Talk:Ancient Dravidian culture

There is South Indian culture, and then there is cranky Tamil national mysticism suffering from a heavy case of antiquity frenzy (see Kumari Kandam, see Devaneya Pavanar, actually a very refreshing topic, which sort of serves to ridicule all nationalism by going beyond anything that can be listended to with a straight face). Both are valid encyclopedic topics. But when you combine them into a rambling essay, the result will cease being encyclopedic in any sense of the term. --dab (𒁳) 08:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @ dab, Is there a reason why you are bashing Tamils and other Dravidian groups who take pride in their history and culture? Wiki Raja (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

They are different topics, and should not be merged. We can clean up the article and make it neutral - but bringing in personal or political POVs degrades the whole purpose of Wikipedia. --Avedeus (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. None of this is based on Tamil Nationalism, I am not even sure if Kumari Kandam is mentioned in this article. If it is ever, it would read something along the lines of "According to Silappadikaram, Dravidians allegedly held the First Tamil Sangham in a lengendary island called Kumari Kandam, the validity of such an island is not supported in academic circles, but played an extensive role in Tamil Nationalism." No one is suffering from "antiquity frenzy" if the citations are anything to go by. --Avedeus (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * PEOPLE LIST ALL YOUR SPECIFIC GRIEVANCES IN NEW SECTIONS, WE WILL ADDRESS IT ONE BY ONE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avedeus (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge with South Indian culture
Yes merging it is a better option, since the article does not speak about ancient but things very much prevalent today. Those who argue not to be merged, please cleanse a lot of contemporary articles and delve more that is ancient like pre aryan(flawed invasion theory) that is 4500 BC back wards.

This article does not concern India, or the Republic of India, as stated it includes natives i.e. NOT FROM INDIA ANYTIME SOON, of Sri Lanka, Mauritius and Réunion as well as emigrant indentured communities in Singapore, Malaysia and South Africa. --Avedeus (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If this article is supposed to address "Ancient Dravidian culture", why doesn't it discuss "Ancient Dravidian culture"? It discusses the folklore, cuisine, architecture, etc. of South India. Most of the stuff here isn't even "ancient" in any sense, it's just culture and folkore that would belong on South Indian culture.

Are you aware of our WP:SYNTH guideline? I am asking because you have violated it and do not seem to be aware of the fact.

Have you cited any references addressing "ancient Dravidian culture"? No. I will grant you the term has been used in passing, I get 76 google book hits. Has anyone ever written a book about "ancient Dravidian culture"? It doesn't look like it. I get this on the topic:
 * "unfortunately the materials for a history of ancient Dravidian culture are scanty. No authentic documents have as yet been discovered."

''That is but one source. SecondLy IT WAS WRITTEN IN "1921", WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO QUOTE FROM NEXT? CHAUCERS CANTERBURY TALES? LOOK AT THE SOURCES I HAVE LISTED, FIND OPPOSING SOURCES FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS.'' Out of the 76 hits, you quote from 1, that's sad. Besides no one looks for it that way, you need to search specifically i.e. Dravidian architecture, or language or whatnot.--Avedeus (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

we can confidently place this single sentence under Dravidian peoples. No need for an article. You can also place a "see also" link to Ancient Tamil country.

I would agree, but not sure it would be enough to cover all the things; besides this is about the older traditions like the top-knot hair styles, and matriarchal system; things have changed a lot now in modern times.

Based on the extremely meagre material available (which you have not even collected, but apparently need people to collect for you), I suppose this can at best become a paragraph under Dravidian peoples, or a stub art text hasn't even anything to do with the topic. If there is any valid material here, why would you bury it under a heap of irrelevant chaff? --dab (𒁳) 16:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Ancient Dravidian culture"? It discusses the folklore, cuisine, architecture, etc. of South India". Dravidians are not only from South India, but from Sri Lanka, Mauritius with indentured cultures in Singapore, Malaysia etc. Dravidians are not only South Indian. THey are natives of other countries as well.

Does anyone know the meaning of specific, "95% at least of your current text hasn't even anything" really vague. We cannot go anywhere without being specific, So you are telling me Dravidians didn't
 * build temples,
 * don't eat foods listed like appam and hyderabadi biryani,
 * were not originally matriarchal,
 * did not accomodate a variety of religions as listed,
 * didn't sculpt,
 * "Are you aware of our WP:SYNTH guideline? " Please be specific, where do you think I have violated this guideline? Let us work on it instead of this pointless vague arguement.

So you are telling me "folklore, cuisine, architecture," cannot be listed under culture, if so, where do you list it under? Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_india what does it discuss? arts literature cuisine religion philosophy society architecture. Someone please help them understand what culture is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avedeus (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Dravidian attire.
Please list your grievances about this section.

Linguistic identity
Please list your grievances about this section.

Architecture
Please list your grievances about this section.

Arts
Please list your grievances about this section.

Floriography
Please list your grievances about this section.

Religion and Philosophy
Please list your grievances about this section.

Food
Please list your grievances about this section.

Social Order
Please list your grievances about this section. --Avedeus (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

please don't spam article talkpages with empty h2 sections. The "grievance" with this article is that it is the wrong genre. It is an essay, while we are looking for encyclopedic articles about an identifiable topic. You are asking me to rate and review your essay. I have no interest in doing that. Go to a writing class or something. For the purposes of this project, it is enough for me to be telling you to stop posting your essays to Wikipedia for no good reason.

If you want to claim "Ancient Dravidian culture" is an identifiable topic, you will need to present a writeup that is based on references that discuss "Ancient Dravdidian culture", not references that discuss Tamil cuisine etc.

please pull your own weight. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 17:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a monograph about "the Dravidian element in Indian culture". I have no idea whether it is a quality reference, but at least it is one. If you want to create an article on "Dravidian culture", you can read the book and sumamrize its gist. As opposed to just post rambling text off the top of your head. Here is an article about the development of the "Dravidian identity". If you want to do something useful, read it and summarize its conclusions in a Dravidian identity article (or a "Dravidian identity" section within the Dravidian nationalism article if you find the topics overlap too much). --dab (𒁳) 17:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I see where this  is going. Why must you insist on writing a new article on topics that already have articles, and these articles needing urgent attention at that? It does not help to add a broken article to an existing collection of five other broken articles on the same or similar topics. You will make the quality of Wikipedia worse, not better. If you want to make yourself at all useful, please help improve the articles.
 * South Indian culture
 * Dravidian peoples
 * Sangam period (= ancient Dravidian culture)
 * Dravidian identity (= modern Tamil national mysticism)

Please accept that Wikipedia is not interested in partisan contributions by Tamil nationalists (or any other sort of nationalists. Known as WP:TIGERS). There is the ancient history of South India, covered at Sangam period, and then there is the 20th-century nationalism in Tamil Nadu which derived its ideology from ancient South Indian history, covered at Tamil nationalism. These are two distinct topics, both to be covered from a neutral point of view based on scholarly literature. In one case, this will be scholarly literature from the field of archaeology and ancient history, the other will be literature from the field of 20th-century political studies and sociology. I.e. the two topics are from unrelated fields and must not be conflated. Any attempt to conflate them is at best a misguided action by an indoctrinated editor, if not a conscious attempt to abuse Wikipedia as a propaganda platform. Neither is acceptable. --dab (𒁳) 09:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Does that include Indian and Sinhala nationalists too? Wiki Raja (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course "any other sort of nationalists" excludes Indian (aren't most Dravidians Indians, too?) and Sinhala nationalists ... not! Stupid question. All nationalists cause trouble on Wikipedia and degrade the quality of articles, as a rule (allowing occasional, but on the whole insignificant exceptions – even a blind chicken may once find a grain). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Martial Arts and Bodhi Dharman
In the MArtial Arts section, there should be a small article on Bodhi Dharma and the Pallava Empire. As a South Indian, he was first to bring the Zen tradition to China.(Tamilan101 (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamilan101 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic
This topic has much potential and shouldn't be removed. Dravidians were some of the earliest human civilizations.--Ancienzus (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)