Talk:Tamilakam/Archive 2

Reverts at 21 july 2013
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan

Please explain on what basis have you reverted 6 OF MY EDITS on Tamilakam now that I have added both reliable sources and did not tone down any content without one. And btw you are the one supposed to discuss, since you were with the revert. I placed my revert only after 6 of my edits were reverted at one go without explanation under WP:TW. -- CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 09:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Eluding the previous discussions; presenting Naga Nadu as a Tamil kingdom, despite previous concensus that this is mythological, and not Tami; the removal of claryfying and contextualising info.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There has been no consensus nor any acknowledged proof offered of how the Nagas were mythical. The Nagas were a proto-dravidian(tamil-speakers) tribe and were clearly acknowledged even by the Mahavamsa and related documents. And I have reliable sources that clearly support what I've written. I have only removed Abraham, and have clearly explained for why, in my edit summary. The source bears little significance to the context the article if it cannot deny that Kerala(the Cheras) were Tamil-speaking prior to the evolution of Malayalam in the West. Clearly the notion of your revert is highly suspicious, and until you can provide a more elaborate and logical explanation of the reasons behind your edits, please refrain from reverting again. -- CuCl2  (talk . contr . mail) 10:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In this edit summary Copperchloride wrote: "POV Pushing. This has been talked through in the talk page over several times. Please Read WP:NPOV." What has been talked through is your POV-pushing, despite concensus that your edits are not acceptable, since they are not supported by sources, and/or give a distorted representation of sources. What you don't do, is trying to reach concensus, but instead keep on editing and reverting without cooperation.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This edit sumary: "Awaiting reply in talk page. Version stays till consensus is reached./proper explanation is given for the reverts. Read again WP:BRD.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Not supported by source/Distorted version of the sources? Evidence, evidence learned sir. Please don't ramble as you may please. I have added over 10 sources backing my claims. Please clarify on what grounds are MY RECENT EDITS(now that I have sources and everything) are me edits 'not acceptable'? Without that you constantly stating that Manimekalai makes no sense over Tolkappiyam and targeting both Manimekalai as well as other documentations like Ptolemy and Mahavamsa is plain POV pushing, or at least what I think it is. Your absolutely forbidding any edit on the article is a blatant violation of Wiki's Core policies and what consensus can be reached with a guy(surrounded by a traditional bunch of POV-pushing folk, this I state with evidence) whose sole aim is to degrade the neutrality basis of the article) who won't even allow me to edit nor would he be interested in discussing a status-quo but edit after edit, he will simply disregard and only want his own view to fly high.-- CuCl2 (talk. contr. mail) 10:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Article protected
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ -  The major problem with Copprchloride is, that he simply ignores the discussions and objections on this page, and keeps on inserting his POV, without responding to those discussions and objections. I'll go through the six edits, and explains what the problems are:
 * Edit #1:
 * "Tolkappiar, the writer of the Tolkappiyam, does not mention a Tamil part of Sri Lanka" changed into "While Tolkappiar, the writer of the Tolkappiyam, does not mention a Tamil part of Sri Lanka probably due to the fact that both himself and Sikiandiyar were unaware of the fact"; source (in note) says "According to A. Rajayyan, it is possible that the Tolkappiar and Sikiandiyar were "not aware of the Tamil part of the island of Lanka."" Rajayyan only gives a suggestion, which is presented by this change as a likely explanation. This not NPOV, and WP:OR.
 * "the fact [...] that there existed an ancient Tamil kingdom in the North of Sri Lanka." This is not a fact, but a statement in a 6th century source, which speaks of Naga Nadu, not of "an ancient Tamil kingdom". This not just wrong paraphrasing, or WP:OR, it's downright intentional misleading.
 * There is no explanation, nor any source, which provides a bridge and explains why this statement would mean that Sri Lanka was part of Tamilakan.
 * Holt explains that the Nagas were not Tamils: ""the adoption of the Tamil language was helping the Nagas in the Tamil chiefdoms to be assimilated into the major ethnic group there"". Copperchloride's edit suggests that they were. This is WP:OR.
 * The suggestion is not supported by secondary sources. Manogaran clearly says: ""... we can only speculate that the ancestors of the present-day Tamils were already in Sri Lanka when the Sinhalese began colonizing the island."
 * Edit two: "Historians use the term synonimous" changed into "Today the term is synonymous". This is not what the source (Kumar) says, who speaks about "historians".
 * Third edit: removal of sourced info which relativises the use of documents.
 * Fourth edit: removal of sourced info which is not supportive of Copperchloride's POV.
 * Fifth edit: no problem; just a header
 * Sixth edit: changed Sri Lankan Civil War to Giraavaru people; understandable, no problem.

So, the main problems are: Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   17:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Presenting and paraphrasing a primary source in such a way to suggest that the Nagas were Tamils and therefor (northern) Sri Lanka was part of Tamilakam, without providing secondary surces which actually state this; this is WP:OR and pushing POV;
 * Changing sourced info not in accordance with the source;
 * The removal of sourced info which does not support Coppechloride's point of view;
 * The refusal to answer to previous discussions and objections, and simply try again to insert his POV.

Reply


 * Edit 1:Do you think Manimekalai and Silapathikaram mention Naga Nadu for sitting ducks? The kingdom was a Tamil-Buddhist heritage(with references to the Naga King, and the princess's wedding with a Chola prince that led to the Pallava dynasty...etc), I've cited sources that the Nagas were Dravidian tribes settled in the island, and Tamil was the primary tongue of all Dravidians for quite some time(A different User:Shivass concurs). Have you got anything to deny that Nagas were not Dravidians or prove Tamil was not the native language of Dravidians of those times.(at least after the evolution of Kannada as a distinct language; see Dravidian languages) No means you cannot rule out the possibility(which is quite damned high, revered sir) even though it may not have been properly documented in history. Now once again, the Tolkappiyam was clearly was not a trustworthy work of literature Tolk1ppiyam especially when we do not know who wrote it or when. How can it be used as a reference to demarcate boundaries of Tamilakam 'when it is possible that the author was not aware of the Tamil-speaking part in Sri Lanka'? Please counter-explain this, to hopefully bring about a consensus. And on the other hand the Manimekalai and the Silapathikaram two of the greatest Tamil epics mention of Naga Nadu, and since the Nagas were Dravidians(and thereby very very warmly related to the context) your grounds of disputing is invariably limited. Also in one of my references it is stated that Ptolemy(Europe's greatest explorer/geographer of the ancient times, hope you'd be aware) mentions of aboriginal Tamil-speaking Nagas in the island along with Tamils in India(that is much before Prince Vijaya landed and onward).


 * Okay, we'll come to the second edit later(and citing it even as one of the reasons in the ANI goes on to show your personal venedetta/intention on continuing unabated POV pushing;never mind just a suspicion)


 * Okay now 3rd and 4th, I think this is altogether a new dispute, I just feel much of it has been speculated, no references are cited within the work, and Abraham clearly does not draw any historic chronology in explaining his opinions, clearly a case of WP:OR and considering the undue weightage it gets in the article, I think its been inserted for an INTENDED gross misrepresentation of facts. Get more authors supporting his view or get it removed. Your edits comprised of removing Sourced info(obviously you bear an outright bias(and very defensive to cut down any scope for WP:NPOV), which is evident), not mine.


 * 5th and 6th edits, chuck them too.

So I hope that basically answers and speaks volumes of the 'problems' you have listed to totally prevent me from having anything to do with the article(never mind working out a compromise WP:BRD).(As for me inserting my POV, i'm only neutralizing with the existing POVs in the article.WP:NPOV) Cheers. CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 16:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply by Nishadhi:


 * CuCl2, Dear friend,


 * Please calm down. If you place your self at an end, in your eyes, rest world will be at the other end. However if you place yourself at the middle you will find that all of us actually around you…. JJ is just asking for reliable sources. Just list them in the talk page. Then, lets discuss about them. We will try our best to come to an agreement, which is correct and acceptable to all.Then we can go ahead and edit the article. Simple as that.... Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The main question still is: what is the relevance of the Nagas to this article? And if they are relevant, why?!? And according to which source? No suggestions, but clear statements. Were the Nagas Tamils, or were they a tribe who took over the Tamil language? Apparently the latter, which shows the growing dominance of Tamil culture in Southern India in the third century BCE. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User Nishadi, I'm seriously not high or a Prophet trying to blaspheme people here. Please realize, I have not touched the current version there yet and don't intend to, till there is some compromise worked out. So thats why I need to be fierce the way I'm stating things, so that a more neutral perspective can be inserted. It has been users like Blackknight12 who has made this SO much difficult, with zero knowledge on the subject, zero tolerance for framing an agreement, and lack of respect to others' views when he simply goes and hits revert every time he thinks my edits consists of some 'Hidden Propaganda'. I can very well co-operate with Jonathan(I can see that), I just insisted on editing first and see whether it changes anything. Blackknight12 reverted my edits when this subject EVEN got dragged to the WP:ANI, sadly I can't help feeling I'am surrounded by morons who are always looking to blow away any chance of goodwill gestures, and thats when I get to be accused of 'disrupting' and things. Heck. You are most welcome to share your opinion on this. You too are a Sri Lankan editor I presume, and you seem to be more 'civilized' than your counterparts here(who have been denying all possibility of a neutral article this one, even before I commenced editing to wikipedia).-- CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 13:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of the Tolkappiyam
Copperchloride wrote: "Now once again, the Tolkappiyam was clearly was not a trustworthy work of literature Tolkappiyam especially when we do not know who wrote it or when. How can it be used as a reference to demarcate boundaries of Tamilakam 'when it is possible that the author was not aware of the Tamil-speaking part in Sri Lanka'? Please counter-explain this, to hopefully bring about a consensus." CuCl2  (talk . contr . mail) 16:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What's the value of the statement "According to A. Rajayyan, it is possible that the Tolkappiar and Sikiandiyar were "not aware of the Tamil part of the island of Lanka."" Source: Rajayyan, K. (2005), Tamil Nadu, a real history, Ratna Publications. I can't check the source, but it sounds like no more than a suggestion. Any other sources available on the reliability of the Tolkappiyam?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Frankly speaking I would have no problem with Tolkapiyam's mention here had it been along with other versions too. But since it has been manipulated to be the only source(thereby presenting just one point of view), thats why I'm questioning its credentials of it being privileged in comparison to Manimekhalai. Check the wikilink again, its validity is questionable never mind how popular it was(mind you it was just a novel); Its like I write a story on a travel journey of mine across Europe, supposing I talk of my journey from Portugal to France(where my journey ends) and you assume what Europe is from my version, such as only consisting of France,Spain,Andorra and Portugal, how dangerous can that be? The boundaries defined for Tamilakam by Tolkappiyam was only meant to be Tolkappiyam's version of Tamilakam and not necessarily Tamilakam itself. Rings a bell?-- CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 18:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply by Nishadhi:
 * I see your point and its a good one. I'm impressed. However, can you back up with a concrete source (considering the implications). In my opinion, Dating disputes and author disputes are not uncommon to the early literature. So with regard to the contents, a good analytical study may needed. Is there something like this - Wilh. Geiger. The Trustworthiness of the Mahavamsa. The Indian Historical Quarterly. 1930 June;VI(02):205-228. - with regard to the Tolkappiyam. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Were the Nagas Tamils; was Naga Nadu a Tamil Kingdom?
User JJ, the Nagas being mythical is just plain bulls**t, Perhaps you must have learnt that from the last time you commented after reverting. The Nagas are classified as Dravidians with quite some solid evidence. Not only were they present in Sri Lanka, but were also widespread in Kerala and Tamil Nadu(which were Tamilakam during those times(entirely Tamil times)). Today they are huddled in various sub-castes such as Paravar, Maravar, Nair etc.(the respective articles are of little help though). They clearly were of Dravidian race, and those who constituted Tamilakam were clearly Tamil-speaking. And a Tamil-speaking Dravidian(sorry for the complication) is what you call a Tamil person today. A unique cult that made these folk distinct from mainstream Tamil(or Malayalam) people was their snake-worshipping customs. Snake-worship is part of Hinduism in South India and snake temples are common everywhere in Tamil Nadu and Kerala today, with at least several families of the various associated castes attending to the deities. You may find significant info online(such as, , , etc.), though I cannot any books on it yet, I'd let you be informed if i can find any. I hope I'd present you with more sources one day(sorting out this article is perhaps more crucial), but just googling for 'Snake worship in Kerala/Tamil Nadu' can get you reasonably informed. Point I'd like to notify is there was not a great deal documented on Nagas in TN or Kerala cause they are basically Tamil/Malayali people themselves unlike Sri Lanka where sourced rumors even exist claiming them to have never existed. Now closely check on the Naga People of Lanka, their identity(the snake-worshiping cult which gives them their unique identity) bears a sharp resemblance to their counterparts in mainland India, it was not a mere co-incidence. The Sri Lankan Tamils today may have been direct descendants of these people who spoke Tamil according to Ptolemy, Cāttanār etc. Even the Mahavamsa records them as aborigines to the island and no way they could have spoken Sinhala language which evolved as a distinct script only later than the 12th Century(by then the Naga Nadu came under the Jaffna Kingdom, and the identity of the Nagas had probably diminished over time). Now the relevance it bears to the article is the fact that Tamilakam was never a single piece of territory as the Sri Lankan editors wish to put it but a collective aggregate of various kingdoms such as Chera Kingdom(Kongu Nadu, Kuttanadu), Pallava Kingdom(Thondai Nadu), Cholas, Pandiyas etc. The Silapathikaram and the Manimekalai, two great literary Classics of that time(English was just a newborn tongue then), puts down the reference to the Naga Nadu and so does Ptolemy. And given how Tolkappiyam despite the various inconsistencies regarding its origins, has been manipulated to demarcate boundaries, it is only fair that the views presented by the other contemporary historians/works be instated too. That is all what I seek to clarify.-- CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 13:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ - That's a lot to respond to again... but I'll try. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an agreement that the Nagas were Dravidians. And the South-Indian Nagas had a more solid existence than just "mythological". But... given this comment, I'm not sure yet about the Sri Lankan Nagas.
 * "a Tamil-speaking Dravidian(sorry for the complication) is what you call a Tamil person today" - I'm sorry, I can't judge that. But how does that match with "John Holt writes that "in the early Sri Lankan chronicles as well as in the early Tamil literary works the nagas appear as a distinct group".[40] Holt also writes that "the adoption of the Tamil language was helping the Nagas in the Tamil chiefdoms to be assimilated into the major ethnic group there".[41]"?
 * "The Sri Lankan Tamils today may have been direct descendants of these people who spoke Tamil according to Ptolemy, Cāttanār etc." - Wenzlhuemer: "In the third centurie BCE the first Tamil settlers arrived at Sri Lanka.[47]" And from what I've read, archeological evidence of Tamil presence at Sri Lanka starts in the 3rd century BCE. So at least there are different opinions on the relation between the Nagas and the Tamils at Sri Lanka.
 * "The Silapathikaram and the Manimekalai, two great literary Classics of that time(English was just a newborn tongue then), puts down the reference to the Naga Nadu and so does Ptolemy. And given how Tolkappiyam despite the various inconsistencies regarding its origins, has been manipulated to demarcate boundaries, it is only fair that the views presented by the other contemporary historians/works be instated too." - Does that mean that Tamilakam, in the era of the third century BCE-third century CE extended to Sri Lanka? Are there other sources for such a statement?
 * Should we say: "According to Tolkappiyam etc. [...] the 6th century Manimekalai also mentions Naga Nadu at Sri Lanka at this time, which is considered by (fill in) to have been a Tamil kingdom. Yet, according to (fill in) the Nagas constituted a distinct group, which was influenced by Tamil culture."
 * Or should we say: "According to Tolkappiyam etc. [...] The influence of the Tamil culture extended further, as shown by the 6th century Manimekalai and it's mentioning of Naga Nadu. According to (fill in) the Nagas constituted a distinct group, which was influenced by Tamil culture."
 * In both cases, the Manimekalai needs contextualisation and proper references.


 * Well point is there existed no India or Sri Lanka(as sovereign kingdoms) back till the 17th Century, the Nagas were highly widespread, and show a little obedience to Tolkappiyam's demarcation of Tamilkam. So there was no such thing as Indian Nagas or Sri Lankan Nagas, I hope this one's clear.


 * See Dravidian_languages. The term Dravida itself was a corrupt of Tamil. Dravidians refer to people(as a race) who spoke Tamil at one point of history, and followed a culture from the Indo-Aryans(such as snake-worship by the Nagas for a tasteful example), John Holt's work is basically a hard copy of a Sri Lankan(Sinhala) professor Indrapala(so hez not basically so very neutral). In that case, it is only fair to also consider Manogaran who refers in to much of his writings, to archaeological evidences.


 * And anyways, the Naga people were assimilated much later the 5th Century perhaps, succeeding the fall of Tamil Buddhism and the re-emergence of Hinduistic traditions.


 * archeological evidence of Tamil presence at Sri Lanka starts in the 3rd century BCE. So at least there are different opinions on the relation between the Nagas and the Tamils at Sri Lanka. Yes quite some inconsistencies regarding that. Just like those regarding the Proto-dravidian/proto-tamil originating in the Indus Valley Civilization etc. What I mean is the relevance of Naga Nadu which was a documented piece of history, and the close relation the Nagas DID have with the Tamils(if they being Tamils isn't convincing).


 * The Manimekalai not only mentions the Naga Nadu were only 'just influenced' but rather talks of a Tamil-Buddhist heritage in the kingdom, how well the kingdom was appointed, and the Chola-Naga alliance and all that, I strongly contend that all these deserves a writing, somewhere or the other. Cause the fact that Naga Nadu bore a huge similarity to the other Tamil kingdoms of mainland and the people there again so culturally linked presents an altogether new idea of what Tamilakam was perhaps, and not just strictly demarcated as Tolkappiyam suggests so, same goes for the Giravaaru People's history.


 * To conclude, I strongly voice again that Tamilakam only defined something like a 'cultural agglomeration' of several kingdoms/countries/nadus rather than being a territorial entity by itself(which the Sri Lankan editors have longstandingly played with fire, manipulating and misrepresenting info). The mention of Naga Nadu in Manimekalai and by Ptolemy strongly attest to this, and for an unadulterated version of the article which I seek to be put up, must be included to send out a more neutral message.Thanks.-- CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 18:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply by Nishadhi:
 * John Holt's work is basically a hard copy of a Sri Lankan(Sinhala) professor Indrapala(so hez not basically so very neutral) – Wrong. He is a Sri lankan Tamil. Former Dean of the Faculty of Arts, University of Jaffna. If one thinks that neutrality depends on ethnicity, then he is the best neutral source one can find.
 * Dravidians refer to people(as a race) who spoke Tamil at one point of history – Wrong. Dravidians are people who spoke Dravidian languages. Be careful when you are using defined terms and use them for the precise meaning. (Title: Ancient Tamil country not Ancient Dravidian country)
 * Sri Lankan editors have longstandingly played with fire, manipulating and misrepresenting info – Hmmmmm interesting. "so I have on my part with sufficient references to back my claims have mentioned, Tamilakam in South India along with Tamil Eelam in present-day North East Sri Lanka are claimed according to anthropological evidences and archaeological evidences, the birthplace of the modern Tamil civilization." Remember?


 * OK. Good, I see that you have come up with lots of arguments. However, can you back them up with reliable sources; (I used question marks, in my opinion where citations are needed) because without sources all these become just original research.


 * Well point is there existed no India or Sri Lanka(as sovereign kingdoms) back till the 17th Century, the Nagas were highly widespread(?), and show a little obedience to Tolkappiyam's demarcation of Tamilkam(?). So there was no such thing as Indian Nagas or Sri Lankan Nagas(?), I hope this one's clear.


 * See Dravidian_languages. The term Dravida itself was a corrupt of Tamil. Dravidians refer to people(as a race) who spoke Tamil at one point of history(?), and followed a culture from the Indo-Aryans(such as snake-worship by the Nagas (?)for a tasteful example), John Holt's work is basically a hard copy of a Sri Lankan(Sinhala) professor Indrapala(so hez not basically so very neutral). In that case, it is only fair to also consider Manogaran who refers in to much of his writings, to archaeological evidences.


 * And anyways, the Naga people were assimilated much later the 5th Century(?) perhaps, succeeding the fall of Tamil Buddhism and the re-emergence of Hinduistic traditions(?).


 * archeological evidence of Tamil presence at Sri Lanka starts in the 3rd century BCE. So at least there are different opinions on the relation between the Nagas and the Tamils at Sri Lanka. Yes quite some inconsistencies regarding that(?). Just like those regarding the Proto-dravidian/proto-tamil originating in the Indus Valley Civilization etc. What I mean is the relevance of Naga Nadu which was a documented piece of history(?), and the close relation the Nagas DID have with the Tamils(if they being Tamils isn't convincing).


 * The Manimekalai not only mentions the Naga Nadu were only 'just influenced' but rather talks of a Tamil-Buddhist heritage(?) in the kingdom, how well the kingdom was appointed, and the Chola-Naga alliance (?)and all that, I strongly contend that all these deserves a writing, somewhere or the other. Cause the fact that Naga Nadu bore a huge similarity to the other Tamil kingdoms of mainland(?) and the people there again so culturally linked presents an altogether new idea of what Tamilakam(?) was perhaps, and not just strictly demarcated as Tolkappiyam suggests(?) so, same goes for the Giravaaru People's history.


 * To conclude, I strongly voice again that Tamilakam only defined something like a 'cultural agglomeration' of several kingdoms/countries/nadus rather than being a territorial entity by itself(?)(which the Sri Lankan editors have longstandingly played with fire, manipulating and misrepresenting info). The mention of Naga Nadu in Manimekalai and by Ptolemy strongly attest to this(?), and for an unadulterated version of the article which I seek to be put up, must be included to send out a more neutral message.


 * Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Copperchloride - Thanks for the Replies. Let me make it more clear.


 * 1. Who was Sri Lankan Tamil? Indrapala? Never mind that, if his views a\can be taken into consideration, why not the ones that of Manogaran's as well? #WP:NPOV.


 * 2. Dravidian is a corrupt term of Tamil. The Ancient Tamil Country is what were are talking about precisely though, by that time Telugu, Kannada etc. probably had developed but that does not mean the Nagas(both in mainland India(Kerala and Tamil Nadu) and Sri Lanka) would not have spoken Tamil.


 * 3.Yeah I do remember that. No doubt Tamil Eelam more or less refers to Tamil habitation of the island dating thousands of years back, but again you twisted and turned to misquote everything. No doubt there was a Tamil civilization on the island and 'Tamil Eelam' was quoted by Tamilnet, I only stuck to mentioning that, again that was gone(your folk were worse, eating into that shamelessly) and one thing led to another.


 * As for the sources, all you had to do was check through my edits to find them. And I believe there is no need to source my arguments here(i mean the ones on the talk page), clearly a good bit of reading over the links I have attested should be enough, from what I've seen of Jonathan, you are only perhaps concerned on prolonging this further. I have sources more or less backing what I've written in the article and thats all that probably should be of concern? If you had any problems with them? You could always ask for a better source/ add a citation tag rather than wiping out the whole blocks of info and worse, push your POV recklessly to destroy the article.Where's your good faith in return when you expect me to do everything on the talk page?Thanks.-- CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 18:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ -  Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think sources should be given here at the discussion, so they can be checked before being used. I did read The Untold Story of Ancient Tamils in Sri Lanka by C. Manokaran. It was intersting; thanks for the link. But.... it didn't seem to be very trustworthy to me. He's got a clear agenda, but his string of arguments is unclear. several important statements which are unclear.
 * I still think that the string of arguments for the Nagas being Tamil, therefor Tamilakam stretching over Sri Lanka, sshould be made very explicit, and supported by sources.
 * Of course it's possible to emphasize the cultural "hemisphere" of Tamilakam, but that's already being mentioned under "cultural influence". Personally I think that would be a better section to mention the Manimelakai, but then it still needs the clear string of arguments.


 * Well, what with Manokaran when Holt and Indrapala's references are grossly being overused in every Sri Lankan Tamil article? I'am glad you have read it, and you can see He clearly references his statements too. We are only dealing with one particular section, and he mentions the points pertaining to our discussion(he clarifies on Manimekalai big time) which others fail to. As for your second point, he clearly is ONE of that sources apart from Ptolemy and Mahavamsa. I again clarify, there were no borders for Tamilakam as it was only a coagulation of different Tamil kingdoms, but Tolkappiyam is being clinged on to specify a boundary within the Indian subcontinent for suspicious reasons. Thus other contemporaries'(the historic ones) views such as Manimekalai, Ptolemy and even the Mahavamsa etc. should be presented as well. As for the cultural section it needs a re-write(on the context) as I had mentioned. There is a difference between the Nagas and the Giravaarus. The Naga Nadu had a Tamil-Buddhist(now manipulated, since it no longer exists) culture, a Chola-Naga alliance, and more suppressed information that had never been allowed to substantiate by certain Vigilantes out with evident motive to undo the real history and legacy of the Tamil civilization in South Asia and beyond.-- CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 06:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Manogaran
Careful reading of Manogaran makes clear that he does not support the idea that the Nagas were early Tamil settlers. The "some scholars" ""have postulated that the Yakshas and Nagas [...] are the aboriginal tribes of Sri Lanka" (p.21). The whole section is very close to WP:OR. The only reason to keep it is because some people apparently seem to think that the Manimekalai provides reliable historical data on early Tamil settlements. Providing additional info makes clear that this is not the case. By the way, I've nested notes into the notes; to my surprise, this seems to work.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I find that the reference to Manimekalai has been totally erased from all parts of the article, while Tolkapiyam a highly contentious and unreliable text is being clinged on to. either both must go or none. Biased editing to the core and I' am blamed for reverting them.--CuCl2 09:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still in note 8. Reasons have been given above: the Manimekalai speaks of the Nagas, other sources suggest that the Nagas were Tamils, ergo some people conclude that the northern Sri Lanka was part of Tamilakam. The ergo is WP:OR, the speculation provided by some authors is clearly contradicted by multiple reliable sources, as provided in the note.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Im talking of the TEXT removed not the reference. Where has it all gone. Its no doubt an WP:RS, and in fact it was your discretion it was used in the first place.If Nagas were related to Tamils why is there no mention of them anywhere in the article? Moreover I had never stated anything like Naga Nadu was a part of Tamilakam at all. I just added that the

"Manimekalai talks of...."

If the Manimekalai was assumed to be controversial or abstract by the likes of you, it is equivalent to not have the Tolkappiyam source(which is a more disputed piece of literature) as well. On your part, you are just siding with the POV pushers and hinder the publishing of neutral views in the article.-- CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 09:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   09:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The text is not removed, but moved to note 8, as I said in my previous reply, for reasons also stated before;
 * The Manimekalai is a primary source, not a secondary source;
 * User:Vatasura inserted the disputed line on "Mainmelakai ... nagas" etc.
 * If the only point is that the "Manimekalai talks of [Nagas etc)" then there is no need to mention the Manimekalai at all, since the Nagas were not Tamils, and this information is not related to Tamilakam;
 * Even if the Tolkappiyam is disputed (sources, sources!) then it's still worth mentioning: it provides a demarcation of Tamilakam, which is being used by many secondary sources.
 * Saying that the Tolkkapium is disputed is like saying that the Tamil language is disputed. SriSuren (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

To CopperChloride from SriSuren:


 * 1. If anything Manimekalai documents that the people in Manipallavam and Naganadu were not Tamils. So if you insist that Naganadu and Manipallavam are Jaffna and Nagadipa (Tamilized form of Nagadipa being Nainativu) respectively, then Manimekalai attests that they were not inhabited by Tamils at that time. SriSuren (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 2. Since you say Tolkappium is disputed, can you give us references to it being ever disputed? Also as regards to the boundaries of Tamilakam it is not only Tolkappium which states this, its the entire corpus of Tamil literature, Sangam age and post Sangam age. Nannool from the 12th/13th century, which is only second to Tolkappium states the same boundaries. Viracolium another Tamil grammatical treatsie from the 11th century, also mentions the same boundaries. By the way, it was written by a Tamil Buddhist, so why wasn't he aware that the Buddhist sites in Jaffna were inhabited by Tamils, now claimed by Tamil fundamentalists to be Tamil? What about Purananuru? Its dated to be even older than Tolkappium by some scholars. Nobody ever mentioned a Tamil part of Sri Lanka, for the simple reason that no part of Sri Lanka was a part of the Tamil country, but the Tamil literature mention about Tamils going to Sri Lanka, while Sinhalese works Sinhalese works mention Tamils coming to Sri Lanka, as invaders, hired soldiers, peaceful scholars, priests, monks and traders. All this makes the Tamils in Sri Lanka to be a diaspora of Tamilakam, not a native population, as you keep on claiming, without any backing. SriSuren (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 3. Besides the case of the clear definition of the southern boundary of Tamilakam being Cape Comorin in the entire corpus of Tamil literature, they also describe the landscape and geography of Tamilakam in detail, and describe the everyday life of the ancient Tamils, Tamil works list 18 countries, which the Tamil lexicon, Tivakaram, from the 7th century summarizes and Cinkalam is one of the foreign countries mentioned in the list. When they call the island Cinkalam, and list it as a foreign country, it should at least be clear to anyone that no part of the island was a part of Tamilakam, let alone there being a Tamil part covering the entire north and eastern coast, which corresponds to almost 40% of the island, and about 20 % of Tamilakam, and that the island's natural language was Cinkalam. In addition to calling the island Cinkalam, Tamil literature also call it சிங்களதேயம் "Cinkalathesam" (meaning the land of the Sinhalese - See my first reference in the long list of references). I would also like to add a comment about Viracolium, since its claimed by some to be a work of Tamil Buddhism :), that its a grammatical treasie written by a Buddhist monk but has nothing to with Buddhism and interestingly after listing Cinkalam as one of the foreign countries it states how Sinhalese words are to be incorporated into Tamil if borrowed.  SriSuren (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just some statistical information to look at that might be interesting. The use of the phrases Tamilakam, Tamil Eelam and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam from 1900 to 2008 through out the English corpus. And here from 1970 to 1985. A bit suspicious how the use of "Tamil Eelam" follows the rise and fall of the use of "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" and both first appearing in 1972. "Tamilakam" itself follows this trend until about 1979, while it was first used in the English language in 1901. Just something to consider.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. Ofcourse this "Tamil Eelam" is a mid 20th century construction, and it is something most Tamils hadn't even heard of until the mid 1990's and the Tamils of Sri Lanka used the word Ilankai. Even Chelavanayam who coined the term "Tamil Eelam", called his party "Illankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi". Since there is almost no Tamil literature from Sri Lanka from pre-modern times its difficult to say what Sri Lankan Tamils used. It was through the internet and Tamil asylum seekers that the concept of Tamil Eelam was propagated, and as you see right here at Wikipedia they use the internet actively and aggressively for their anti-Sri Lankan propaganda. Suddenly the Ilankai Tamilar are supposed to call themselves Ilatthamilar, because  the Tamil separatist fundamentalists have come up with it, but Illatthamilar/Eelam Tamils translates into "Tamils of the Sinhalese country"  !! :) and that's the problem they are trying to get around, even by going to the extent of discrediting Tolkappium as a "disputed piece of literature".  The whole thing is rather comical, as the amount of fake theories presented just in this article and talk page shows.  The editors writing this ridiculous stuff don't seem to mind that anybody reading these thinly constructed fake theories clearly see the condractions in them and also that points presented in these fake theories contradict with each other.  While some try to give a collective Tamil identity for the Tamils, incorporating parts of Sri Lanka as a part of Tamilakam, others (eg. Copperchloride) try to claim an exclusive Tamil identity for the Tamils in Sri Lanka, separate from the Tamils in Tamil Nadu, with parts of Sri Lanka being EXCLUSIVELY Tamil. When he saw that its not going to work, he didn't mind saying those those areas were part of Tamilakam or what he calls Tamil civilization, i.e as long as its not Sinhalese he didn't mind. The dihonesty of such editors keeps articles from getting developed. They've been bashing the Mahavamasa and all the Sinhalese literature for years, and when confronted with the available evidence in Tamil literature, they start attacking even that.  Basically the Tamils in Sri Lanka are a diaspora of Tamil Nadu. In the book Historical Dictionary of Tamils, the authour Vijaya Ramaswamy defines them as a diaspora of Tamil Nadu (read the description of the book) and refers to them as "Sinhala Tamils", which is the direct translation of "Eelam Tamils" or Ilatthamilar (ஈழத் தமிழர்), where Sinhala is the name of the island.


 * As for this article, I don't think this will ever get any encyclopedic information in it, without the intervention of administrators and as for Manogaran, not at all a reliable source for this matter, although he doesn't directly claim what copperchloride says. Manogaran is not a historian or a scholar of Tamil and he has been actively involved in the Tamil separatist agenda, and even wrote a book presenting such claims, and that "book" is nothing but a political pamphlet. It is full of falsehoods and directly wrong facts, eg. he claims that the Brahmi script used all over India, evolved from the Tamil Vattelluttu script. That is simply absurd since Vattelluttu is a script found from about the 5-6th century CE. He has a chapter in the book called "Purpose and scope of the study: Historical justification for a traditional Tamil homeland", and that is infact what the whole book is about, and that's exactly what we see editors like copperchloride is doing here at Wikipedia. However from the parts I have read in that book, Manogaran doesn't claim that Nagas were Tamils. SriSuren (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

'''Ref. Asylum seekers and "Tamileelam": An additional comment and clarification by SriSuren:-' The statement I made in my above comment as to how the concept of "Tamileelam" was propagated in the early years, where I stated that it was propagated through Tamil asylum seekers and the internet has been interpreted by one user, as "trying to insult others by calling them illegal immigrants"''. (Ref. -The discussion in my userpage). He has subsequently admitted that he had confused the terms "asylum seekers" and "illegal immigrants", but has now brought in new elements where he is trying to make associations and comparisions to facist groups in the UK, and in a very subtle manner has brought in other insinuations coupled together with basic human rights, and the whole situation is blown completely out of proportions. Since some obiviously need spelling out what is written in plain text, I'll clarify my statement and the significance of propagating the concept of "Tamileelam" through asylum seekers had to the separatist agenda - the stories the asylum seekers used to justify their asylum claims, whether real or fake, were also simultaneously used to seek justification and legtimacy for the claims for a separate state, and in addition to that these trauma stories were used to justify the use of violence against civilians and as a overall means of gaining sympathy for the separatist "cause". And I will stress that, as far as I am concerned, the terms "illegal immigrants" and "asylum seekers" are completely different terms, and the legal status of the residence of individuals does not have any bearing to my statement about the propagation of the concept of "Tamileelam". Some scholars use the term Tamil Asylum Diaspora to refer the same group. If a person can read "asylum seekers" as "illegal immigrants" and then level accusations of insulting a group of people, he/she should check his/her own ability to comprehend and distinguish what is written in plain text. I am adding this comment here, incase another person with the same problem should turn up and as a precautionary measure to the present issue, since I think that this is the begining of a life cycle of a fabricated allegation, which normally grows and gets exaggerated with time, as already seen.

A couple references:
 * 1.The Politics of Powerlessness: How and Why the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam Employ the Internet to Establish the Legitimacy of their Cause and to Ensure the Success of their Movement by Xenia Tashlitsky, Political Science
 * ''Excerpt from the above - Telling “trauma stories” is especially effective on the Internet, as it can cross political, economic, cultural, educational, and even demographic boundaries to create a sense of shared history and shared suffering between the Tamil locals in Sri Lanka, the Tamil diasporas in other countries, and even the non-Tamil sympathizers around the world.
 * Like the LTTE, Palestinian militant movements such as Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), and Fatah’s al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades have crafted a cocktail of victimhood assertions and terrorist activities; however, they have also been unsuccessful at securing the statuses of separate states.''
 * 2.Virtual English: Queer Internets and Digital Creolization By Jillana B. Enteen
 * Pradeep Jeganathan explains. "Nationals of Tamileelam have no desire to return to Eelam, nor wish to live there, but it helps them to keep living where they live. It is real, lived not as a place, but as an image"

SriSuren (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Edits made by CuCl2 on 31 July 2013

 * Can you double check your references again, just to make sure that you have given correct sources at correct places.
 * Can you give the page numbers of the relevant books and journal articles. (Can't read the whole book to verify a single fact)
 * I'll reply back on Saturday... (sorry, extremely busy)

Thanks

Nishadhi (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Pls don't go ahead and make edits when there is an ongoing discussion to resolve the dispute. First, discuss them in the talk page with sources.Nishadhi (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not really comfortable with these changes, for reasons mentiones before.
 * Take only "While, Tolkappiar, the writer of the Tolkappiyam, does not mention a Tamil part of Sri Lanka probably due to the fact that both himself and Sikiandiyar were unaware of the fact". This word probably, as given here, is WP:OR.
 * I think I see your intention, to give an overview of various primary sources, but I'm still not convinced that the 6th century Manimekalai is one-to-one comparable to the Tolkappiyam; you'll have to provide the context and intention of those texts, and make clear(er) what's the relevance of all this info to Tamilakam.
 * It's still completely unclear what the Nagas have got to do with Tamilakam (see also Talk:Naga people (Lanka). Imagine a 16-year old Peruvian High School kid; what will he/she understanding after reading this text?

I'm also busy at the moment, so no time for a longer reply, but I agree with Nishadhi: please put your edits "on hold", and discuss them first. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by Nishadhi: OK, I went through some of the references and there are problems. So Pls add the page numbers just to make sure that I am not missing the relevant page. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Friendly reminder: Next week will be a heavy one. If you can provide the page numbers today itself I might me able to reply with in the weekend. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 06:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Second and last reminder: Page numbers please.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishadhi (talk • contribs) 16:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry..Nishadhi (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Nishadhi, Yes, it is only natural that you will have to find 'problems' if it doesn't correspond with your way of wanting things to be. And I didn't mean the delay, I did not check this page out since the last time my edit was reverted(somewhat modified by User:JJ, thankfully) and I had no idea I was probably asked for such a favor, until I saw it on my talk page. Anyway never mind now that I'am here:


 * For the first source Manokaran, which has quite a heck of content, I suggest you probably be looking for pages between 22-50, with special emphasis on p26, thats what the wording on the article is.


 * There seems to be some problem with rgetting to the second source(the link seems to be broken) and anyway I'am unable to access Google Books momentarily. I'll get back sooner on that.


 * The third source has content regarding the subject from p247-p260.

Hope that was all expected of me. My apologies for your difficulties and inconvenience that may have been caused. Greetings. -- CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 10:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions from Nishadhi
Suggestion 01.


 * To remove following sections

The 6th century CE Tamil epic Manimekalai speaks of the prosperous Naga Nadu,[53] : a Tamil Buddhist fief[web 2] in the North of Sri Lanka[citation needed]. According to Schalk "it is quite possible that Nakanatu as a fief under the leadership of a Tamil feudal lord under a King enjoyed royal patronage to fortify Buddhism." [web 2] The aim of the author, Sīthalai Sāttanār (or Cīttalai Cāttanār) was to compare Buddhism favourably with the other prevailing religions in South India in order to propagate Buddhism.

According to Schalk, Cīttalai Cāttanār, the author of the Manimekalai "reflects probably in the 5th century what was a political reality then - Nakanatu was conceptualised as being separate from Ilankatipam, the island of Lanka." [web 2] According to Schalk, the Manimekalai

... makes clear that there was a perception in Tamilakam in the 5th century that Nakanatu was a separate administrative entity, distinguished from Ilankatipam[note 10][...] Nakanatu was a natu [...] Natu is a technical administrative term that could refer to a kingdom, at least to an autonomous administrative region. [web 2]


 * Why?


 * Because, here it is suggested that Manimekali refers to a independent Tamil Buddhist kingdom in northern Sri Lanka.


 * Manimekalai is an epic. Its historical value depends on using sound criticism when interpreting its poems. (Read)
 * What Peter Schalk proposing is a fringe theory (Read) and based on large number of assumptions. (Read)
 * This fringe theory has a questionable source.
 * Why do we need to go for a fringe theory when there are many other known facts to show the cultural influence of Tamilakam.
 * If one intend to suggest that, Sri Lanka was a part of Tamilakam using this fringe theory then it becomes original research.
 * If anything Manimekalai documents that the people in Manipallavam and Naganadu were not Tamils. (See above)

Suggestion 02.


 * To remove following sections

The Manimekalai speaks of the great Naga king Valai Vanan and his queen Vdcamayilai, who ruled the prosperous Naga Nadu with great splendor. According to the Manimekalai this kingdom had a rich Tamil Buddhist tradition. Their daughter, the princess Pilli Valai had a liaison at Nainativu islet with the early Chola king Killivalavan[note 11]; out of this union was born Prince Tondai Eelam Thiraiyar, who historians note was the early progenitor of the Pallava Dynasty who were the rulers of the Thondai Nadu till 9th Century CE .[37] [web 1][note 12]


 * Why?


 * Again a fringe theory and a fake references.


 * I already discussed about the Tamil kingdom.(suggestion 01)
 * This Chola-Naga Pallava origin is a fringe theory. (Read)
 * Its not even properly sourced.
 * Reference number [37] (Indrapala, K. (1969), "Early Tamil settlements in Ceylon.", Journal of the Ceylon branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1969, XIII:54) is a fake reference. It has no information regarding such claim.
 * Reference [web 1] ( Siva Thiagarajah (2010), People and cultures of prehistoric Sri Lanka, Srilanka Guardian Saturday, August 7, 2010) again a fake reference? Questionable reference?(Pls note: I couldn't access this web page from Sri Lanka and I had to rely on what my sister obtained through a proxy site. So pls check again. Even then, does this article support the weight of the fringe theory to justify its inclusion?)

I'm planning to submit my suggestions for the Ptolemy and Mahavamsa sections by next Wednesday. (Sorry extremely busy...)Till then kindly consider above suggestions.

Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion 03.


 * To remove following sections

Ptolemy the ancient Greek traveler described the Yakshas and the Nagas as the aboriginal Tamil-speaking people of the island who worshipped the cobra(Naga) and demons(Yakshas) in 1000 BC. [53][54][55]
 * Why?
 * Again a fringe theory.
 * First of all Ptolemy didn’t describe Yakshas and Nagas as Tamil speaking people. (Read for yourself. Ref no [55] link p 247 – 260.
 * This sentence is taken word to word from the book of Chelvadurai Manogaran. It’s a book written with a clear agenda ("Historical justification for a traditional Tamil homeland" p 17.) providing wrong information and misinterpretations. Read and see
 * This sentence has three wrong information.
 * 1). Ptolemy doesn’t mention such a thing. (Read the English translation - above)
 * 2). Nagas were not aboriginal people. They were Early iron age settlers from South India. (Read) They had a language of their own. (Read – Nagas were Tamil?)
 * 3). The current theories for languages spoken among pre historic hunter gatherers in Sri Lanka, does not include Tamil. (They are a Munda language, a Dravidian language or something else. Out of them "a Munda language" is supported by anthropological, genetic and linguistic studies and gaining favor, "a Dravidian language" is based on proximity theory – “they spoke it there so may be here too”, "something else" is supported by linguistic studies – many words in sinhala like Oluwa Kata Bada can’t traced back to Aryan, Munda or Dravidian languages. For details read  Indrapala K. The evolution of an ethnic identity – The Tamils in Sri Lanka c. 300 BCE to c. 1200 CE. Sydney: MV Publications for the South Asian Studies Centre;2005., Deraniyagala S.U. The Pre History of Sri Lanka – Part II. Sri lanka:Department of Archaeological Survey - Government of Sri Lanka;1992.) When real archaeologists are claiming that they don’t have enough evidence to conclude, It’s not surprising that Manogaran trying to involve Ptolemy to support his false claim. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Clean up on 27 Sep 2013 - notes
Since there were no reply to my earlier suggestions, as per WP:BRD, I went ahead and implemented them. If you are reverting them, please be kind enough to participate to the discussion. After implementing them I did some clean up. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the Naga nadu section from the main-space and left it in the notes as it was before the edits on July 31st.
 * I removed the section under Mahavamsa, since now that section is irrelevant to the article. (Anyway that statement was factually wrong.) I also removed section under Manimekaki as now its not relevant to the article. Nishadhi (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ - ' You had better made clear in the Edit Summary in which thread you made these suggestions; I missed them and undid your edits. I'm going to read them now. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, done.
 * The whole section does indeed seem out of place, but was the result of CuCl2's insistence on the use of the Manimekalai, which probably does reflect the understanding of a larger group of people. given the sensitivities surrounding this issue, it might be wise to retain it: it's relevant, and the discussion will probably pop-up again. But... the intro to this subsection still misses the clear link "The mentioning of Naga Nadu might suggest the existence of early Tamil settlements at Sri Lanka", and therefo the extension of Tamilakam to Sri Lankese territory. And for that extension, I still haven't seen a source, have you?
 * Suggestion one: the relevant part is the use of the word "fief", which makes very clear that we're not talking about an independent kingdom, but about Sinhalese rule.
 * Suggestion two: it's not fringe, it's mythology. It's another literary (primary) source.
 * Indrapala: he doesn't mention this line? I can't check it; not available at Google-search
 * The Srilanka Guardian does indeed use this sentence; yet, it's out of context, of course.
 * Suggestion three: that's interesting! I checked the link you gave, and also ; very little info on the Nagas indeed. I think you're also right on Manogaran: not a reliable source.
 * I'll make some adjustments, but leave in the bigger part of this section. Which does not mean that I don't agree with your suggestions, but means that I'm expecting a next round of arguments, and find it saver to keep the in the article. It laso means that ht emissing link still stands! Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole Naga Nadu-section might as well be retianed as a note. Could make for some nice Wikipedia-pinball ...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Nishadhi" Thanks JJ. Anyway they are just "suggestions". I don't expect to implement them fully. I have faith in you. I know my point of view may not be a completely impartial one. (I have haunting memories of a 25 years long ruthless war. I just want our children to live in a country where they can live with out racial sensitivities and they will do if they know our correct history not the ones created by people with agendas.) Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggestion one: "fief" I didn't mind. but with "distinguished from Ilankatipam" "autonomous administrative region" I see as false. Also I see calling Naganadu a Tamil fief is a false claim. Because it was a multi ethnic region like rest of the Sri Lanka was (and those days both Sinhalese and Tamils lived together). Jaffna peninsula became exclusively Tamil when Arya cakravarti chased out the other ethnic groups in 14th and 15th centuries. (Yvm)
 * Suggestion two: Actually it seems to be a proposed theory based on mythology?. The Chola Naga origin theory was proposed by putting several mythologies and Manimekalai together, and no, Indrapala does not mention that.

misrepresenting sources
I came to understand that there were multiple errors, where assumptions were presented as facts and removed them, also removed complete OR material. Full paper of Shinu Abraham is found here: http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/17189/AP-v42n2-207-223.pdf?sequence=1 --  Dravidian   Hero  13:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Nishadhi:

First of all thank you for initiating a discussion. With this edit you have removed several sections suggesting that they are original research and misinterpreted facts. However these sections, which were incorporated by User:Joshua Jonathan, seems to be properly cited (except for the number 2, for which I can't find the source). So I have listed the sections that you have removed and I am kindly requesting you to elaborate separately, where the misinterpretations and the incorporation of original research has occurred. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) ” archaeological data from protohistoric Kerala and Tamil Nadu challenge this notion of a separate culture region”
 * 2) “The history of the Tamil people is complex, and intertwined with the regional and pan-regional history of other people and nations. The definition of geographical and cultural boundaries of Tamilakam, and of the Tamil history, is therefor intertwined with these histories, and occasionally gives rise to heated debate.”
 * 3) “Until recently, the interpretation and understanding of India's past has largely been based on textual sources.”
 * 4) ” According to Abraham, In the southern portion of the peninsula--the region that corresponds roughly to the present-day states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu--the existence of a large documentary corpus, both indigenous and foreign, and the occurrence of inscribed coins and cave inscriptions, have given rise to the idea of a separate ethnic and linguistic region known as "Tamilakam".”
 * 5) “The role of archaeology has often been secondary, as "a source of correlates for information gleaned from the texts".”
 * 6) ”Yet, also according to Abraham, .. the archaeological data from protohistoric Kerala and Tamil Nadu is not so clear--cut and, in fact, appears to challenge the very notion of a separate culture region.”


 * Reply:


 * 1) and 6.
 * In point 6 you quoted it rightly with "appears to challenge the very notion of a separate culture region." This is a vague comment by Abraham, non-encyclopedic. She uses herself the term Tamilakam in her conclusion.


 * 1) This was completely unsourced Original Research. A personal blog essay.
 * 2) 4. and 5. That belongs to Abrahams commmentary on methology of reaseachers on Tamilakam. This is an opinion which doesn't look encyclopedic or very limited. We could include a sentence that knowledge on Tamilakam is largely derived from Sangam literature compared to archaeology..--  Dravidian   Hero   01:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ -  Here we go again... Keep cool, and greetings to both of you,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be clear to DravidianHero that his removals are contested. But to explain the parts he removed:
 * "The history of the Tamil people [...] heathed debate" - this is unsourced indeed; it's an editorial prelude, an introduction, to make clear: this is battleground, be carefull and sensitive.
 * The Abraham-quotes were inserted because there have been repeated discussions based on textual sources, whereas Abraham makes clear that reliance on textual sources has been a methodological shortcoming in Indology. It introduces the info on archeology, and makes clear that there is more than texts. The same point has been made by David Gordon White. What's more, it's ageneral critique of Indology and European colonialism, to have constructed an image of Indian religion in the mirror of Christianity, with a textual corpus as basis.
 * Abraham's article is from Asian Perspectives. Vol. 42, No.2, 2003, published by University of Hawaii Press. To call this a "personal blog essay" reflects a misunderstandig of both academic sources and Wikipedia policies. See WP:RS.
 * The same goes for the word "appears": contrary to your opinion, this is an exact comment by Abrahams. She does not suggest that this is certain, but notices that this is a likely interpretation or understanding - more likely than the idea of a separate cultural region.

Reply by Nishadhi'

Hi JJ, How are you? It's good to see you again and sorry for the misunderstanding. The suggestions that I have implemented are in the talk page section Re: Edits made by CuCl2 on 31 July 2013 under subsection Suggestions from Nishadhi (some of them has been there since august). They are not related to User:Dravidianhero's edits and if you see carefully you will see that I haven't reverted his edits. I have a rare "weekend off" that's why I implemented them. Since you have reverted them, do you have any counter suggestions? (I don't want to drag you in to a discussion that you are not comfortable with. I can see that you have started with "Here we go again..." and I'm sorry If I have done a wrong thing by linking you to this discussion.)

P.S. I'm the coolest. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very cool. People who are reasonable and do talk are cool.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

reply by DravidianHero - I corrected the numbering, there was a small error.

Joshua you have revealed your unacceptable POV here: I'm cool as well. --  Dravidian   Hero  06:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Bias against European scholars
 * 2) You call your unsourced edit an editorial/prelude, but such a text needs reliable top quality sources as well
 * 3) The word "appears" is not a statement to be included in an encyclopedia, especially not in the lead section. Also you made it look like it was a confirmed fact in the lead.
 * 4) It looks like you have political agenda going on and this may be a warning in this regard.

'''Reply by JJ - You're edit-warring. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Bias against? Explain.
 * Intro indeed, as explained before.
 * "appears" is sourced, from a scholar, and not in the lead.
 * Read WP:GOODFAITH, and be very carefull in your accusations.



1."What's more, it's ageneral critique of Indology and European colonialism, to have constructed an image of Indian religion in the mirror of Christianity, with a textual corpus as basis." From your point of view that simple argument by Abraham is a general critique against European indologists? Really?? Seems more than what she actually wrote. And that's your problem. Misrepresented sources lead to wrong text content here. If I can't stop you from making more of such problematic edits somebody else will do sooner than later.

3. You have no understanding of presenting sources correctly and when to use sources. "Appears" is not a statement which can be ignored. "Although traditional accounts use to refer to these territories as a single cultural area, where Tamil was the natural language and culture of all people[note 2], archaeological data from protohistoric Kerala and Tamil Nadu challenge this notion of a separate culture region.[3]" is wrongly presenting the source because this would be correct: "Although traditional accounts use to refer to these territories as a single cultural area, where Tamil was the natural language and culture of all people[note 2], archaeological data from protohistoric Kerala and Tamil Nadu appear to challenge this notion of a separate culture region.[3]"

You see it doesn't belong in the lead sections, which is used to summarize facts, not (fringe) theories. And you inserted the text not me, which means you are the main edit warrior. --  Dravidian   Hero  06:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nishadhi

I think we all should take a time out. Sometimes its not worth it.
 * Please stay with in the first three tiers of this pyramid.
 * Please read about what are not fringe theories.WP:FRINGE/PS
 * If you wanted to add the the word "appear" you could have done it with out removing the whole section.
 * and please, don't revert when there is an ongoing discussion.
 * Please read Abraham's whole paper (With regard to your quotes from the Abraham's). Text out of context gives a wrong impression. Nishadhi (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ -  Now I see what you mean. But the text in the lead was not a quote, although it was sourced. I've added "appears", and quotation marks. By the way, Kunmar says not "traditional accounts", but "historians". And check to see my "political agenda". Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know how that is relevant. It's widely assumed that Hinduism is primarily of Dravidian origin (many sources available). This article is different in that a single scholar's opinion is given so much importance that the lead section looks horrible. See WP:LEAD: "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; ", giving a single scholar Abraham too much importance is not neutral. She did point to the opinion of the general scholarship, which is the neutral/non-fringe opinion.--  Dravidian   Hero  21:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply by Nishadhi:
 * Dear friend, I don't think it is a single scholar opinion. For example Romila Thapar said that Tamilakam was a "culturally heterogeneous" distinctive area.(p 230) And by including a scholarly input to the lead, I think, the neutral point of view is maintained. But I respect your opinion. Do you have any suggestions to improve the lead? Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thapar clearly writes that Tamilakam was culturally distinct from others. Regional differences were found within this culture, that's a different viewpoint and pretty uncontested. We could use Thapars description in the lead that Tamilakam was a culturally linked area with regional differences in customs. --  Dravidian   Hero  14:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply by Nishadhi:
 * Dear friend, Please hold your edits till we reach a consensus. And no That's not what Romilar Thapar said. First of all this conflict is due to a discrepancy in ideas among historians. Some historians who derive the concept of Tamilakam largely from textual sources "refer to these territories as a single cultural area, where Tamil was the natural language and culture of all people" (Kanakabashi). However according to some, who prefer archaeological evidence, like Romilar Thapar claims "Societies using these forms of burials were not identical and culturally heterogeneous. Yet there are some strands in their cultures, such as demarcating burial locations, that link them and make the cultures of the peninsula distinctive." That means different cultures with similar features. So I think both ideas should be in the lead.
 * I may be wrong, so shall we take a third opinion from User:Joshua Jonathan? Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * She writes "Ashoka in his inscription refers to the peoples of South India as the Cholas, Cheras, Pandyas and Satiyaputras - the crucible of the culture of Tamilakam - called thus from the predominant language of the Dravidian group at the time, Tamil."
 * Hence it's obvious that she refered to subcultures, not different parent cultures of Tamilakam.--  Dravidian   Hero  22:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The contested point was the reliance on (limited) written sources. That's why I added Abraham. It seems to me that there is no discrepancy between Tamilakam being distinct from the rest of the Indian subcontient, and the existence within Tamilakam of different subcultures. But before adding this to the lead, it might be wise to expand the info in the article. It's interesting and relevant anyway. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just looked ip your source; your emntioning of "subcultures" looks like a personal interpretation to me; it's not what Thapar says. What she says is that those people shared a common language group. She does not say that those groups constituted subcultires. To say so in the article is WP:OR.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Dravidianhero has been blocked, being a sock of User:Kalarimaster. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   20:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)