Talk:Sources of ancient Tamil history

Criteria for GA?
Can someone explain the reasoning in speedily moving this article to a GA? I would have expected at least a peer review to happen before jumping the gun. Did a review really happen? Lets try to follow some good practices here even if there is nothing defined as such.. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 17:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologise for the mistake. I just looked at the assessment scale and added GA quality forgetting the process. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 17:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, also shouldn't it not even be A class? It has to reach GA class first, correct? I'll look into it and change it, correct me if I'm wrong. --Banime (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I looked into their quality scale and even though I am not a part of WikiProject India, I'm going to change the rating to B-Class since it has not gone through the GA process yet. --Banime (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Herodotus and cannibalism
It is an error to quote the passage from Herodotus about cannibalism without any context or critical commentary (Cf. David Asheri, Alan B. Lloyd, Aldo Corcella, Oswyn Murray, Alfonso Moreno, Barbara Graziosi, A Commentary on Herodotus Books I-IV, tr. Barbara Graziosi, pp. 497-8. Oxford University Press (2007) ISBN 0198149565). The story may be as much ideology as ethnography.

Herodotus did not visit India Imperial Gazetteer of India, v. 2, p. 272. The story about cannibalism among the Padaei comes from a source unknown to us, and unverifiable by a modern reader. Herodotus reported man-eaters in many distant and unexplored places. His reason for writing the History was to extol the deeds of heroes, not to provide accurate information about vanquished peoples. We are in the realm of conjecture, at best. (Cf. N.K. Sidhanta, The Heroic Age of India: A Comparative Study, p. 98. Internet Archive, on line. Also: Munshiram Manoharlal (1975) ISBN 8170690463)

For example, Herodotus originated the practice by associating the Scythians with man-eating cannibals, an association which has come into question. (Cf. E.M. Murphy, J.P. Mallory, "Herodotus and the cannibals" Antiquity, (June, 2000). On line. Fconaway (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, further he mentioned the tribe of Padaei and somehow we jump to comclusion that it is the Pandyan dynasty. It just does not mnake sence. Futher I am for mentioning in a short sentence or two that Herodotus mentions Padaei as a tribe who are assocaited with Pandyas if we have a cite for that from an WP:RS source. Taprobanus (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether Herodotus visited India or imagined the story in his dream is not for us to judge. We just have to remain content with what he observed whether we ourselves believe it or not. Just state the facts as they are! Padaeans may or may not have been Pandians, which I have clearly included now. So the facts are set straight now.65.49.2.153 (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether Herodotus visited India or imagined the story in his dream is not for us to judge That is true but others seemed to have judged it for us as cited above.


 * And who says it is not clear that they are Pandians or not ? you ? That is not acceptable either. We have to find RS sources that say that. This is a GA article not just another web page.


 * Also see Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources. Taprobanus (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Herodotus did not make such an association. The connection of the Padaei with the Pandyan Kingdom or the Pandyans derives from a mistranslation, and is speculative.  It has been referred to an eastern area (beyond the Indus) by James Rennell; and to Sumatra  R. G. Latham, Descriptive Ethnology v. 2.  London, John Van Voorst (1859), p. 305, as well as other places.


 * James Rennell considered this a calumny, "highly injurious to the character of that industrious, inoffensive and highly civilized people." He pointed to Herodotus' very confined knowledge of India, and concluded that the Padaei may have lived "between the lower part of the Indus and Rajpootana".  Or, as "the Padaei were said to be one of the eastern nations of India, ... it must be supposed he meant the people who inhabit the banks of the Ganges, the proper and Sanscrit name of which is Padda; Ganga being the appellative only; so that the Padei may answer to the Gangaridae of later Greek writers."James Rennell, The Geographical System of Herodotus Examined and Explained by a Comparison with those of the Ancient Authors, and with Modern Geography, 2nd ed. v. I  Rivington (1830), pp. 403-410.


 * More generally, John Gould noted that Herodotus described "a world in which things become progressively more strange as one moves outward from (Greek) normality at the center." (Cf. John Gould, "Herodotus and Religion", in Greek Historiography, ed. Simon Hornblower.  Oxford (1994) pp. 97-9.)  This is a speculative, unsourced and controversial claim, at best, which does not belong in a Good Article.Fconaway (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, looks like we cant even be sure that he meant Pandyas that too Tamil speaking Pandyas given that we had mention of the same title {Pandya) in present day Bengal/B'Desh as well as later in Tulunadu not just in Tamil Nadu. Taprobanus (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Herodotus did not tell us that there were Padaeans and Pandians living as two separate communities in India. 2. To claim that Padaeans are not Pandians (or otherwise) without evidences would be WP:OR 3. The purpose of quoting Herodotus (and also mentioning that the Padaeans mentioned by Herodotus are not identified with Pandians apart from only the similar name) which is the only evidence left to identify them, is to quote both sides of the issue in the article and leave it for the reader to make his own inferences. 4. Herodotus mentions that they were darker than other indians (maybe because of dravidian descent) and beyond the reach of Darius (because they lived far off from the other Indians). The above are facts and it is best not to force our own points of view into the article. It appears balanced now. ­ Kris (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will filing a request to check whether the IP posted here is known contributer because it will be violating WP:SOCK. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Further I think the section by Herodotus is off topic as it marginally mentions that they may be Pandyans, It brings not actaul understanding ofthe history of early Tamil Nadu. May be it requires a seperate article ? Taprobanus (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Herodotus is off topic here.Feel we need to remove it.Herodotus has mentioned some tribe further the name given Padaeans to say that Padaeans are pandyas needs sourcing not the reverse.We are trying to build an Encyclopedia feel we do need this here and further this theory is not proper and clearly is out of context here.Further Pandyas were only one of the kingdom of old Tamil World.Checked articles of the Cholas the other major Tamil kingdom and found no article which states the same .So feel that adding the information is OR and out of context as he has not mentioned Tamil or Cholas the much more famous Tamil empire and further the confusion is due to the fact that the two names Padaeans and pandians are similar.To assume Padaeans are pandians and hence Tamils is clearly OR .I agree with user Fconaway  and user Taprobanus here  Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed the section it is off topic and not certain that they are Pandians leave alone Tamils.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pls dont remove a whole part from an article unilaterally, you need to discuss here before doing such a thing, and it has to be removed by consensus if necessary. Megasthenes mentions Pandae which is mentioned in the article. Nicolaus mentions Pandion which is also mentioned in the article. Herodotus mentions Padaei which shouldnt be mentioned? Pandyas may not have been the only kingdom, but they are the only ones herodotus mentions, and it is not established that they were living in (or only in) south india in Herodotus' time. Expecting a mention of Cholas (maybe even cheras) just because he mentioned Pandyas is not right. He mentioned only that which he wanted to mention. Wikipedia is also not a place to debate whether Herodotus was right or not.­ Kris (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Srkris, this point has been made before, but you need to produce citations which show (1) that reliable sources treat Herodotus' description as being a reference to the Pandiyan kingdom and (2) that they treat his account of the Padaei as being a genuine source of Tamil history. -- Arvind (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pandae by Megasthenes is mentioned in the article. Pandion mentioned by Nicolaus is mentioned in the article. These are not 101% surely identified with a particular Pandyan dynasty either. Anything that is that old can only be of persuasive evidence. Padaei by Herodotus is clearly a Dravidian kingdom ("of fish eaters", "people being darker than the rest" etc) which is as clearly Pandian/Dravidian as Megasthenes' Pandae. Herodotus also mentions the Calatiae who followed the custom of eating their old parents (collar or kallar in Indian languages) who are also early Tamilians (old Tamil caste of kaLLar).77.64.4.165 (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Megasthenes and Strabo are mentioned because reliable sources - in this case, Nilakanta Sastri - interpret them as refering to the Tamil country, and as being a source of Tamil (or South Indian) history. This simply isn't true of Herodotus. Nobody knows who the Padaei were - they've been identified with the people of Little Tibet, Kutch, the North-west, Sumatra, and even with the Veddas of Sri Lanka and the Bhils, amongst others - and accounts of Tamil history do not treats Herodotus' description of the Padaei as being a source of Tamil history.  Look, why don't you simply cite your sources, if you have any?  If you don't, you may want to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies on original research. -- Arvind (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've moved the Padaei to their own article, and I've added material to that article discussing various attempts to identify them. I see nothing in the literature identifying them with Tamils, let alone treating the passage as a valid source of Tamil history.  But by all means feel free to add your sources to that article. -- Arvind (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Tamil history from Sangam literature
A Wikipedia editor other than myself has suggested that Tamil history from Sangam literature be merged into this article. I would tend to agree. Discuss. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tamil history from Sangam literature is supposed to be the sub-article for the first section of this article.  I agree that it's a mess at present, but the topic as such does deserve its own sub-article.  -- Arvind (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning whether that is true or not, but can you explain why you think that way? I would help in forming concensus. Jo7hs2 (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. This article discusses the various sources for the history of the ancient Tamil country, not the history itself. There ought to be an article which deals with the history itself (along the lines of the articles dealing with the industry, economy, agriculture, and religion of that period).  The main sources for the history of the period - on which most accounts are based - are early Tamil literary works (the so-called Sangam literature), although their use as sources of history is not unproblematic.  Tamil history from Sangam literature seems to be the appropriate place for an article which describes the history of the period as it appears in the poems, the extent to which other sources bear this account out (or don't), the problems of their reliability, and so on. -- Arvind (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds very reasonable. Perhaps the title of the article could be changed to better reflect that, but I'm convinced sufficiently to no longer feel a merger is warranted. Since I did not originally suggest the merger, I don't feel comfortable closing it without some additional consensus. I'll start a new section to discuss a potential name change. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article (WHOOPS, IGNORE)
Per the above merger discussion, I've come to the conclusion that this article should probably be renamed. I'm going to suggest "Sangam literature as a source of Tamil history", which is longer than the original, but a little more specific. I may be totally off-base, so please discuss. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. This article is about all sources of Tamil history, not just Sangam literature.  The other article could perhaps be renamed.  -- Arvind (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WHOOPS!!!: Ignore the above. I posted on the wrong talk page. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Issues
. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)