User talk:Freedom skies/Archive 1

Adithada
Hi, could you add some more information to the article, I couldn't find anything else :/ - FrancisTyers 21:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

INBUAN
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as INBUAN, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! --Ragib 17:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Dalip image
I couldn't help but notice that the picture you provided for the Dalip article, while a nice picture, lacks any information on licensing or where it came from. If you could add it, that'd be good, otherwise it is in danger of being deleted. --maru (talk) Contribs 18:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Freedom skies - I compliment you on putting a good fight on the POV and nonsensical info on Pakistan. The attitude that Pakistan was separate from ancient times and that India as we know it did not exist, is purely revisionist history. However, please be careful your own edits for factuality and NPOV.

I wish you all the best - hope to work with you soon. Jai Sri Rama! Rama&#39;s Arrow 22:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks, please
Please refrain from making personal attacks. Please see the relevant Wikipedia guidelines at WP:NPA. This is regarding your edit on the Talk:Pakistan. Please stick to the discussion of the article contents, rather than any ad hominem attacks. Thanks. --Ragib 05:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify my point, whatever you discuss on the subject matter of the article is fine. Just don't shoot the messenger ... and Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with the other person, but just agree to disagree. --Ragib 05:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

(Coincides with History of India)
If you add this anymore I will block you. If you can get consensus for it then we can talk. But use talk pages first. If I see you do it again I will block you for 24 hours. gren グレン ? 19:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Pakistani history
I told you I would block you if you made that edit again and I have. The most important issue on this for me is the style you were trying to employ. You do not do that in history. Secondly, it's obvious that Pakistan as a state did not exist until 1947 but we use the discrete states of modern society to split up the study of history. "Pakistan in 1800" would be referring to what existed in the present state of Pakistan in 1800. It is not a claim that Pakistan is eternal. Just like all of what is territorially India has not always been historically India. The NWFP of Pakistan was not under Indian control for many many years and centrality of Indian control makes no sense in parts of history because of the many different Princely States that ruled throughout different periods of time. If you read the intro to History of Pakistan it says "The History of Pakistan for times preceding 1947 overlaps with that of the history of India, Afghanistan, and Iran. Pakistan was a state created out of the territory of British India in 1947". I am not some Pakistani nationalist... (in fact, I'm not Pakistani nor am I Muslim). It's just how we talk about history. The History of any country runs into snags and we simplify it. Would I be safe to say that you want the article to read like History of Saudi Arabia which only talks about it after the House of Saud came to power? The biggest problem like that is Indian dominance over all of what is regionally Pakistan is not so clear... I will reduce your ban to a nominal 1 hour but do not add it to the heading again. We want to make this issue a clear one... but your edits are horribly styled and not something to be put into a heading. gren グレン ? 20:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury
-Freedom Skies, this is Afghan Historian from the Pakistan page. I've been doing some work to make the fact known that Freddie Mercury was a Briton of Indian Parsi heritage. This gets blocked by people who say he is Persian/Iranian. They bring up these false claims that his parents were proud of being Persian. They ignore the possibilities of him hiding his South Asian background and they claim that he knew Dari or Farsi from a few cheap Arabic words in his songs that he probably picked up in Zanzibar or among Urdu friends in India. Can you help me in this regard, if you know anything about the subject? I'm not an Indian nationalist, just so you know. I'm just a neutral Pakistani-American college Sophomore who prefers FACTS as opposed to OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS!!! -User: Afghan Historian (I have to sign without being logged in right now as I have to go urgently.)

Thanks
I know that there has been a disagreement among us for the Pakistan article and our opinions about Pakistan's histoty. But I must say that your added line to the Pakistan article was not biased, and I myself agree with it. You know when to keep emotions out of things, especially in the articles. Thanks for not degrading the article. Stallions2010 23:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense
It's me again, Stallions2010. I have a request for you. Check out the Pakistan talk page. An extremely hateful person has said that Gandhi is a terrorist and doesn't deserve to be on the page. I disagree, and am sure you do. This person says he's a "Disgusted Pakistani", but I doubt he's Pakistani at all, because every Pakistani I've ever met admires Gandhi. Please put your input on the page to stop this nonsense. Thanks. P.S. I hope you like the barnstar I awarded to you. :) Stallions2010 22:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For your comments at Talk:Pakistan, please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Pepsidrinka 05:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hi! That was good battering of the fanatic in Pakistan talk page. I could not do it due to this wiki-etiqutte stuff! I wonder how can such an educated person act in such a blind way! Disgusting. BTW, why is you talk page empty? Where are the previous contents? Bye.--Dwaipayanc 08:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Rabid Opinions
I find it important not to hold many rabid opinions especially pretaining to policies and politics. -- Jimmy C. 04:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems
Hi Freedom skies - I must discourage the type of edits you've made on Indian nationalism. They sound boastful, and push nationalist POV. It is Wikipedia policy to remain completely neutral in language, tone and data.

Also, it is not proper for you to delete all comments from your talkpage - it is considered discourteous and rude. If you want to clean the page, then created a user talk sub-page where old messages should be moved - a process called archiving.

As you've been asked to address similar problems before, I request you have a close look at Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and incorporate criticism fully. Please do not revert war or be uncivil to anyone, even users who themselves break those rules. This Fire Burns  04:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is funny that you thought my tone was "stone cold" even though you've deleted all messages from your talkpage - something considered quite rude. Please understand that I don't have a problem with you, and its not my intention to attack your editing, but there are issues that need sorting out. This Fire Burns   06:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. This Fire Burns  06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Muhammad Mehmood Alam
Please do not delete information from Wikipedia as you did here. I have tried to improve the article and make it more verifiable, which is a better way forward. Thank you. --Guinnog 14:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with Guinnog. Of course MM Alam's kills have been inflated but surely it is not an urban legend or folklore since he has produced the most flight kills by a single individual in an Indo-Pak war, though it may be enough to qualify him as an air ace. IAF admits to 3-4 confirmed kills by MM Alam. That should settle it I hope since I'm reverting again. --Idleguy 03:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

warning
look, this is a warning... your article is obviously disputed. you can keep the article if you wish as is, but because it is disputed, please leave the NPOV and the Disputed titles at the top. This is a warning and there is a policy against multiple reverts. Steelhead 23:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

3rr
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Cowman109 Talk 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete content from talks
Per above. This is against policy. :: Colin Keigher 09:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Indian Nationalism

 * User CiteCop has been deleting well-known points in the Indian Nationalism article saying that they are "not referenced". I'm looking for citations to please him, but maybe he'll still delete stuff. Please lend a hand if you can spare the time. Thanks.Netaji 02:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Ref needed from Indian History
Hi!! I noticed that you have removed the unreferenced template from the said article. However, you have not given a reason in either your edit summary or in the talk page. The article still contains many unreferenced statements. Until we reference them and organize it better, it will not become encyclopedic in nature. I was hoping that one day it might be a featured article as it has a lot of data in it - but it needs a lot of referencing and reorganizing to reach that level. Should we put the tag back on so that people who look into referencing can find this article and improve it ? Cheers and happy editing Shushruth 16:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note regarding reintroduction of the template! Shushruth 07:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Indian martial arts
Good job on the page. Kennethtennyson vandalized the Indian nationalism page, and its good you engage him in a real debate.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

leave the disputed tags on the article
look buddy... it's pretty obvious that the article is disputed or else we wouldn't be in this month long discussion about it... leave the freaking tag on their to reflect our views... we are currently in an edit war. Kennethtennyson 21:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

blanking
Why did you blank your talk page 8 times? Bakaman Bakatalk 17:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're supposed to archive it. Bakaman Bakatalk 17:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

look
Kennethtennyson accused you of being User talk:Indran croos sockpuppeteer. And here .Bakaman Bakatalk 01:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

JFD
JFD saved your hide on this one. Bakaman Bakatalk 14:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Subhash Kak

 * I will look into the matter, Thanks.Shiva&#39;s Trident 18:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Greek language and "longest history"
We've had that discussion before. Result the last time round was that "the longest history" is actually correct: while Anatolian was attested earlier, it wasn't attested longer, because it died out. The length of time of attestation - from c. BC 1200 until today - is really longer for Greek than for anything else in Indo-European. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Proper and improper citation
This is how Ancient India's scientific achievements were attributed.

CiteCop: that material you just added regarding astronomy and such, I'm going to remove it and ask you for the sources for those claims.

Freedom skies: ''Would be glad to, these links were already provided there. Those articles are sourced too.Ancient India’s contributions to astronomy are well known and documented.I consulted The History & Practice of Ancient Astronomy as well as The Cambridge Concise History of Astronomy'' and neither of them corroborated Kak's claims.

This hardly qualifies as "well known and documented".Calculation of Earth’s circumference.The word "circumference" appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.Theorizing about gravity.The word "gravity" appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.Indian philosopher, Pakudha Katyayana, a contemporary of Buddha, also propounded the ideas of atomic constitution of the material world.Neither "Pakudha" nor "Katyayana" appears anywhere in the four Kak papers cited for this section.Similarly, the principle of relativity (not to be confused with Einstein's theory of relativity) was available in the ancient Indian philosophical concept of "sapekshavadam" (c. 6th century BC), literally "theory of relativity" in Sanskrit.The word "sapekshavadam" appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.Several ancient Indian texts speak of the relativity of time and space. The mathematician and astronomer Aryabhata (476-550) was aware of the relativity of motion, which is clear from a passage in his book: "Just as a man in a boat sees the trees on the bank move in the opposite direction, so an observer on the equator sees the stationary stars as moving precisely toward the west."This quote by Aryabhata appears in none of the four Kak papers cited for this section.These theories have attracted attention of the Indologists, and veteran Australian Indologist A. L. Basham has concluded that "they were brilliant imaginative explanations of the physical structure of the world, and in a large measure, agreed with the discoveries of modern physics."This quote by A.L. Basham appears in none the four Kak papers cited for this section.

At the barest minimum, the very least that one ought to expect is that, when a source is cited for a quotation, that the quotation appear somewhere in the cited source.

Material attributed to a source that does not verify the text not only may be removed, it ought to be removed. CiteCop 06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images on user page
Hi, fair use images are not supposed to be used in the user space. Please remove all fair use images from your user page ASAP. You may want to read WP:IUP. --Gurubrahma 19:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk archive
Hi, I moved Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:Freedom skies/30 December, 2005 - 4 September, 2006 to User talk:Freedom skies/30 December, 2005 - 4 September, 2006 as talk archives are suppose to be in your user space, not article space.-- Andeh 19:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem.-- Andeh 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA
Hi, I've been asked to look in at the Indian martial arts articles. I'm not going to comment at all on the content of the articles, my expertise lies on another part of the Asian continent, but I am going to ask that the spirit of WP:NPA be observed. You can say what you want about another Theditor's arguments, but please don't make derogatory comments about their person. Saying they are sick or nuts, etc. is never acceptable. Continuing to do so may expose you to administrative sanctions. If someone makes the same sort of comments about you on the talk page, they will get the same advice. Best Regards, --Fire Star 火星 03:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

just my duty
I was just doing my duty.nids(&#9794;) 14:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Indrancroos
You do realize that Indrancroos is 'the guy who went "India did not exist before 1947,"' right?

The same guy who delivered, in your words, "a half baked monstrosity of a lecture on Indian history". JFD 07:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In this diff, Indrancroos changes "Martial arts of the Indian Sub-continent are very diverse and as old as the culture and civilization of the country" to "Martial arts of the Indian Sub-continent are very diverse and have origins from various different ethnic groups of former countries and kingdoms prior to the formation of India by the British".

Here Indrancroos removes a reference to "ancient India".

That guy on an unsigned IP (68.108.208.158) once changed "undivided India" to "the Sub-Continent of India" and Indrancroos has repeatedly changed "Indian martial arts" to "martial arts of the Indian subcontinent.

Look, I've given you no reason to trust or believe me so if you want to give your e-mail address to a total stranger, don't let me stand in your way. JFD 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess JFD is trying to discourage you to get in touch with me via e-mail, since he fears some kind of academical threat. Just to clear some things up, I was not the guy who went "India did not exist until 1947". I would never post something as blunt, offensive, and ignorant as that. However, yes, I have changed a few things around as a correction. It is not to offend anyone, but like Kenneth Tennyson and his devoted sidekick JFD (the Green Hornet and Kato), I too have some historical points of views. I understand that you have been accused of being a pan-Indian nationalist, while I have been accused of being a Tamil nationalist. As far as Indian martial arts are concerned, martial arts from both your culture and mine are in the Indian martial arts section. Therefore, it effects both of us.

It seems like through this wiki-conflict, it has thrown us together into one pot. If I am here to put you or your culture down, or to discredit India, why in the first place would I have stuck up for you. I had not intentions in mind when I did that. It just ticked me off when Kenneth sent you that messed up message. Just like, for example, a few years ago, when a Punjabi store owner was beaten up in a hate crime. I was outraged...

I see you have a vast knowledge in the fighting styles of Northern Inda, while I have the same for Southern India. Likewise, you are very knowledgeable about ancient Bharat and its 16 Mahajanapada Republics, while I have the same for ancient Tamilakkam. Since this page on Indian Martial Arts effects us both, maybe together we can combine both our knowledge to present a remarkable page. Yes, I do understand our passions which may sometimes clash. However, if we could set aside some of that and work together in a "give-take" mentality we can make things work.

At the same time, we will present our contributions which may be opposite of what JFD-Kenny think, but at the same time their views shall be presented as well to give a fair and balanced view on Indian Martial Arts.

Do you agree with me on this? If so, it would be nice if we could communicate via e-mail. I have more ideas to share with you. I believe we can make this work. As far as JFD is concerned, I do not know what his intentions are. Maybe he feels a little threatened of the possiblity of you and me teaming up on this project? or maybe I am wrong... Indrancroos 20:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Indrancroos 04:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Freedom skies strikes me as perfectly capable of setting up an e-mail account for communication with yourself and other Wikipedians entirely separate from those he may use for other personal and professional communications.

''I understand that you have been accused of being a pan-Indian nationalist, while I have been accused of being a Tamil nationalist. As far as Indian martial arts are concerned, martial arts from both your culture and mine are in the Indian martial arts section. Therefore, it effects both of us.''

If you want articles devoted exclusively to Tamil martial arts, see Varma ati and Southern Kalaripayattu.

I see you have a vast knowledge in the fighting styles of Northern Inda, while I have the same for Southern India.

Which is why when you start opining about the martial arts of China, Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia, your knowledgability drops off precipitously.

At the same time, we will present our contributions which may be opposite of what JFD-Kenny think, but at the same time their views shall be presented as well to give a fair and balanced view on Indian Martial Arts.

Thank you, Indrancroos. You can tell which contributions on the Kalarippayattu and Pehlwani entries are mine because they're the ones that cite books. By academics. Published by scholarly presses.

''As far as JFD is concerned, I do not know what his intentions are. Maybe he feels a little threatened of the possiblity of you and me teaming up on this project?''

No, just amused at the irony. JFD 03:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Freedom skies: if you feel unconfortable in giving out your e-mail, then can I have your phone number? Indrancroos: &quot;I&#39;ll rather be happy than right, anytime.&quot; 17:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait a Second
So it is up to the three of you, excluding me to reach an agreement on the IMA article?Indrancroos: &quot;I&#39;ll rather be happy than right, anytime.&quot; 00:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

B.S. If you're going to mention about Dravidian Martial arts, then I am going to have my say on it. By the way, don't you tell me to live with it like the way you speak with others. I have never argued against what you have to say. Instead, I guess sticking up for you was a mistake...Indrancroos: &quot;I&#39;ll rather be happy than right, anytime.&quot; 04:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of contending against you like the other two, I have suggested working with you. With my two bits, I thought that it would be nice to use the original name for Ancient India, which was Bharat. A brief description of Bharat consisting of 16 Mahajanapadas or Republics stretching to as far north as part of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Northern India, and down south ending at Maharastra state. Also, for the Dravidian martial arts to also use the old name of the time called Tamilakkam denoting modern day Southern India. Also, a brief explanation of the Cholas, Cheras, Pandyas and Pallavas of Tamilakkam. hmmm... Veerapandiya Kottaboman, a Pandyan king who fought against East India Company, between 1798 and 1801. The Silambam weapons combat was used by him and his army in Tamil Nadu... I have some good info, books, etc. That was why I wanted to get in touch with you, so we could game plan on this. And heck, just because I wanted to get in touch with you via e-mail, I get accused by others of trying to stalk you??? What tha heck??? Anyways, I really like the way the intro page looks and thought that I could spice it up a tad bit, that's all... by the way, about the phone number thang, I was just being a little sarcastic. It's amazing how people can go off the deep end on things. Also, I bet you that I am going to receive something from JFD in regards of the topic on going off the deep end of things... Indrancroos 07:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu and Kerala were never under the rule of Ashoka
(Restoring ancient India, a country which included the ancient south under Ashoka the great) 

To Freedom skies: Did it ever occur to you that the link you had for Ashoka did not include Tamil Nadu and Kerala????Indrancroos 06:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Asoka's Empire did not include Kerala, Tamilnadu, and Sri Lanka. Did you know that you have just CONTRADICTED yourself? Here is the contradiction in your arguement:

(Contradiction) 1. it was stated that "Restoring ancient India, a country which included the ancient south under Ashoka the great". 2. a link was added to Ashoka in the sentence. 3. on the page of Ashoka, it showed the map of his empire which did not inlcude Southern India (primarily Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Sri Lanka).

Here are some links to other wikipedia and websites on Asoka. Please take a look at the maps closely.

(Web Sites) 1. Ashoka 2. Maurya Empire 3. The Mauryan Empire [] 4. Span of the Mauryan Empire [] 5. Map of Mauryan Empire []

Still not satisfied? Please let me recommend you to take a look at these books in your University and take a look at the maps, and perhaps read the books itself. Here is a list of them which will prove you wrong.

(Books)

1. Mookerji, Radhakumud (1967). Asoka. Delhi: Oxford University Press. 2. Gokhale, Balkrishna Govind (1966). Asoka Maurya. New York: Twayne Publishers. 3. Smith, Vincent Arthur (1964). Asoka, the Buddhist emperor of India. Delhi: S. Chand. 4. Thapar, Romila Aśoka and the decline of the Mauryas (1997): with a new afterword, bibliography, and index. Delhi ; New York : Oxford University Press. 5. Nilakanta Sastri, K. A. (1967). Age of the Nandas and Mauryas. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

By the way these were books written by both Northern and Southern Indians and one European. This is about as fair and balanced it is going to get. As quoted on the Indian martial arts page, I shall use this to describe the sources I have used above as "diverse in nature and have origins of different times from various different ethnic groups", which all prove one point Asoka's Empire did not include Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Sri Lanka. I would dare say the reason for this was because of the Dravidian martial arts and fighting tactics, including a strong infantry, cavalry, and a poweful Navy.

You need to get your facts straight if you are going to try to get your point across.

Indrancroos 06:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that Mauryan empire did not extend to Southern part of india (keralaputras, etc) is not going to justify the inclusion of seperate tamilakam story in this article.-Bharatveer 11:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe you all don't get it. Historically, India did not include Tamilakkam nor the Eastern states. I am not saying that they should separate today? What are you all tripping about, this is plain history. You all are so afraid of everything, including little crickets, that you guys are willing to change and modify history itself just to make yourselves look big. I have two words for this type of mentality. INFERIORITY COMPLEX. You guys condemnd the Britsh for ruling you all, and yet you take their empire and accomplishments and claim it as yours. You guys even went to the extent to change the Indian history in the California school books. India is the only country that does such nonsensical things. No wonder people do not take India seriously.

In American history, we do not change our history books to make ourselves look ancient. We recognize that central and southern U.S. was part of colonial France, while the Southwest was part of Mexico at one time...

Just, because Bush took the sanctions off of your country and started making a use of you all for cheap labor in call centers does not make your country a World Power. It makes you guys the World Super Market...Indrancroos 19:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fabricated Maps
To Freedom Skies: Your fabricated maps won't get your POV across. Anyone can modify a map with software, and anyone can upload trash on wikipedia, especially Indian Nationalists promoting Indo-Aryan facsism... By the way this map that you posted only shows the different parts of Tamilakkam the Cholas, Cheras, Pandyas, Nagas, and Iyakkars ruled, just like your 16 kingdoms of Bharat... By the way, did it ever occur to you that the Ashoka the Little was alive for only 40 years when his empire ruled these different lands of the Indian sub-continent?Indrancroos 19:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Indian Nationalism
In this diff you have reverted to an earlier version without an explanation. You have not replied to messages on the article talk page, and have not acknowledged the reasons given for modifications which have been accepted by other involved editors. I am giving you some time to explain yourself again - in the light of the arguments already raised - before I return the article to it's improved version. Hornplease 04:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Misinformation
(Mauryan India unfied the Tamil country to north India, mentioning two states out of it does'st cut it. India has been unified before the british, try living with it.)

To Freedom skies: I do not know what your problem with me is. Perhaps, because I am a Tamil posting historical facts which contradicts your false superioriorty claims. By the way, is that all you can think of to say is "Try living with it"? How pathetic. Anyways, that map you posted states that it was "Made by Uploader". Stop trying to reinvent the wheel and modify history. How pathetic it is for one to actually create an exageratted map and post it on a scholarly site. I think you are still confused my friend. During the time of ancient Tamilakkam, the names of the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu did not exist. There were 13 Nadus where the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras ruled. The Cheras ruled in present day Kerala. That is where the name Kerala came from. Also, in the region, "Malayalam had not formed into a separate dialect at this period, and only one lnaugage, Tamil, was spoken from the Eastern to the Western Sea" (Pillai 10).

Pillai, V. Kanakasabhai (1997)  The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services

What on earth do you mean by "mentioning two states out of it doesn't cut it". You make it seem like this is some kind of competition. Do you think this is a game? I do not think this is a game. We have people like you trying to misrepresent our history and culture, and we have someone else on this site claiming that we do not exist. This is some serious stuff you guys are propogating against us... I&#39;ll rather be happy that right anytime... 22:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sup Freedom, I'm Tamil as well, but Tamil was not even a language until about the second millennium. Also Indrancroos has been citing his personal blog as a source.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you show any sources that Tamil was not even a language until the second millienium. I will tell you what brand of Tamil you are, you are a modern-day confused Brahmin. They have a tendency to discredit Tamil and to uplift Sanskrit. Why, because they lost power in Tamil Nadu during the early 1900s. By the way, can you tell me when the Tolkapiyam was written? This is one of the earliest forms of Tamil grammar and literature. Let me quote:

"In the earliest Tamil Grammar extant, which was composed by a Brahmin named Tholkappiyan, in the first or second century B.C."

Source: Pillai, V. Kanakasabhai (1997)The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago New Delhi; Madras: Asian Educational Services p. 116

I do not use blogs as sources, but only to upload documents from legitimate sources. I have a good question for you. If the Tamils did not introduce Hinduism, Buddhism, and other customs into Southeast Asia, then who did? Freedom fries? Hey, guess what! Did you know that it was the Tamils who not only introduced Tamil, but also introduced your Dorai's language of Sanskrit into Southeast Asia too... The reason why "Indian" history is so shadowy is because there are a lot of Nationalistic Ding Dongs modifying their own history just to look big. Why? Because of a diagnosis of inferiority complex...

Here are a few charts on the similarities of Tamil and Malay words. By the way, these were scanned from an actual book. and the only way to get this onto wikipedia is to upload it to Geo-Cities. Enjoy... 

Here is the source of the material:

Arokiaswamy Phd., Celine W.M. (2000) Tamil Influences in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. Manila: Mary Martin p. 52-57.

Brahmins in the past have contributed to Tamil, however, they are now in the trend of discrediting Tamil. Parrots can say they are Tamils too. So, what does that mean that you are a Tamil? When the "Northern Indians" run out of ideas to discredit Tamil, they always have the so called modern-day confused Brahmin Tamils to do their dirty work for them. Just like amongst the Afro-Americans, there are those that they consider sell-outs amongst their people "Token Blacks", you are no different. Yes you are a Tamil, a "Token Tamil". There are three types of people in every culture. They are the good, the bad, and the ugly... I assume that you are not a bad guy, nor are you good...

Indrancroos 06:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since I'm on a wikibreak I'll be short and to the point.


 * 1)Indica was not invented by the British, it's a Latin name coined by Megasthenes, an ambassador of Seleucus I of Syria to the court of Sandrocottus (Chandragupta Maurya) of India, in Pataliputra.
 * 2)Kingdoms in ancient civilizations have existed, in China, Mesopotamia and India. Does'nt mean that they, irrespective of the autonomy, consider themselves to be outside of the central culture.
 * 3)The map was not uploaded by me, it has been there for sometime. It has been put up by User:senthilkumaras, if you have any problems, take it up with him.
 * 4) Ancient reigons falling under the geographical boundaries of India, which have been a part of India as early as the time of Ashoka, will be mentioned as parts of India and not seperately.


 * And discrediting Tamils ?? Don't read too much into those novels and those rants of old men and revolutionaries. Have you ever been to north India ?? I have and they consider the south to be the real reason behind the economic upsurge. Your ideas of anti-Tamil paranoia are microscopic in extent, live with it.Freedom skies 07:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)



I did not say that Indica was invented by the British. I said that the British gave the name India to the sub-continent they conquered. I have also stated that they derived the name from the Greeks who called the Norther area of their control Indica.



True. Just like Bharatavarsha and Tamilakkam, but not India.



True and False. Ancient regions fell under the geographical boundaries of India, created by the British. False, because Ashoka was only alive for 40+ years. After that, the rest of the territories he conquered got reverted back to their dominions, just like I am about to revert what you posted the Indian Martial Arts page.

Can you explain this?

1. Mizo Hills were formally declared as part of the British-India by a proclamation in 1895.[] 2. The State of Nagaland was formally inaugurated on December 1st, 1963, as the 16th State of the Indian Union.[] 3. The 'Tripura' is a small state within the union of India. It was an independent country till the merger with independent India in 1949 A.D.[] 4. Manipur was not a Part of India. It was forcibly annexed by India. In 21 September 1949 the king of Manipur was forced to sign the Marger Agreement.[] 5. Pondicherry becomes part of India in 1963. []

Your quote on areas of India being parts of India and not separately is a Nationalistic POV. By the way, Ashoka is the only story you guys can think of... Get real...

''::And discrediting Tamils ?? Don't read too much into those novels and those rants of old men and revolutionaries. Have you ever been to north India ?? I have and they consider the south to be the real reason behind the economic upsurge. Your  ideas of anti-Tamil paranoia are microscopic in extent, live with it.''

I do not know which novels and rants of old men and revolutionaries you are talking about. If you are refering to the historical texts from both Northern and Southern Indians of today then I will have to say you are wrong. If you are talking about our ancient Tamil literature such as Silappadikaram, Manimekalai, and Purunanuru amongst others, you are wrong. I think you are refering to the Mahabharatha, and the Ramayana. Those are real fairy tales. Are you talking about those? Can you build a flying chariot? In regards to your comment to the south being a real reason behind the economic upsurge, that has absolutely NOTHING to what we are discussing. But, since you brought it up, let me state that the south is being plundered for its gold in the Kolar Gold Fields of Tamil Nadu that helped build the Golden Temple in Punjab. textiles, and computer software labor, etc. Anyways, I couldn't care a less about the economy over there. As for me going to North India, I never have, but would like to. Only to see the historical sites and arts, but not people like you... It is truly pathetic that you guys actually think that you are a World Super Power. I would have to disagree since India is nothing more than a Third World Super Market for cheap labor...

P.S.: Can't you think of anything else better to say than live with it? That is getting pretty old, and is sounding very F.O.B.ish.

Indrancroos 18:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Lots of rant and not enough content. India was unified before the British and will be mentioned as such. It's a fact, try living with it. Freedom skies 18:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tamilakam most probably is a crystal-ball theory. Its almost eerie how Indrancroos seems to be the only person who believes it exists. Indian has rarely had unified kingdoms, the south was home to Chera Chola and Pandya.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes high... You have not seen eerie yet... Indrancroos 04:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

''Lots of rant and not enough content. India was unified before the British and will be mentioned as such. It's a fact, try living with it.'' To Freedom skies: How can I live with a so called fact which is not true? Especially when you have not shown any sources to back what you say? Do you think you are god? Is your word the ultimate word for people to believe without proof? I have given well a lot of content with valid sources. You are living in a fantasy world. Your problem is that you yourself cannot except history. Was India called India before the arrival of the British? If it was united before the British, can you tell me under who and which kingdom? I will give you a hint, even though the whole sub-continent was not united fully, only with a good portion of the land. It is the Muslim Moghuls and the Shah Jahan, Akbhar, and the gang... If you are talking about a unified "India" right before the British, it was the Muslims who were in control. You know, the ones who built the so called wonder of the world Taj Mahal (which basically looks like any old mosque in Iraq...). You know, the Taj Mahal Mosque you guys actually think is a Hindu temple...

Anyways, I would like to see if you can answer these questions and give me some valid sources (real books).

1. Was present day India called India before the British arrived? 2. If India was unified before the British, can you tell me under who? (I believed you have worn out the Ashoka story) 3. How many years did Ashoka rule? 4. How many years did the kingdoms of Magadh, and Mauryas rule? 5. What happened to the conquered territories that were under Ashoka after he died and after his kingdom began to decline?

These are simple questions and can be found in your humble library. I you can answer those questions and post some valid sources (BOOKS). I will leave the Indian Martial Arts page alone. This is easy, don't make it hard on yourself. Indrancroos 06:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

''Tamilakam most probably is a crystal-ball theory. Its almost eerie how Indrancroos seems to be the only person who believes it exists. Indian has rarely had unified kingdoms, the south was home to Chera Chola and Pandya.''

To Bakaman: You have not given me any credible historical sources on your claims. I will us good ole' Freedom skies words. "Probably" doesn't cut it. Is that all you can do is make guestimations and rash assumptions? Tamilakkam is mentioned in Tamil literature. Tamilakkam was where the Cholas, Cheras, and Pandyas ruled. Just like in Bharat where the various different kingdoms ruled too. You say that the south has rarely had unified kingdoms. Can you tell me that if Ancient Bharat had unified kingdoms? There were times when the Guptas had rose and fell, Mauryas rose and fell, and others in Ancient Bharat. Just like how the Cholas, Cheras, and Pandyas each rose and fell in Tamilakkam. I think you do not understand English too well my friend from India. I am not saying that Tamilakkam exists now, but before during the Sangam ages just like how Bharat (the 16 Mahajanapadas existed long ago too. Today it is India. All I am doing is just quoting history. For some odd reason you all tend to get paranoid when I start mentioning history which is not in context with the norm. So what is the norm for you guys? Changing history around to make it sound good to the world? You act like I am speaking treason, or it is the end of the world or something. Do you guys feel threatened by what I post? Plain old history? Get over it...

Indrancroos 06:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Still does'nt cut it. India has been unified before, including tamil areas, even then I have accomadated you all the same by mentioning present-day Kerala and the ancient Kingdom of Tamilakam.  in the article.


 * The thing is that the article needs to have a comprehensive mention on the IMA influence on catch, shoot, sambo, potugese arts, muai thai, silat and arts of greater India, which unlike kung fu are not subjected to chaotic arguments in foreseeable future. The thing which seems to be happening around here is the editors who should be contributing to this aspect are busy playing John Amery (or Mir Sadiq, for that matter) to their cause, as long as the article is subjected to absuse such as this, it'll be impossible to add positive aspects of IMA in here. Freedom skies 06:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Indian martial arts
Thanks for the heads up.

I did a little copy-editing. The most dramatic changes I made were the replacement of "greater India" with "Indosphere" and getting more specific on the transmission of Silambam to Malaysia.

BTW, this whole Mahajanapada/Tamilakkam thing is best dealt with in another article. That's why when I did the intro, I referred to the "Indian subcontinent," a geographic region, which changes only on a geological time scale, as opposed to a political unit like a state or kingdom, the identity and borders of which vary greatly within historical memory. JFD 10:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What in one earth does not cut what?
1. Was present day India called India before the British arrived? 2. If India was unified before the British, can you tell me under who? (I believed you have worn out the Ashoka story) 3. How many years did Ashoka rule? 4. How many years did the kingdoms of Magadh, and Mauryas rule? 5. What happened to the conquered territories that were under Ashoka after he died and after his kingdom began to decline?

What do you mean by "it does not cut it". What does not cut what? You still haven't answered the five questions I have asked you... This chronic editing will continue until you can answer my five questions with valid sources (books)... Indrancroos 01:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * India was called "India" before the British came, they formed the "East India trading company" before their conquest, not the "Comapny for Bharat and Tamil Candyland" but "East India Company", Indica by the ambassadors of foreign empires.


 * India as been unified under the Mughals, Ashoka, Magadh lots of people. The geographical boundaries keep on changing, as they did recently when PRC officially recognized Sikkim as a part of India, that does'nt mean that India did not exist before the PRC nod. Ashoka's life span does'nt come into play here, his empire unified the reigons under India and the reigons themselves identified themselves with culture and religion of India, not of Mesopotamia or some imaginary Tamil candyland.


 * That's what I meant when I said it does'nt cut it and no matter how many crazy stalker routines you pull, I'll see that you'll have to live with it.Freedom skies 07:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)