ayyar
  7. H. K Krishna Sastri
  8. K.K. Pillai etc etc.

But Kwamigami argues Outdated Post-3rd-century BCE dispersal theory is widely accepted?--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not a vote. Do you have any good secondary sources that state it's out of date? Are any from northern India or outside the subcontinent? — kwami (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

kwami Did I say this is vote? Don't assume yourself. You only ask for Majority.(widely accepted) After I gave the proof you convert these as vote.

//Do you have any good secondary sources that state it's out of date? Are any from northern India or outside the subcontinent?//

I revert the same type of Question to you. Do You have any secondary Sources which say Asokan Script was before Tamil Brahmi after 1995's? Don't go for outside of Indian Sub-continent. Can you show secondary source even from Indian Subcontinent Itself?--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

//Do you have any good secondary sources that state it's out of date? //

Hello, the list mentioned above was Archaeologists. They are also good sources.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

#reviewing the state of pre-Ashokan evidence see this also.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say like "Delete the Post Dispersal Theory". I am saying only that to order Post Theory after Pre theory.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't appear to know how sources work on WP. Maybe you could look over WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I knew how sources work on WP very well and even these RS and Weight. But you only don't appear to know about archaeological excavations and results after 1995's related to Tamil Brahmi. I didn't make any research here.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Consonant Method in Tamil Brahmi[edit]

//It is distinguished from Standard Brahmi, by an inherent vowel marker for pure consonants and consonants.//

I wrote one article in Tamil Wikipedia regarding to this point in article. But I request anyone of you to Translate this from Tamil to English.

Refer this article. ta:அகரமேறிய மெய் முறைமை.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Kasinathan is a primary source and is rather incoherent. He says things are "apparent" or "plausible" and then proceeds as if they were true. I'll need to look at this more closely, but given our preference for secondary sources, and the lack of any indication that Kasinathan is credible, it might be best to remove his claims. — kwami (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Loss of the inherent vowel is confirmed. However, this is presented as discarding the convention of Ashokan Brahmi, not as an earlier stage of the script. We need 2ary sources that Kasinathan is notable before we include his claims. — kwami (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Consonant method is not only a dating method. This method is also used to identify whether the script is in Tamil or Prakrit Languagues. And this sub heading is not related to dating.

//We need 2ary sources that Kasinathan is notable before we include his claims//

Kasinthan didn't find consonant method. Iravatam Mahadevan only mentioned it first. Later the same consonant method was referred in K. Rajan, Mayilai S. Venkataswamy and Kasinathan. And all of them Include the same point Tamil Brahmi is older than Asokan Script.

//You don't appear to know how sources work on WP.//

I knew it very well. I want to someone other than you to talk about this, who know about Archaeological Excavation reports after 1995 related to Tamil Brahmi. Because you confuse Identification/Differentiation method with dating method. It's look like You don't know about Consonant method and Techniques used to differentiate the Tamil Brahmi and other brahmi scripts.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you obviously do not know. We do not evaluate primary sources ourselves. Rather, we let secondary sources do that, and we report their conclusions. Provide reliable secondary sources for your claims, and we'll have no problem. — kwami (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

//No, you obviously do not know. //

I don't have a problem in your assumptions.

//We do not evaluate primary sources ourselves.//

Did I say to evaluate Primary source? Who said that Natana Kasinathan's article is Primary source? Is the Journal is Primary Source means what is secondary source?

[2] what about this edit? Did you see Third Para of the eighth page in that Journal? You mentioned like though no reason for thinking they are earlier has been given. And in the next edit you just delete that Journal Link.

And What about other citations given in Pre-Theory? You didn't talk any word regarding to this.(EX: Porunthal)

You include one reference. But it didn't include Tamil Brahmi in it's title. See this. [3] Is this a good reference? Even I am not able to find a word Tamil in this link.

//Indian Epigraphy : A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan Languages://

Tamil is not an Indo-Aryan Language. Hence the reference given by you is not valid.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't make sense of your objections. You highlight the word "Tamil" in a text and claim the word "Tamil" does not appear in that text. You say a source is invalid because you do not like the title. The journal link I deleted was one which I had added just a few minutes before. As for the other sources, I have not had time to evaluate them all. Could you give a reliable secondary source which supports the idea that Tamil Brahmi is ancestral to or at least older than Ashoka Brahmi? — kwami (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

//because you do not like the title. //

Stop your assumptions first. You are making false statements against me continuously.

//Could you give a reliable secondary source which supports the idea that Tamil Brahmi is ancestral to or at least older than Ashoka Brahmi? //

I didn't say anything like ancestral or older. I said the sources saying Tamil brahmi is older than Asokan Brahmi. You again and again questioning about Natana Kasinthan Journal article. What about other references?

Tamil is not coming under the category of Prakrit and Indo-aryan languages. Then how can you refer the below book which doesn't include Tamil Brahmi for Time period of Tamil Brahmi.

//Indian Epigraphy : A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan Languages://--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your objections are utterly ridiculous. You're not saying it's "older", only that it's "older". Could you explain the difference?
A source doesn't discuss Tamil Brahmi if the word "Tamil" isn't in the title, even if it discusses Tamil Brahmi. To me that seems irrational. Could you clarify how the only content of a book is its title? — kwami (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your false making statements are only utterly ridiculous. Read it again.

//I didn't say anything like ancestral or older. I said the sources saying Tamil brahmi is older than Asokan Brahmi.//--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Read the full Article and References First[edit]

If anyone argues Asokan Brahmi is prior than Tamil Brahmi please read the Wikipedia article completely and read the all references given in it. It looks like User Kwamigami didn't read the article and references completely.

This is the Beta Analytic Lab report of Tamil Brahmi in Porunthal Excavation.[4]--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

They're taking that from a newspaper article! There are dozens of claims like this that never pan out, so how is the academic community reacting to it? — kwami (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
As for the other sources in that section, they're mostly either primary sources, newspaper articles, or don't actually address the topic. The one 2ary source would appear to be Olivelle (2006), though he repeats Mahadevan's date of 300 BCE (whic Mahadevan later revised to 200 BCE). Olivelle's report of Prakrit Brahmi from 360 BCE in Sri Lanka is good to note, though of course it's not evidence of Tamil Brahmi from that date. I don't see the dichotomy, though: There's always been doubt that Brahmi actually originated with the Mauryan Empire; this is just a part of that story.
My objection to this article is not the date of Brahmi, or when Prakrit Brahmi first appears in Sri Lanka, but the imbalance created by trying to prove a point rather than simply reflecting the literature, such as pretending that Prakrit is Tamil and cherry-picking the earliest dates. — kwami (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
We should not ignore K. Rajan’s claim since he was the director of the excavation project at Porunthal, and we should conclude Mahadevan claim was right. Let’s bring the sources and brush-up the idea. Once upon the time world was flat! --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 04:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

//They're taking that from a newspaper article!//

Even though your statement is right!, they only make the Radio carbon dating for Porunthal Excavation. They have the rights to make the date.

//so how is the academic community reacting to it?//

Are you coming to say Pseudo authoritative interpretation community formed by you under Mr. Mahadevan in this edit [5] is the only academic community in this World?

Otherwise Google Books? If means I'll also add some google books.

If you Claim Kasinathan Article is not reliable means I'll also claim Mahadevan Article is not reliable. Because 1. Dr. Ramesh ASI's Joint Director-General in 1993, 2. M.R. Raghava Varier former Professor, Department of History, Calicut University, 3. Dilip K. Chakrabarti, Emeritus Professor, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge refused post asokan theory. So according to you (Kwami) one source from out of India Subcontinent refuses post Asokan Theory.

We'll talk regarding to Kasinathan's article especially about that consonant method with detail before include it.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

We use secondary sources on WP. Provide secondary sources for your claims. Very simple. — kwami (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The reverted edit by you includes the secondary sources.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Page numbers and some place we can verify them? Because previous citations have failed verification. — kwami (talk) 07:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

//Page numbers and some place we can verify them? Because previous citations have failed verification.//

This rule is common to all. You give the page numbers first for Iravatam Mahadevan Book. And Salomon Book which says about Tamil Brahmi.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I keep seeing these radiocarbon results repeated as justification for this, but one radiocarbon result is not the end of the story. Radiocarbon has to be analyzed within context, and the appropriate avenue for analyzed that is an academic article that carefully deals with issues like contamination, taphonomy, and context. The world of pseudoarchaeology is full of one-date wonders. Just having a lab report is too primary of a source for wikipedia. It's got to be published and peer reviewed before it's acceptable as a reliable source. Tarchon (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflicts to Include Kasinathan Article[edit]


This is the article From kasinthan. This consonant method is subscribed first by Iravatam Mahadevan Itself and it was expanded by Natana Kasinthan. And the reason for supporting Pre-asokan theory is given clearly in 8th page of the article. But Kwami deletes it with the edit summary which told that Kasinathan never give the reason.

And I'll list out the stages proposed by Iravatam Mahadevan and expanded by Kasinthan soon. I need time. Even though I had studied the Mahadevan Article it is not available in net.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There is very little that is clear about that article. A lot of supposing and guessing, and it's silly to think X therefore it must be Y, but almost nothing verifiable. Could you quote what you think justifies an earlier date? I'm just not seeing it. — kwami (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

First you study the article completely. And for you, it is essential to know the stages of Tamil Brahmi proposed by Mahadevan. I'll come later.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

How could you say you are not seeing? Read the entire article and come to the point. Don’t you like to accept the fact what Karai Rajan and Natana Kasinathan found or do you say it is unacceptable? Is there anyone who disclaimed the findings of Karai Rajan and Natana Kasinathan? Don’t point you finger simply and say “Dubious“ and “edit war”. What do you do in regards of “Dubious “and “edit war”? I think “Tenkasi Subramanian” needs time to write the article and I will give my input when time permits. --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 15:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Tenkasi Subramanian gave the link for "Date of Early Tamil Epigraphs" at 7:21 and Kwamikagami replied at 07:30, and stated “I'm just not seeing it”. How could Kwamikagami open, read the article in just 09 minutes and replied? --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 16:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
He said page 8. I don't see anything on p. 8. Rather than whining, why don't you just say what you're referring to? — kwami (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
//I don't see anything on p. 8.// Did you see blank page? It's your judgement. You try to ignore. But, you try to show your references are fact and true. Is it? --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 18:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You're being ridiculous. I asked for you to say what supports the claim. Since you refuse, I will assume that you are incapable of doing this because nothing supports the claim, and that the reference is invalid. — kwami (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You're being ridiculous too. Answer to the below question! --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 18:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
No, you did not answer the question below. Since you won't answer, I assume you can't answer. — kwami (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Dubious Template is not Valid[edit]

The person who write the Book "Excavations at Porunthal" only dates the Tamil-Brahmi as 490 B.C. and it was published in related newspapers also which were given as references in this article. But user Kwami again making false statements and put a Dubious template in Time Period. So I remove the Dubious Template.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous. WP prefers secondary sources. We have secondary sources saying the script dates to the 2nd–3rd c. BCE. You have primary sources saying it might date to the 5th c. BCE, and you only report those sources. They are dubious because they are contradicted by secondary sources. This is entirely proper. Find good 2ary sources that back your claim, and we're fine. — kwami (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Ridiculous! How could you tell you have secondary sources? Why do you reject primary sources? Show me all your secondary sources, which is reliable.--Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 18:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you read my edit? Salomon is a secondary source. He says Mahadevan is the authoritative interpretation. Both agree on the date. Olivelle is another secondary source that agrees with Mahadevan.
I'm not rejecting primary sources, I'm following Wikipedia policy that WP:secondary sources are required. We certainly can't cherry-pick primary sources to the exclusion of 2ary sources when the two disagree. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I know and I'm following Wikipedia policy. It says "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages". Is How Porunthal’s Rice Grains Provided Insight to an Indian Writing System or The Hindu article entitled “Porunthal excavations prove existence of Indian scripts in 5th century BC: expert” primary, secondary or tertiary source? If yes/no, tell me the reason. --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 18:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
The Hindu article is not a reliable source at all, since it's simply a newspaper article. (Newspapers are not generally accepted for evaluation of the evidence, since their writers are not experts in the field, though we do use them to as evidence that claims have been made.) The Beta Analytic site just reports on the newspaper report. If we had the original article, that would be a primary source. If we had an expert in epigraphy or paleography who evaluated or summarized the Porunthal report, that would be a secondary source. And that's what we should have on WP. For all we know, there are primary sources out there which claim that Tamil Brahmi dates from 2000 BC, or from 200 CE. We don't want to list a bunch of contradictory dates, as that doesn't help the reader, but rather to report what the experts believe to be the most likely date, and not about their own work, where they may be biased, but about the consensus of the field as a whole. — kwami (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
You didn't see my point "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages". --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 03:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they should be discussed here. But when primary sources disagree with secondary sources, we need good evidence that those primary sources have been accepted. (The normal way we do that is by seeing how they are reviewed, and compared with contrary claims, in secondary sources.) And we can throw out newspaper articles altogether. — kwami (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. What about that Book "Excavation at porunthal" which was written by K. Rajan? That is a secondary source. No one can claim single person can only have authoritative interpretation to fix the date of Tamil Brahmi. Even Salomon can write in his book like that you can't add it in Wikipedia.
  2. First you refer One google book (Salomon) which don't have preview and that book was published in 1990's. Like that I add one Google Book "Excavation at Porunthal" by K. Rajan which don't have preview. But that person only claim Tamil-Brahmi was 490 BCE. Even that book don't have Preview in google that person Rajan only dated that as 490 B.C. and related news published in Newspapers also. You can't template that as dubious.
  3. It's simple. Wikipedia works based on secondary source. You can't fix the Kasinathan's article as Primary. Give any Valid secondary source to refuse his Claim. You can't make your own Judgement in Wikipedia that Kasinathan's Article is not reliable.
  4. Iravatam Mahadevan Post-Asokan Claim is not be supported by any archaeological dating methods. But K. Rajan have done a research and have an archaeological dating proof.
  5. Natana Kasinathan have Consonant Method Proof.
  6. First give me a secondary source which refuse K.Rajan's and Natana Kasinthan Claim and you can template this as dubious.

//You have primary sources saying it might date to the 5th c. BCE, and you only report those sources. They are dubious because they are contradicted by secondary sources.//

  1. Each and every sentence is false. I refer K.Rajan book. That is secondary source. Same way I can also say you only argue Iravatam claim is only reliable and other sources which supports Pre-Dispersal is not reliable and primary. Tell some other Administrator to come to this page and say like that.
  2. If you say this as unreliable then I'll say Iravatam Article is unreliable and remove his article from references. In 8th page of Kasinathan's article he mentioned why Tamil Brahmi is older than Asokan Brahmi. I ask anyone other than you can go through that reference and read that. But in Iravatam Mahadevan article he never make any reason why Asokan Brahmi is older than Tamil Brahmi. Can you say any reason why Iravatam Claim Asokan Brahmi is older than Tamil Brahmi?
  3. According to the two books given below, Iravatam Mahadevan source is also dubious and contradicted by secondary sources.

//On the other hand, Dilip K. Chakrabarti, Emeritus Professor, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, called the Porunthal Tamil-Brahmi script “an epoch-making discovery in the archaeology of Tamil Nadu” and said there “is no doubt” that Tamil-Brahmi belonged to the pre-Asokan period. In two of his books — “An Oxford Companion to Indian Archaeology” and “India, an Archaeological History” — he had written that the evolution of Tamil-Brahmi should go back to circa 500 BCE.// [7] I add these two books as only in Reference.

  1. First time you deleted the three references given by me. [8] This activity is completely against to wiki rules. I didn't delete any source. I just moved every source given by you to Post Dispersal subheading. You can't warn me in my talk page like this.
  2. I request some other administrator come to this page and say what is correct. Because Kwami's activity is against to wikipedia.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with Tenkasi Subramanian and looking for help from sysop(s).

  1. Kwami stated nothing in primary source, later disagree with primary source.
  2. Kwami gave warning in my talk page. Is it according to Wiki policy?

--Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 07:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Admin help}} An administrator is not needed for this. Technical 13 (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have created a separate section for help, below; {{helpme}} has been moved there. As I have asked a question pending reply, I have put {{helpme-wording}} instead. Gryllida (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

When secondary sources contradict primary sources, which should we use for, say, the dates in the info box? And should we use newspaper reports as RSs for scientific claims? — kwami (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

[9] Is these references are newspapers? You did vandalism by deleted the three references and divert that refrences are news papers. I don't want to argue with you again. I request some other Admin to come to this page.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you. You posted that you wanted a question answered, but you failed to specify the question. That's the question. — kwami (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. What about that Book "Excavation at porunthal" which was written by K. Rajan?
  2. Give any Valid secondary source to refuse his Claim.
  3. Can you say any reason why Iravatam Claim Asokan Brahmi is older than Tamil Brahmi?

These are the questions you never answered. I mentioned them already above.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  1. That is a primary source.
  2. Give a valid secondary source that confirms his claim.
  3. I have no idea. Provide a 2ary source. That's how things work here. — kwami (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I came over here because Kwami listed this discussion at WP:RSN.
This is the kind of question whose answer can be redically changed by a new discovery. In this case, that's what the archaeologist K. Rajan claims, and that's the claim that is reported in The Hindu. Right?
Since it is a radical change -- three centuries earlier than the previously accepted start date for this script -- it would be good to know what other academics think about it. I can't get far with that. His work is quite recent. It had the support of the Archaeological Survey of India (which is good), was published locally in pamphlet form (which is unlucky for us) by a good university (which is promising). I can find one book of 2013 which treats Rajan's other datings in this pamphlet with respect (see page 248 here).
Based on what I have so far, I see no reason to reject Rajan's work. It is reaching the scholarly mainsteam. So, for now, in the infobox, I would put 5th cent./2nd cent. BC. In the text of the article I would explain the state of the question, footnoting, for the 5th cent. possible date, (1) Rajan's pamphlet, (2) The Hindu (it's a very good newspaper, and adds a nuance to the claim that Rajan originally made), and (3) the excavation blog which is here. For 2nd cent. I would footnote some of the sources that we already have. Then I would wait and see: if other academics decide to reject his conclusions, more evidence of their views will soon turn up.
Don't know if that helps ... :) Andrew Dalby 10:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
There's also the question of whether it's actually Tamil Brahmi, or just Prakrit Brahmi. If the writing is dated to the 5th c., that doesn't mean the adaptations to Tamil (extra letters, loss of the inherent vowel) were that early. — kwami (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Kwami! I see that the Hindu article and the blog both say firmly "Tamil Brahmi". Without reading Rajan's pamphlet, we don't know (or, at least, I don't know) on what grounds they say it.
It seems, anyway, that evidence was already gathering for Tamil Brahmi as early as 4th/3rd century BC (as our section "Archeological review" explains), so there is still good reason (I'd say) to allow the infobox to give a date range rather than a firm 2nd century BC dating. Andrew Dalby 11:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The sources I've been able to check for the early dates are not actually for Tamil Brahmi, which makes me doubt the rest. One source has an early date for Brahmi in Tamil Nadu, but still 2nd c. for Tamil Brahmi itself. But in the less reliable sources there seems to be a tendency to call anything from Tamil Nadu "Tamil", whether it is known to be or not. — kwami (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, well, one can see reasons for that! From the language point of view, to find Prakrit in use in Tamil Nadu in the 5th century BC would be a big surprise, I think (for me, anyway); to find Tamil in use there is no surprise at all. From the script point of view, it's a different thing: when was it introduced, how quickly was it adapted, what name should we give to the earliest samples? Andrew Dalby 12:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. Before we blindly accept the earliest claim of a date for the geographic region as a date for the script, we should have a RS that it actually is the script: Brahmi adapted to Tamil, or at the very least transcribing Tamil. Tamil Brahmi is defined an the Brahmi script adapted to Tamil; our sources describe how it differs from Brahmi used to write Prakrit. (Except for Tamil Brahmi used secondarily for Prakrit.) Since I can't access every citation, I can't disprove it, but the ones I have checked are not supportive of the claim. I've asked for quotations, but have met only resistance, which makes me suspicious that the refs do not actually say what they're being used to support. — kwami (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Based on what I know and can read, assuming a script found in a Tamil Nadu context and reliably dated to the 5th century BC, to call it "Prakrit Brahmi" would be a much wilder stab in the dark than to call it "Tamil Brahmi". How did Prakrit come to be written in Tamil Nadu in the 5th century BC? How did the language even get there? If I were writing about it I'd just call it "Brahmi", at least until I knew what the inscription says ... But that's it, I think. I'd much prefer someone else to comment who knows the linguistic context better, so I'll bow out here. Good wishes to all. Andrew Dalby 11:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Tenkasi Subramanian, please summarize the question. Help is requested, but I wouldn't like to read the entire discussion before seeing the question. Gryllida (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Question? (Singular)

I have Claims (plural) and questions (again Plural) as per references and sources. I give it as a Tabular Column as per academic sources and research Journals. Then it is easy to understand.

Claims Primary Source, Year (referability) Secondary source, year (referability) Any other reference in case of absence in reference of primary/secondary sources? User Comments
Support Pre-Asokan Dispersal Dilip K. Chakrabati, 2006, 2009 (no) K.Rajan, 2009 (no) Hindu Paper Article, Radio Carbon Dating site of Beta lab Even both sources (P & S) have no referability, at least this theory have referred in newspaper article and it was accepted by Beta lab.
Refuse Pre-Asokan Dispersal Kasinthan 2004, Dilip (2006, 2009), Rajan 2009, (no) Mahadevan, 2003 (!?), Salomon, 1998 (!!?), (no) NIL How 2004, 2009 research o/p and 2006, 2009 academic sources can be rejected/questioned by secondary sources before 2003 and how it can be authoritative ( :) )/approved by 1998 secondary source?
Support Post-Asokan Dispersal Mahadevan, 2003, (no) Salomon, 1996 (!!?), (no) NIL How 2003 primary source can be authoritative ( :) )/approved/supported by 1996 secondary source?
Refuse Post- Asokan Dispersal Mahadevan, 2003, (no) Kasinathan, 2004, (JOTS Article) No need. Because secondary source can be referable. 2003 article was refused by 2004 Article. Even though Kasinthan article is a primary source to support Pre-asokan, it should be considered as a secondary source to refuse post-asokan dating provided by Mahadevan. But not vice versa.
Comparision of 3 Primary sources Kasinathan, 2004 (Yes) and K. Rajan (No) Vs Mahadevan 2003 (No) NIL Vs NIL (As per my knowledge no author compared Kasinathan's, K.Rajan's and Mahadevan's dating method) - But K. Rajan refuse post asokan theory by his dating and Kasinthan also refused the same by his Consonant Method. But both of their Pre-asokan claims never rejected even by Mahadevan in any Research or academic sources. So see my points below the table.

These points might have referability and it's my own according to my knowledge. I considered 3 dating primary sources in my account.

  1. Mahadevan article was in 2003. According to his consonant dating method (He only proposed this consonant dating method first). He proposed 3 stages of Tamil Brahmi.
    1. ET 1 - Ex: Mangulam Inscription 2nd century BC.
    2. ET 2 - Ex: Jambai Inscription 1st Century BC.
    3. ET 3 - Ex: Neganurpati Inscription After BC (AD).
  2. Kasinathan's article was in 2004. According to his Developed/Updated consonant dating method (He included one other stage in Tamil Brahmi) and for comparision with other brahmi he took Battiporulu and Asokan inscriptions.
    1. ET 1 - Ex: Mangulam Inscription 5th century BC.
    2. ET 2 - Ex: Pugalur Inscription 4th century BC.
    3. ET 3 - Ex: Jambai Inscription 3rd Century BC.
    4. ET 4 - Ex: Neganurpati Inscription After (AD).
  3. K. Rajan radio carbon results in 2009.

My Conclusions according to sources in Lack of referabilities.

  • Though Mahadevan proposed 3 stages of Early Tamil brahmi, he didn't mention the reason why he dated Asokan brahmi is prior than Tamil-Brahmi 3 stages. And this post dispersal theory don't have an archaeological proofs like Radio carbon dating.
  • Kasinathan proposed 4 stages of Early Tamil brahmi. He mentioned the reason why he dated 2 stages of ET is prior, one is co-existing and one is later than Asokan brahmi. As Kwami said that Kainathan never mentioned any reason, so it's my duty to give that reason here from 8th page of JOTS Article below. You can also refer the PDF link above.

//There are 2 sheet anchors from the epigraphical side for fixing date of early Tamil Epigraphs. One is Jambai and other is Pulankuricci. Jambai mentioned the ephithet Satiyaputo for athiyaman netuman anci. The same ephithet is found in Asokan II edict. Hence Jambai Inscription is to be equalled with asokan. Therefore it is to be assigned to 3rd Century BC//

Jambai inscription is in ET III of kasinathan's consonant method. Therefore ET I and ET II is prior than Asokan brahmi. So consider this Kasinathan's article as a secondary source to refuse Mahadevan's post asokan claim and primary source to the pre asokan claim by kasinthan himself.

  • Pre-asokan dispersal also supported by radio carbon dating. No brahmi post sherds which was radio carbon dated or dated according epigraphic methods before 300 BC was founded in North India. But in Tamilnadu there are brahmi postsherds and epigraphs which were dated according to radio carbon and Epigraphs method.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


Gryllida please read the all the contents in the sub-heading above (Break) and come to this sub-heading (Table).--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what "referability" means.
Several of your supposed 2ary sources are actually 1ary.
Beta Lab is not a separate source, it just reposts the Hindu article.
As for Kasinathan, it would help if you actually gave the reason. You repeatedly claim there is one, yet refuse to provide it.
You also keep referring to Brahmi, but we're not dealing with just any Brahmi: We're interested in Tamil Brahmi specifically. Brahmi could date to the 5th c. in the region and Tamil Brahmi still date to the 2nd. — kwami (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. Referability - Ex: Google Preview, JOTS article, Any PDF's etc.
  2. //Several of your supposed 2ary sources are actually 1ary// List that sources in first four rows in the table I mentioned above.
  3. In case of Failed reference only I proposed that. Not for others. But you don't have that also for your claim.
  4. Mahadevan failed to give a reason for his post-asokan claim according to his consonant method. But Kasinathan gave the reason for his pre-asokan claim as well as to refuse Mahadevan Post-Asokan Claim.

//As for Kasinathan, it would help if you actually gave the reason. You repeatedly claim there is one, yet refuse to provide it.//

I said the reason for that claim mentioned in that article. But you failed to read. I want Wiki Common helper's point in this area.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. It's not much of a reason, which is why I kept looking for something more substantial. Yes, he says that the Ashoka-like texts are later than the dissimilar texts, but AFAICT he gives no reason for that conclusion. His "reason" doesn't include an actual reason, AFAICT. There aren't any established dates prior to the 3rd c; the 4th and 5th c. dates are mere guesses. Guesses based on an unsupported conclusion are not very convincing.
As for referability, several of those books are available at GBooks. The sources I quoted should all be (yes).
Rajan, Mahadevan, and Kasinathan are all primary sources, are they not? Though Mahadevan has the support of 2ary sources. — kwami (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see any specific question. That said, when there are multiple scholarly opinions about a topic, Wikipedia should report them all, in proportion to the support among academics they enjoy. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Instead we misrepresent sources and declare the (in)correctness of theories in Wikipedia's voice. That's particularly evident in our use of Olivelle 2006 to refute the post-Ashokan dispersal theory developed by Mahadevan. Firstly, that should not be a part of the "pre-Ashokan dispersal" section in the first place. Secondly, while Olivelle does say that Mahadevan did not take into account the Anuradhapura findings, he doesn't say that's a failure of Mahadevan's theory and in fact argues that Anuradhapura shows close association of mercantile endeavours and Buddhist clergy - which would indicate that the shards are dated post-Ashoka. He's entirely content with Mahadevan's dating of other shards through archaeo-magnetic tests. Finally, even if Olivelle contradicted Mahadevan, we should report that, not simply claim that Mahadevan is wrong. Huon (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

discredit only belongs to 2005 findings[edit]

User:Florian Blaschke

what the link you shown in Talk:Early_Indian_epigraphy#Early_Tamil_Writing was discredited in 2005 itself. But Rajan findings are post 2005. So don't revert it with 2005 discredit.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion in the previous section? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I am one of them in discussion. Don't revert with 2005 discredit.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I saw that. You haven't addressed the objections of the others, though. The point is, pre-Ashokan datings are highly controversial, so they don't belong into the infobox. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Your view point is not neutral. See the neutral point from above discussion by Huon. We should represent both Scholar Points.

Below one is the Neutral point of Huon.

//That said, when there are multiple scholarly opinions about a topic, Wikipedia should report them all, in proportion to the support among academics they enjoy.// --Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Huon and Kwamikagami: We need your input, and clarification of your contributions. How large is the support among academics for the pre-Ashokan datings? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd say the pre-3rd century theory is rather in WP:FRINGE territory. I'm not an expert on ancient Indian history, but a quick Google Books search found plenty of sources that confirm a post-Asokan dispersal, with many noting the eminence of Mahadevan and his work. Rajan, on the other hand, seems a lone voice, academically, and I believe every single one of our sources arguing for an earlier dispersal points back to Rajan. Even Rajan himself seems to mostly cite his own work for early dates of Tamil-Brahmi. I looked up one of the three papers citing Rajan's 2013 work, and it didn't cite Rajan for anything language-related, further indicating his position on this issue does not enjoy widespread support. If anything, the pre-3rd century theory should be further de-emphasized, not given equal weight to what seems to be the scholarly consensus. Huon (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I haven't heard of any change in the field, not that negative evidence means much. There is however a chronic nationalist attempt to 'prove' India was literate pre-Ashoka, often deriving the brahmic scripts from Indus script. It's not reasonable to demand that the issue be revisited every year or so just because the nationalist ideology hasn't gone away. (And isn't India a proudly oral culture? seems odd to base its legitimacy on writing.) — kwami (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


First of all India is not a Nation. Anyway don't go beyond core.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, yes, India is a nation – an extremely multicultural, multilingual and multi-ethnic nation, but still a nation. Similarly, Switzerland is an explicitly multicultural and multilingual nation. Mexico, Brazil and Nigeria are further examples of multi-ethnic nations. By no means does a nation have to be overwhelmingly dominated by a particular single culture, language or ethnic group for it to be a nation.
Kwami, actually in this case I think it's not just Indian nationalism – it's specifically Tamil nationalism, continuously struggling with the north to assert the priority and antiquity of Tamil culture. This battle is waged by nationalist POV warriors throughout Wikipedia. (And it may actually be typical of Tamil nationalists to deny the nation status of India.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)