Talk:Dravidian peoples/Archive 3

Dravidian race?!
I just took a look at the article and glanced through the arguments on this talk page and few users' talk pages. There is so much wrong about this article that, frankly, I dont even know where to start.

Even so, I'll try.

For starters, 'Dravidian' is NOT a 'race'. Not by any stretch of imagination. It was term first used by Caldwell, a linguist, to group together certain languagaes like kannada, tulu, malayalam, brahui, tamil etc.,. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And even Caldwell writes in his book that the term was a very bad choice and that he was using the term reluctantly simply coz he couldnt think of anything better.

So if 'Dravidian' is ever used to describe people, it should only be used to refer to 'speakers' of the above mentioned languages even if the speakers were Mongoloid or Caucasian.

That 'Dravidian' has(in some quarters) come to assume racial connotations, is thanks purely to the political machinations of the Dravidian parties. A similar fate had befallen the term 'Aryan' too a little earlier, thanks to a certain Mr. Hitler and his comrades.

Racially, both 'South Indians' and 'North Indians' are the same. Somebody may point to some esoteric genetic study(which used probably a sample size of 5 people to decide the fate of a billion people) and claim that there are, infact, genetic differences between 'north indians' and 'south indians'(both terms being as ambiguous and 'loose' as they get). Nonetheless, these may at best be perfectly natural differences but certainly not enough to bracket them ('south indians' and 'north indians') into different races. It is not like one of them is Mongoloid and the other is Caucasian!! Even if the languages they speak are as different as chalk and cheese(thats debatable too, but let's leave that for another day).

Other than the racial connotations that this article talks of, even other things like claiming that Carnatic music or Bharatanatya or Kuchipudi etc., are 'Dravidian' traditions is patent nonsense.

So unless somebody puts some sense and sanity back into the article, I will be tagging it soon. Infact, I dont even know what an appropriate tag would be. {OR} certainly comes to mind. So does {pov} and its variants. Let me see. I'll try to find a good one. Sarvagnya 18:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For starters this is one of the most comprehensive view on the concept called Dravidian people. It gives all sides of the argument for is it a race or not ? is it a language group or not ? but in general the article does not make a prnouncement about truth unlike your argument above. In wikipedia we give all sides and let the readers make up their mind. This article reads only POV only to those who have only one point of view. It is page of constant changes because of it but at the end we have maintained it in a balanced point of viewRaveenS 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Dravidian "race", but Dravidian family of related ethnicities and language
Thanks for your input. Dravidian is not a single race, but a terminology or category of a family of related ethnicties and languages. There seems to be a confusion here on the term Dravidian supposedly created by Caldwell. We cannot change that terminology, if we do, then we might as well change the name of India to something else. Furthermore, the terminology Dravidian is an indigenous name from Sanskrit. There is no where in Sanskrit, Tamils, Bengali, Pali, etc., literature which mentions the word India. So, should we take that name off too? Just because Indo-Aryans and Dravidians so happened to be within the same borders of India, have simlar complexions and black hair does not make them of the same ethnicities. For example, would you same that a Balinese from Indonesia, and someone from Japan are of the same ethnicity because the features of their eyes may be the same?


 * This debate on the talk page has been going on for too long. It is time that we all come to some sort of compromise to at least bring this page up to NPOV standards. If you have read my statements, then you would have come accross what I wrote in comparison to the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian pages:

What I see on the Dravidian people page is: *racial classifications *genetic classifications *current views *mythological views *political ramifications What I see on the Indo-Aryans page is: *pre Vedic Aryans *Vedic Aryans *antiquity *Middle Kingdoms *Contemporary Aryans

What is wrong with that picture? The Dravidian page looks like a propoganda POV page trying to disprove the fact that there are Dravidian civilizations. Once again, Dravidian is a terminology for a family of related ethnicities and languages. If people are trying to disprove that Dravidian civilizations do not exist, then they should try requesting this page to be taken off of Wikipedia. Plain and simple. Instead of these senseless arguments in which we are going no where.

It is more than obvious that we all have our passions in what ever it may be and that the other will not be influencing another users points of view. What I can offer is that we all work together, and somehow post all our views on the Dravidian people page. Therefore, this page will show all our views, in which we are not the only ones who have these views. Am I correct. Furthermore, with our posts, we should have sources cited. Please let me know what you all think. One more thing, in regards to the Mythical views section, I saw this:

Tamil legends According to Tamil lore, the ancient Tamils originally came from submerged land Kumari Kandam in the south of India. Vedic legends Vedic legends speak of battles between the Asuras and Devas.

It states that the Sangam literature is nothing more than Tamil lore, while in Vedic section, it does not say that. Also, it is the Kumari Kandam which is the main page which talks about lemuria. My suggestion is to change Tamil lore to Tamil legend. Otherwise, if we keep that, then I suggest that we add in Vedic legends. There seems to be also a biased POV in this Dravidian page towards Vedic literature and Indo-Aryan culture. I am going to start contributing this article with quoted sources, a map of the Dravidian population distribution, and of course there will have to be a couple of changes in order to bring this page up to Wikipedia non-POV standards. I do agree with you that this page is in pathetic shape and I suggest that we all work together on this as a team collectively without any bias, favoritism, nationalism, religionism, and other isms and skisms. I hope you unerstand as well as the other readers.

I am willing to work with you and others on this project. People say that I attack those who disagree with me. That is wrong. However, I do report those who attack me with vandalism, personal attacks, foul language, accusations, amongst others which all constitute and result in sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and trolling. This endless cycle of unproductive debate Dravidian talk page is becoming repetitive. Therefore, I am notifying everyone in this Dravidian talk page that I will be initiating edition to Dravidian people by adding more information and sources in regards to this topic. Finally, I will let you all know that I am not here to advocate on any politics or religion. I am also not hear to advocate nationalism of any kind. What I am interested in is contributing information in regards to the Dravidian civilizations overall in encyclopediatic format covering all aspects from within India and outside of India and thus bringing this page to Wikipedia standings. Thank you. Wiki Raja 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wiki Raja unlike Indo-Aryans, Dravidian is a not a self identification. It is an identity racial, genetic and linguistic and historical that has been imposed by others. Arya is a term used by a group of Indo-Iranian speaking tribes that lived in Central Asia to describe them and it even entered the Finnish language as a term for slaves as Finnish tribes used to raid the Arya tribes for slaves. Now given that there cannot be any comparison between these two so called classification. One is ancient and self designation and other is a historical and modern designation by outsiders. What the Dravidian peoples article can discus is whether it is a race or not, is there any genetic identity or not and did the language arrive early or late also historic mention of the group prior to what modern linguists, genetist and historians identify them. I think the article tries to do a great job but it can use the help of those who belive that it is race and it proved by genetics such as you to find correct references for such assertion so it is more neutral. Because right now it reads that there was no Dravidian race and it is not proved by genetics. Thanks RaveenS 13:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WikiRaja, what exactly do u mean by 'Dravidian civilisations'? Are u merely referring collectively to Kannada, tamil, brahui, telugu, malayalam etc., 'civilisations' or are you trying to suggest that there was a civilisation of people who were genetically(and hence racially??) different from the speakers of Indo Aryan languages.
 * If the latter is what you're pushing for this article to be, I'd support that this article get deleted.
 * If it is the former that you have in mind, then it might be in the fitness of things that this article take the shape of a summary article with inputs from other articles that pertain to the Dravidian family of languages and their development, history etc.,. Please clarify. Sarvagnya 22:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Except the "Dravidan Claims", I dont see any POV in this page. Dravidians are people who speak any language which belongs to the Dravidian languages. There is no difference between IndoAryans and Dravdians in term of race. Like there is no diffrence between Irakis and Iranians in term of "race". But they both have a different culture and speak two completly different languages. The Dravidian page should exist if its about culture and language. But ur right, if its about racial classification we should delete it.

WikiRaja, U may have noticed that there are more than just one User who disagree with u. That doesnt mean we attack u, we just dont feel it fair to label us as something we arent. Especially from those who dont even know what Dravidian means. Sarvagnya ur male or female? ****Asian2duracell 22:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)****


 * I agree we should remove that Dravidian claim section RaveenS 01:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree also Iseebias

Relevance of Theo physical views
Just a question, what is an encyclopedia article doing with what or what not a theophysist thinks about a modern concept called race ? I think it is fringe and does not add any value to the article. I propose it be deleted ?RaveenS 13:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the upates. You have put in some good work. I am just a little shocked about how much this article talks about "race" and "genetics" as compared to the Indo-Aryan page. Also, weren't the Nazis of Germany into research of "race" and "genetics"? It's funny how race is mentioned 15 times in the Dravidian people article, while race is not mentioned one bit in the Indo-Aryan article. I view race as a species. As for me, there is only one race which is the human race. Dravidian is not a single "race", nor is it a single ethnicity. Dravidian is a "family" of related ethnicities and languages. While Indo-Aryan is also a specific "family" of related ethnicities and languages. Therefore, Dravidian and Indo-Aryans are two different families.


 * This page almost was turning into a proof page or a propoganda page. I am kind of confused as to why Sangam literature would be called "Tamil lore", while the Vedas would be concidered "Legends". I am glad that you have changed the title of the section from "Mythological Views" to "Historical Views". Also, I remember that you stated on the To Do List of the Dravidian people talk page about putting a map on there. I so happened to have found a map of where the various Dravidians are located in South Asia. For some odd reason, somebody had taken it off. Also, regarding WP:RS I have many books. As a matter of fact, I would like to quote as many legitimate sources as possible. However, due to other life's activities, I have not been able to post much on the Dravidian people page. However, when I do, it will most definitely be backed up by legitimate sources.


 * One more thing, please take a look at the Indo-Aryans. That is a really well done page. Lastly, thank you so much for your efforts. Wiki Raja 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One reason that there's so much about race is that the article was originally called "Dravidian race" having been created as a parallel to Aryan race, not Indo-Aryans, but the two race concepts are not really comparable. Paul B 00:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Geomatician's edits
I dont have the time to look into it right now. But will someone please take a look at User:Geomatician's recent edits and revert them if necessary. I've reverted one of the edits. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, a whacky reiteration of Jones's theories about the Tribe of Ham. Paul B 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Historic views
I am looking for a reference of an Indian grammarian,  I think he was called Nannaya (?) I am not sure,  he wrote a treatise on the grammar of Telugu language but he used the word Dravida Bashulu (?) or Dravidian languages to differentiate between Sanskrit derived dialects and languages and others. If this reference can be found that would indicate a thought process amongst Indian linguists long before what the Caldwell classified it as a separate language group. RaveenS 13:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nannayya was a Telugu poet. He wasn't a grammarian.  If he calls his language anything, it would be "Andhra Bhashalu."
 * The term "Dravida bhasha" is found in a Sanskrit text written by Kumarilabhatta, where he uses it in the singular form to refer to Tamil, so at that stage it seems quite clear that it only meant Tamil. "Dravidi" is used in other texts (such as the Natyashastra), but there it is said to be a Paishachi Prakrit.
 * Many people have debated whether the "Paisachi" type of prakrits was actually the Sanskrit name for the Dravidian language group. Because we know nothing about Paisachi it is unlikely that we will get a definite answer.  If it was then it would suggest that there was a thought process of the type you are talking about.  -- Ponnampalam 20:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It suddenly occurred to me that you could be talking about the Andhra Shabdachintamani, which is attributed to Nannayya. This work is actually a set of Sanskrit sutras, and it only exists in a "rediscovered" form embedded in Appakavi's grammar from the 16th or 17th century.  I don't think either of them use the name "Dravida" to refer to a group of languages. -- Ponnampalam 00:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be worth pointing out the obvious - that "dravida" just means "southern". Pre-Cauldwell references to the "southern languages" may not imply the theorisation of a language group in the modern sense, but just be noting the fact that some languages are spoken in the south. Paul B 00:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul, do u have a reference for the claim that "'dravida'(Pre-Caldwell) just means 'southern'". I'd be really interested.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 01:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Dravida" did not mean southern before Caldwell. "Dakshina" meant southern (and also right hand).  Traditional Sanskrit commentators used to say the word comes from the name of the sage Dravida.  I think what Paul was trying to say that the main meaning of the word was the groups of people who lived in the south from Gujarat onwards.  If "draavida" was used to collectively also mean the languages, it would have been because of the use of the name for the people living in the South. -- Ponnampalam 01:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerns
I have some serious concerns about this article. I'll go section by section.


 * Tamil legends - Why does this article talk about Tamil legends? Especially when the legends discussed have nothing to do with the linguistic 'Dravidian' group?  People all over the world have legends handed down by tradition.  So should we talk about Kannada legends, Telugu legends, Brahui legends, Tulu legends etc., also?  What exactly does this section try to accomplish?


 * Manu Smriti - Ok. Fine. The MS uses the word 'Dravida'. So?  So what?  It is just a coincidence that Caldwell used the same term to name a group of linguistically related languages.  He could have named this linguistic group anything right.  For example, let us assume that he had named this linguistic group, "American", would that mean we should be talking about linguistics on America or United States of America??
 * If Caldwell called it 'Dravidian' it certainly is nothing more than a coincidence. He certainly didnt name it after 'Dravida' tribe that is supposedly mentioned in the Manu Smriti!


 * Greek legends - Can somebody explain to me what on earth this section is trying to prove? Greeks called somebody 'Ethiopians'.  So?  Sarvagnya 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarvagnya Regarding Greek Legends, there have been trade and commerce between Southern India and Greece. So, this is the Greek version of early contacts with the Dravidian civilizations. Also, in regards to Tamil lengends, I feel that we should include Kannada legends, Telugu legends, and so forth if there are any. That would be great. If you have any info in regards to Kannada legends or Telugu legends, could you please post it? Regards. Wiki Raja 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

''Hi Sarvagnya Regarding Greek Legends, there have been trade and commerce between Southern India and Greece. So, this is the Greek version of early contacts with the Dravidian civilizations.''
 * Why only early contacts? Why not modern contacts?  In modern times Dravidian people have contacts with almost the entire world.  So maybe we should mention legends from all the countries in the world.

''Also, in regards to Tamil lengends, I feel that we should include Kannada legends, Telugu legends, and so forth if there are any. That would be great. If you have any info in regards to Kannada legends or Telugu legends, could you please post it? ''
 * You dont get it. Do you?  This is an article about speakers of Dravdian languages.  So if you are mentioning any legends, that legend must be connected in some way to the languages that these people speak.  Right now, I dont see any link whatsoever between the languages that these people speak and the legends mentioned in the article.


 * Stop saying that these legends are 'referenced' etc.,. Nobody is asking you for references to prove your point.  People are not even convinced about the relevance of many things in this article and other related articles.  This is like inserting a random statement like "Javagal Srinath is a cricket player" into the article and then saying, "I can give references", "He is 'Dravidian'", "His great great grandfather's neighbour's wife's family comes from Kumari Kandam" etc.,.  Sorry to say, but your arguments about this issue so far have simply been nonsense.  Sarvagnya 18:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ''' Stupid concept brought by Britishers in India for futher divding it into parts. Their policy was "Divide and rule". Hence, the concept of Arya and Dravid was coined by britishers for their selffish ulterior motives. There is no proof of such concept. If British scholars are coming up with articles, it is for their own benefit and should not be refered here.

Historic views section
I have removed the "Historic views" section. It mentioned
 * Tamil legends - legends which had nothing to do with speakers of "Dravidian languages"
 * Greek legends - it was some incoherent rant about Ethiopians
 * Manu Smriti - Can somebody prove to me that the "Dravida" and "Andhra" tribes mentioned in Manu Smriti were Dravidians. First of all can you prove that the mentioned tribes were historic fact?  Sarvagnya 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please show more civility when posting to other users including myself. So far you postings show strong signs of a POV propoganda rampage. This is not part of Wikipedia policy since it advocates strong POVs. I do not know why you are mad at me. If you would like to post your own articles, please go to the Unencyclopedia. Thank you. Wiki Raja 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In relation to Greek legends, more than Eastern Ethiopia, it is important to discuss Romila Thapar's identification of Meluhha, Dilmun and Makan as the Sumerian versions of place names in Proto-Dravidian and the debate about that where others disagreed. I can add this, but I do not know when I will be able to. -- Ponnampalam 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The War Between Asuras and Devas
I've read that the war the militant atheistic Dravidians brag about so much is actually a war between the Indo-Aryans and the Iranic tribes. After all the Iranians worshipped the Asuras (or Ahuras.) They were opposed to Lord Varuna losing rank to Lord Indra in the Rig Veda. The Dasarajna was a war between Indo-Aryans and Iranians with the Bharatas, led by the 'Sudra' King Sudas (Mahabharata) being the saviors of Indians.

Please read 'UPDATE ON THE ARYAN INVSION DEBATE' by KOENRAAD ELST. http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/downloads/books/aid.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geomatician (talk • contribs) 16:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

hey peeps
There is a guy "discussin" with me that the Dravdian people are Africans. Go visit the Australoid page and prove that guy we arent. He wont understand even if I tried to explain. Can someone pleas help out. Asian2duracell 16:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dravidian are not African. If anythiong Africans were influenced by the Dravidians. Look at the names of places on the West coast of Africa: Deva, Ethiopia, Rama, Ethiopia. The Africans were influenced by Dravidian Hinduism.
 * We are members of the Mediterranean race! This is a sub-division of the Caucasiod race. Dravidians do not have negroid skulls but have Caucasiod skulls as most anthropological research suggests.
 * The Africans have never had an advanced civilization like India and so want to steal Dravidian history/culture and claims it as their own. Afrocentric views have gone too far!
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geomatician (talk • contribs).
 * If the Africans, then what would you say about the ancient Egyptians? They were as advance as China and India in ancient times - you'll see lots of inventions they've made; from showers to foldable chairs in the Cairo Museum. I don't think I need to prove any further and list what they've contributed to society. Many of us have known about them: you'll be able to find wondrous things on many articles on the ancient Eyptians whether it be on books or internet. --Fantastic4boy 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dravidians in China
There are not many Dravidians in China except for Hong Kong; ref where there is a sizeable Indian, and possible Macau where there is an increase in Indian tourists. Try travelling to Guangzhou, Shanghai and other Chinese cities and you'd hardly find any Indian, and if there are - they'd be very little fo them. I don't agree to those placing the Chinese flag for having significant Dravidian population. So, I've removed the Taiwanese and Chinese flags. Please provide credible sources if you do think are lots of Indians in China other than the Special Administrative Regions. --Fantastic4boy 04:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello, could the editors please use NPOV. Also, please write the articles with generally accepted viewpoints. Such subjects have hundreds of different views. I can see that user named Orpheus is continuously reverting the article without giving substatial proofs to his claims. The user Geomatician has given enough proof the material he has written. What Orpheus is doing can be considered vandalism. I don't even see him discussing his viewpoints here. If this continues, I think the user must be banned from editing this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.39.225.99 (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
 * The user Geomatician, who appears to prefer to use the third person when not logged in, hasn't addressed the concerns raised on this talk page about his edits. I think that some justification is required for such contentious material. Orpheus 07:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you revert parts without declaring it,Orpheus? Geomatician's addition is well cited, no reason to delete it. But If u have a problem with his contingent, discuss it first. Asian2duracell 20:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with the material is the same problem that was raised above on this talk page - the theories being posted have no support in the academic community. Additionally, it's not well cited. See WP:RS for what makes a good reference. I would also point the user Geomatician to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, especially given the title of this section. Orpheus 00:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well whats exactly ur problem? That "Dravdians" and "Aryans" are the same people, or that both belong to the mediterranean stock? Well in that term this theory is accepted by the most scholars. Or which academic community are u talking about?Asian2duracell 17:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - I've added that bit back in. The rest, I stand by. It's WP:OR, not reliably sourced, and possibly a bit WP:POV. Orpheus 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To respond to various edit summaries - the link in the section I removed is to a random stream of thought essay, not a reliable source. Orpheus 00:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you define a reliable source?Asian2duracell 15:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a policy on reliable sources, which I linked in my comment for your benefit. Orpheus 22:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations
Hi,

To all who are contributing to the flags and populations of Dravidian people around the world, are we doing it by lands of origination, diaspora, or countries with the most populated Dravidian people? So far, it looks more like by diaspora. Regards. Wiki Raja 06:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why there is no flag of Srilanka?.--Sria 12:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ''' Ignore this topic. Stupid concept brought by Britishers in India for futher divding it into parts. Their policy was "Divide and rule". Hence, the concept of Arya and Dravid was coined by britishers for their selffish ulterior motives. There is no proof of such concept. If British scholars are coming up with articles, it is for their own benefit and should not be refered here. Only few Indian people believe in this concept. It is better that Srilanka flag is not included in this stupid subdivision of people who can not realise Britishers policies.


 * You mean, combine and rule. Even the unification of the states and the name India itself was created by the British. It is the British who should be credited for that too. What else? Bombay (Portugese name for Bom Bahia later changed to Bombay by the British), Madras (another British name). Kochin, (a Portugese name). Pondicherry (A French name). New Delhi (A Moghul name from Central Asia). What else? It is funny how people would curse the British and yet still hold on to their achievements and place names. At least Dravida and Arya are indigenous, or should I say Sanskrit names for two different families of related ethnicities and languages. Wiki Raja 04:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

To the new Anon user
The story on Vedic Harrapans should be posted on Harappan.

Wiki Raja 04:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Northeastern Sri Lanka
I do not understand why someone keeps changing "Northeastern" Sri Lanka to "Northern" Sri Lanka. Tamils have historically inhabited both the Northern and Eastern areas of the island of Lanka. It seems like a strange coincidence while in Sri Lanka for the past months there have been battles in the Eastern part of the island between the Tamils and Sinhala government. It does not come to a surprise to me that this random changing of the location of Sri Lanka could be politically motivated. This is not the first time there have been Dravidian-Aryan ideological clashes on this page. Wiki Raja 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the issue, but purely as a matter of semantics I wouldn't go with "Northeastern". To me, that suggests that only the corner of the island has a Tamil population. If there are Tamils in the northern and eastern regions then I think you'd be better off saying so explicitly. Orpheus 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean, but here are some quotes from some other sites which use Northeastern:


 * "Sri Lankan Tamils form 18% of the population, and are concentrated mainly in the northeastern part of the country." - SriLanka.com"''
 * "Fighting in northeastern Sri Lanka has forced an estimated 170,000 people from their homes. - - Mercy Corps"
 * "A Sri Lankan government soldier takes cover from possible attack by Tamil rebels in the northeastern town of Mutur August 5, 2006. - - Reuters"
 * "Five Tamils killed in grenade explosion in northeastern Sri Lanka. - accessmylibrary.com"
 * "Thousands of people have fled their homes in northeastern Sri Lanka as the military launches air strikes against the Tamil Tiger rebels. - CBC News"
 * Wiki Raja 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'm not disputing that it's the correct term - you had me convinced at the first post. It's just that as an outsider, I would picture "Northeastern" as being smaller than "northern" plus "eastern". Imagine a square divided into four numbered quadrants - it's the difference between 1, 2 and 3 versus just 1. Like I said, it's just semantics, extremely minor really. Orpheus 03:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Political Ramifications
Hi,

I have added in the section on India under Political Ramifications a tag after the sentence "further fuelled such Dravidianist ideas since it implied that the Indo-Aryans were uncivilised barbarians." Also, I noticed it takes a stand against all political parties in Tamil Nadu instead of presenting them in a neutral light. Instead of briefly stating what these political parties are, it just simply clumps them up into a bracket such as in this sentence: "(e.g. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, DK, ADMK, VC, etc.)". I have noticed that the editor who posted that made a mistake on the third party listed. Instead of ADMK, it is actually AIADMK which stands for All India Ada Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. I do not know whether this may have been a typo, or an intention on misrepresenting these groups. This section, as with other parts of the article overall present a biased perspective of the Dravidian people instead of presenting it in NPOV form. Wiki Raja 00:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Matsya
, the fish, appeared in the Satya Yuga.

According to legend, the mantri to the king of pre-ancient Dravida, Satyavata who later becomes known as Manu was washing his hands in a river when a little fish swam into his hands and begged him to save its life. He put it in a jar, which it soon outgrew; he successively moved it to a tank, a river and then the ocean. The fish then warned him that a deluge would occur in a week that would destroy all life. Manu therefore built a boat which the fish towed to a mountaintop when the flood came, and thus he survived along with some "seeds of life" to re-establish life on earth.

Tells that Drivida is a region ,which is now India and Pakisthan.

Does all the Brahmins of North india are Dravidians?
As Aryan culture is brought not until 1500BCE, all the people in so call region India(now) and as well in pakisthan are Draviadians. After 1500BCE the cultures got mixed. But Brahmins ,who are conidered as top-class did not dissolve with new culture. Brahmins who has physical contacts with Aryans are no more Brahmins. So, finally my statement is 90% of north-indian Brahmins are Dravidians.


 * Taken from Epics.

"related groups" info removed from infobox
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all Infobox Ethnic group infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)