Talk:History of Tamil Nadu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star History of Tamil Nadu is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 5, 2007.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tamil civilization, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Tamil related topics. If you would like to participate, please feel free to visit the project page to join.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project’s importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dravidian civilizations, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Dravidian related topics. If you would like to participate, please feel free to visit the project page to join.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project’s importance scale.
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Indian states workgroup.
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup.
More information about this article...
Maintained The following users are active in maintaining and improving this article. If you have questions regarding verification and sources, they may be able to help:
Venu62 (talk · contribs)

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

I did not want to fix it since I did not want to eliminate the evidence (I don't know how that "History" page works - someone might want to have a look at it for changes to the "Pre-historic Period") but someone has been tampering with the first section of the article. A particularly juvenile replacement of the scientific name for humans has been substituted in a couple of places. Someone who knows the subject matter should probably have a look for less obvious changes. I have given up being a member of the Wikipedia community so someone else might want to put this page on a watchlist. Thanks. Apple Rancher 23:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justification for the title

Great start, Venu. My only concern is that people would object to the title as the present-day entity Tamil Nadu has existed only in modern times. Well, if we can establish that the name was in vogue much before, it should be fine. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there is precedence to this - see History of Kerala and History of Bangalore. We are only documenting the history of the region rather than asserting that there was an entity by the name Tamil Nadu back then. For that matter, there was no country called "India" until the British Raj period, and yet we do call our history the History of India!
Parthi (Venu62) 22:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's why people made suggestions to move the article to under "History of South Asia"! Well, it's not an issue. We'll deal with it when we come to it. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The Cilappatikaram uses the name "Tamil Nadu" in the forms "then thamizh nannadu" and "then thamizh nadu", so it should be pretty easy to establish that the name's been in vogue for quite a while. This article is starting to shape up well - kudos to all who've worked on it. The only significant gap I see is the absence of a detailed discussion about the Velir chiefs - are you planning to work on that? They were quite important in that period of Tamil history, particularly the Atiyaman dynasty. -- Arvind 22:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Arvind. A mention in Cilappatikaram makes it indisputable. I've no idea about the Velir Chiefs and Parthi (Venu62) is the main author and I hope he would take your inputs and use it. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Velir chieftains

Hi Sundar and Arvind, I have added a brief para on the Velir chieftains. I will add a couple more sentences and citation later. - cheers Parthi (Venu62) 06:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph was informative. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-independence history

May be the current content merits the duration of the period, but my personal wish would be to have more of it covered, either here or in a separate article. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We can certainly incldue more content under the post independent section, but I can't find appropriate non-partisan references for it. I have been away from Tamil Nadu too long to source anything appropriate and IMO they can only be sourced locally. If you can cite some online resources, I am more than happy to condense and write. - Parthi 06:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
True. The dearth for a non-partisan account is one of the main reasons I wanted us to provide more info here. I'll try to get some sources here. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll be dumping potentially useful references here. Please use it as required. Search for the phrase "Tamil Nadu" in the documents even if the primary subject is different. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other potential sources

[edit] Article should include

Good worked article, Thanks. But it shouldn't be restricted only political matters. That is, more attention needed here on refering cultural, lingual(Tamil), religious and social events and histories. - Vaikunda Raja 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the so-called religion Ayyavazhi is prominant enough to include in a summary article of the history a state that spans from pre historic to present days. I am removing the mention you added on Ayyavazhi - Parthi 19:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's discuss and then decide to move or not.
Ayyavazhi was termed generally as a reform movement though all departments did not consider it as a religion. On sociology, Ayya Vaikundar was noted as the first social as well as religious reformer of Tamil Nadu. India,s first inter-dinning was held in Ayyavazhi centers(reported in Dina Malar by Pachai mal). Samuel Mateer's (book) Land of Charity, mentions Ayyavazhi quite often on writing the history of 19th century Travancore. To the Christian missionaries, Ayyavazhi was a major odstacle for their spread. Travancore is the most succesfull spot for them on spreading. Mind you in Travancore the major reason for the spread of Christianity is the caste issue. Mainly to escape from the caste tyranny most of the subjects of Travancore mainly Nadar caste, joined Christianity. In such a situation Ayyavazhi stabilised against Christianity. So apart from religious study Ayyavazhi is a major social issue in the History of not only Tamil Nadu but wholy to that of the nation. I will cite all the above if needed. I am reverting - Vaikunda Raja 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Let us not get into a revert war. You may be a Ayyavazhi worshipper, but that does not mean Ayyavazhi is a major religion meriting mention in a summary article. There is no mention of any other religious mevements in the article, mainly becasue this is a summary. If we began to include each and every religious movement that began during the last two thousand years, the article will be huge. You have created your own set of Ayyavazhi article group. Please don't try to thrust it in irrelevant places. - Parthi 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Venu, I am not telling to add only Ayyavazhi but all social, religious, lingual and cultural events. You can't say that they are negligible. Beacause the article was headed 'History of Tamil Nadu', not 'Political history of Tamil nadu' . So, History of Tamil Nadu includes all these. If the article goes long it should be splitted and not the notables be swallowed up. I've also mentioned it earlier - Vaikunda Raja 20:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The point is not that the article should only discuss political events, but that Ayyavazhi as a social phenomenon did not have a significant enough impact on Tamil Nadu to merit a mention in this article. Given that this is a summary article, it seems to me that we need to focus on events of the order of significance of the revival of Shaivism or the advent of Christianity. Ayyavazhi does not meet that standard because this article is only a summary of the social, political and religions history of TN. Ayyavazhi would quite possibly merit a mention in an article on Religion in Tamil Nadu as and when that happens to be written. -- Arvind 22:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not not here to place merely a religion or it's growth, to the article of the history of a state. But look at the political and social impact created by Ayyavazhi in the then society. Keepng away the religious view on Ayyavazhi and Ayya Vaikundar and take a look under sociology.

  • If you need to place the first protest against the casteism and untouchability in the state, you can't neglect Ayyavazhi or reform of Ayya Vaikundar.
  • If you think that Thanthai Periyar was a reformer,nearly 50 years before to him the same reform that periyar done against casteism and untouchability was performed by Vaikundar in the South. Religious conversion there, mainly because of casteism was prevented by this movement.
  • India's first inter-dinning was held in Ayyavazhi centers by Ayya. Is this an ordinary thing.
  • He agitated against the King Swathi Thirunal Rama Varma for his cruel activities (especially tax)against the sub-altern people.

What Iam telling is there are a set of religious as well as social reforms done by the advent of the Ayyavazhi. All were defined religiously in the scriptures of Ayyavazhi. But here this (reforms)is to be viewed with an eye of sociology and not religious. - Vaikunda Raja 23:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For this article at this present stage I accept mentioning Ayyavazhi as a reform movement. Also I accept mentioning Ayya and Ayyavazhi like this to the sociology and history related articles. More over this is not enough. There are many to say about Ayyavazhi and Ayya under sociology. But presently I've no source to cite.

And also in articles related to spirituality, philosophy, religion etc.. Ayya Vaikundar and Ayyavazhi should be mentioned exactly in the religious way as per the beleifs of Ayyavazhi and Akilam. I am telling this now to avoid confusion in future.

Also when the articles related to Tamil Nadu History get developed enough to mention every religious, social, cutural matters, Ayyavazhi should be mentioned in equal status with other religions in the religious way. That is telling Ayyavazhi as a religion;Vaikundar not as Mudisoodum Perumal etc.... With minor changes now, I found things Okey... - Vaikunda Raja 00:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Ayyavazhi will not be considered at par with other major religions as long as it is unknown to a vast majority of people who live in the areas of Tamil nadu claimed to have a number of its followers. - Parthi 03:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Ayyavazhi mention is not appropriate in a summary article?

Vaikunda Raja, I don't know if you can ever understand what an encyclopedia is or what notability means. Let me try to explain. Ayyavazhi as such may be notable to merit an article in Wikipedia. But, if we mention that in a summary article (please DO NOT reply before you read the previous policy), it'll create a false impression that it's much more notable than what it is. We've mentioned only the most important historical events here and not everything that happenned in Tamil Nadu. For example, Adi Parasakthi movement, Tamil Nadu Mercantile bank reclamation movement, attempted murder of MGR, etc., are all events that are newsworthy or perhaps that merit a mention in non-summary articles like lists or be independent articles. If we mention one of them here, it seeks to imply that the mentioned one is much more notable than the others. This is what we're trying to avoid. Do you seriously believe that the social movement is much more notable than Periyar's movement? If so, wouldn't there be reliable scholarly writings on that subject? Please have a open mind and try to understand the previous points rather than dismiss them right away. Even a moderate inclusionist like me feels that Ayyavazhi mention as social movement here is inappropriate. I'm removing the mention based on the above reasoning. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Sundar, I accept and sorry if any mistakes on my side truly.
The following is the way of studying religions exactly in a social way beyond beleifs, faith etc... So it's not my own view, but on viewing Ayyavazhi as one among the other religions from the side of society.
You asked, "Do you seriously believe that the social movement is much more notable than Periyar's movement? If so, wouldn't there be reliable scholarly writings on that subject?"
This is the main focusing point of P.Sarveswaran in his book, "Sri Vaikunda Swamikal-A Forgotten Social Reformer of Kerala".
That is how such a reformer is forgotten in the history. It doesn't means that there is no reference about him in History. But not cared of. The author (P.Sarveswaran) exclimed it in the book.
More over I am telling one event. Iam telling this because you asked me "Do you seriously believe that the social movement is much more notable than Periyar's movement?"
The religious leader Bala Prajapathi was opposed by almost majority of the followers for the last two or three years mainly beacause of the fact that all his public speeches focuses Vaikundar as a reformer (social and religious). He also compares him to various reformers and telling that Vaikundar was the first and most suceeded. I too personally dislikes that. But few days before when I met him at his residence in Swamithoppe, I asked him the reason. He told me "Even on sociology, Ayya was the most rememberable reformer. But he was completely forgotten from the society". More over he also compared him with Narayana Guru and Chattampi Swamikal.
He also told "Ayya's mission was many times greater than that of these two people. But they two were quite familer, but Ayya!!! Completely forgotten. So to bring this situation I give speeches like that."
Look into the article Ayyavazhi religious practices . (All were given religious definitions in scripture.) But look them sociologically. Don't you find that some of the practices initiated there were the major effort to brought in social co-operation in a caste based diversifyied society. For eg. See this link, (click the link, and then from the rows in the right Click Social Reforms.)
You can't tell that He Vaikunadar was not accepted by people and all. The LMS Reports themselves are good proof for that.
All these were done before some 150 years. Beafore the birth of all known reformers. These reforms were not done in a period, when people developed to question against the inhuman activities. But this was reverse in the time of Periyar and others. When they arose the people (most of them)were with enough boldness. But in the time of Vaikundar, it's the time of king and nobody can revolt against the king. But Vaikundar revolted agains the then King Swathi Thirunal.
But the archives of Thiruvananthapuram (kings documents) did not contain any messages about Vaikundar. But the LMS Reports states the arrest of Vaikundar and imprisonment in Trivandrum. This is a question commonly asked: Why such a person revolted against the King was not mentioned in the archives of the Palace? No answers so far.
Also we can't tell that no scolors mentioned about Vaikundar. Aset of historians


V.T.Chellam's, Thamizaka Varalarum Panpadum
R.Ponnu's Vaikuntacuvamikal Valvum Valikattalum,
M.S.S.Pandiyan's, Meanings of Colonialism and Nationalism :An essay on Vaikunda Swamy Cult , Studies in History,
A.Sreedhara Menon's A Survey of Kerala History, Madras 1996
Arunan's Tamilakatil Camuka Cirtirutam Irunuttantu Varalaru, Madurai:Vaihai Publications, 1999, page-28
P.Sarveswaran's, Sri Vaikunda Swamikal-A Forgotten Social Reformer of Kerala, Page-3
Abbs, John's Twenty-two years Missionary experience in Travancore
Caldwell,r's History of Tinnevelly
Samuel Mateer's Land of Charity.
and some more, not less than 50 books mentions Vaikundar (If needed I will mention all of them).
More than this, the LMS Missionaries's Reports, for the years 1838, 1843, 1847, 1872 and 1892 (covers more than fifty years) had direct reference to Ayyavazhi.
Apart from these
  • Reports of the Santhapooram District
  • Reports of the Jamestown Mission District
  • Reports of the Neyyor Mission District
  • Reports of the Nagercoil Mission District
  • Reports of the Tittuvilai Mission District
  • Reports of the Kottaram Mission District
Also mention Ayyavazhi.
All these were not (religious works) from Ayyavazhi, but external books viewing Vaikundar sociologically. Do all these focus towards a completly negligible person? or Do all these things focus a personality, is he neglegible? - Vaikunda Raja
Sorry, if you got offended by my innocuous comments. I never made any comment on the "goodness" or otherwiseness of Ayyavazhi. IMO, not even Narayana Guru etc., might merit a place in this article. They along with Ayyavazhi would find a place in a more detailed article like Social reform movements in Tamil Nadu or such. By the way, thanks for providing these many books as references. Please cite them in the appropriate format in the Ayyavazhi article if you've not added already. Let me help you out. Probably, once we have good subarticles, we can think of a mention in this summary article as well at a later stage. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem Sundar, I don't.
Then I can't cite them in religious aricles because they all were social ann sociological studies studies. More over all these books were not with me presently. I found all these in the foot note area of the book "Religion and Sub-altern agency" (a book of G.Patrick, Madras University). Also, even in my knowledge, some of the books were missed by the resercher, Patrick. More over these books might mentioned Vaikundar, under sociology as either Mudisoodum perumal , Muthukutty samy or Vaikunda samy. They don't undergo a religious study. So in sociology related articles, if needed I will site. Thank you. - Vaikunda Raja 13:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting increasingly frustrated with you and your POV pushing. It's adding considerable stress to valuable contributors for having to revert your POV additions to articles like Menstrual cycle, where a mention of Ayyavazhi imputes a significant notability, which it doesn't have. I thing you mistook my commendation on your mentioning some books to be an endorsement of your view and a retraction of my comments made at the beginning of this section. Let me say that I still stand by them and if you engage in any further pushing, I'll need to seek administrative action. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalism

I'm slightly uncomfortable with the use of the word "nationalism" unqualified to mean "patriotism" given that it would be used to mean something else in the history of a later period. What would be a better choice? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. Nationalism does have negative connotations in the history of the 20th century. However, feelings of Nationalism was the major - if not the only - driving force behind leaders such as Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi towards the Indian independence movement. In the context of Indian History, Nationalism was not the negative, insular and xenophobic Nationalism of the Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan. It was IMO a more utipian and idealistic Nationalism of Subramanya Bharathi and Gandhi. If one wishes to qualify the term in our context, may be we can perhaps use ther term 'Patriotic Nationalists'? - Parthi talk/contribs 11:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean that. What I intended to mean was that nationalism would mean devotion to a nation and not a country, which for some people makes a big difference. Many would consider the devotion to Tamil language/ethnicity as a form of nationalism and devotion to India, the country, as patriotism. So, a hypothetical separatist group devoted to Tamil nationalism would definitely not considered patriotic. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Sundar, particularly given that the secessionist group was not merely hypothetical, but actually existed up until 1963 or sometime thereabouts (it's called the DMK). We need to distinguish pan-Indian nationalism from Tamil nationalism. I'm not very sure how to word it, though. They certainly considered themselves both Tamil nationalists and Tamil patriots, so I don't think using those two words will get us very far. "Pan-Indian nationalism" and "Tamil nationalism" convey the idea much better, but they're a little clumsy. -- Arvind 21:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Parthi, any thoughts on this? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Not sure really. This is a difficult one to do without being seen as POV. The heading Nationalism and Independence struggle may be changed to simply Independence struggle omitting the allusion to Tamil Nationalism. The paragraph following may be reworded to denote Bharathi et al as freedom fighters rather than nationalists. The Dravidian movement may be factually termed as the 'Dravidian movement' and the secessionist activities may then be decoupled from the nationalism tag. I will try and rewrite this paragraph. You may change it as you and Arvind may wish. - Parthi talk/contribs 06:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with everything except omitting the allusion to Tamil nationalism part. Dravidian movement is a Tamil nationalistic movement among being so many other things. But, please go ahead with your rewrite. I'll make any changes if required. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should History of TN have sections on the arts and culture ?

TN means the people and their land and culture, no? Political history seems to be emphasized a lot. I've not read this article in depth to make any suggestions or comments, but it seems to be well written with a lot of info. --Aadal 23:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a brief mention of Culture and art would be appropriate. There are however articles such as Tamil literature, Tamil people, Tamil language and Tamil script which do more justice. This article is already has grown larger than average, so any new material will mean editing out some of the existing material. You are welcome to contribute. - Parthi talk/contribs 23:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Parthi. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classification of Periods

The presentation of linear history is well done. I am assuming that dominant powers and majority area cover to be the selective criteria for the classifying of periods. The classification of the periods needs further elaboration as rulers, territories often overlap or subdivide. --Natkeeran 21:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Srilankan Connection

I have made a few edits in relation to the Srilankan Connection based on the following points

  1. Loss of Sympathy towards LTTE is not equal to loss of sympathy towards Tamils
  2. Sympathy was lost due to Assassination and not due to war between IPKF and LTTE. Infact the war was responsible for an "increase" in sympathy during 1987 to 1991

I have tried to give a neutral picture. Doctor Bruno  01:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate statement

The article reads:

Since the 1998 elections, coalition governments have held power in Tamil Nadu.

It's highly inaccurate to state this. For one, there were no elections held for the TN Legislative Assembly in 1998. The terms are 1996-2001, 2001-2006, 2006-ongoing. In the '96 assembly elections, the DMK fought in alliance with the TMC and swept the polls. But, the DMK had a huge majority on its own and the TMC took a stand that it would fill the role of a "responsible opposition". In the '06 elections, the DMK led alliance won, but with DMK falling short of individual majority. Currently, the DMK government is a minority government with outside support from its alliance partners. So, even this government can't be called a coalition government. Either the author whom you've cited meant the coalition governments at the centre or he meant "alliance politics" when they said "coalition governments". This inaccuracy needs to be fixed. Following are a few useful resources:

I've reworded the section a bit removing any reference to a specific year. This is only an interim measure, please feel free to make any accurate statements on the emergence of alliance politics. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post Independence Period

The post independence period is not well organized. There is an abrupt transition to the second paragraph. Recent events and Srilankan conflict should be sub-sectioned. Also, the important event of Tamilnadu gaining Madras, is not even mentioned when discussing about the partition.

Balajiviswanathan 03:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political History of TN, People History of Tamil Nadu

This is certainly a good work. However, it does not contain even minimum information about the lives of people throughout the ages. This can be addressed in a separate article. Just a note. --Natkeeran 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not peepee but pee

The abbreviation "pp" conventionally means pages, plural; a single page is written "p". I changed a few examples of "pp" to "p" but quickly tired, I'm sorry to say. -- Morenoodles 09:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Many pics in this article are copyvios

Many pics in this article are suspected copyvios. I have tagged them asking for source information. But no information has been forthoming except "assertions" of the uploaders themselves. I will wait for some time and pending proper explanation of the sources, I will be removing the pics. Thanks. 00:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You have no right to remove any pictures from the articles. The correct process is to tag them if you feel they are suspect and then wait for the examination by an admin. If you go about removing the pics It will be reported as vandalism. Parthi talk/contribs 00:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Tagged pics are removed by bots. I could pitch in too. And nobody needs anybody's permission to uphold the integrity of wikipedia by stamping out copyvios. Its rather unfortunate that these copyvios have managed to circumvent the checks and balances that wiki has in place and have even managed to appear on the main page. As a true wikipedian.. I am deeply pained. Sarvagnya 01:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Adichanallur inscription

The earliest clear evidence of the presence of the megalithic urn burials are those dating from around 1000 BCE, which have been discovered at various places in Tamil Nadu, notably at Adichanallur. Recent excavations at these sites have also provided samples of early Tamil writing, dating back to at least 500 BCE.[1]

The reference given for the above line is [1]. The Hindu report does not say anything except in ambiguous language. It does not draw any conclusions. Most importantly, this is just a report in a newspaper about history that has not yet been even researched into. Neither has any researcher researched into it nor has any journal published anything about it. Citing sources like media reports in things like this, I believe is against Wikipedia conventions. I believe it wouldnt be a problem if you used a Hindu report or review of say, a research item that appeared in a reputed journal. But to use a media report to establish the veracity of something is questionable.

Also even reading the Hindu report, it is amply clear that nothing can be said about the inscription yet. The inscription just has 6 or 7 syllables which mean nothing yet and can possibly be in any language. It need not even be Tamil for that matter. Yes you might say that the script is Tamil Brahmi, but then who knows, tomorrow research might show that it indeed is some other language which probably used Tamil Brahmi even before Tamil started using it. My point is not to advance any theories of my own, but just to point out that even amateurs like me can demolish this theory if the Hindu report is all that you have.

In the light of the above, I will be removing that line. We will have to wait till something concrete(and not speculation) comes out in a reputed journal or something. Sarvagnya 02:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The article quotes the Archaeological Survey of India, Chennai Circle. what more do you want?
I agree with you in general. The only area where media reports can be considered as Reliable Sources is Current events. They are not peer-reviewed journals. GizzaChat © 08:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling Vandalism

This article was originally written in Indian English, a derivative of English. There appears to be some concerted ploy by some to silently convert articles such as this one into American English. Whenever the vandalism is corrected, it is done again. This needs to stop. — Yama 07:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

could you giuve an example of a diff of the sort that you mean? Hornplease 08:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Some examples from recent history: [2] [3] [4] [5]
This is hardly the only article to be subjected to this vandalism, either. — Yama 10:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] refs

  1. ^ Rudimentary Tamil-Brahmi script' unearthed at Adichanallur. The Hindu, Feb 17, 2005. The Hindu Group. Retrieved on 2006-11-15.

[edit] British, not English

Under Anglo-French conflicts the User:Venu62 keeps replacing British with English, even though during this time there were known as British because of the Act of Union in 1707. To call the British English is not only inaccurate and ignorant it is insulting as the English are not the only people on the British isles. I am not the vandal Venu62, you are so please refrain from replacing British with English because it is vandalism. User:Daniel Chiswick 7 May, 2007.

See the following references:
  1. Political and Military Events in British India: From the Years 1756 to 1849 By William Hough - [6]
  2. Outlines of Enlgish history By Robert Ross - [7]
  3. History of England: From the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Versailles, 1713-1783 By Philip Henry Stanhope - [8]
  4. Annals of the Wars of the Eighteenth Century, By Edward Cust - [9]
  5. Carnatic Chronology: The Hindu and Mahomedan Methods of Reckoning Time Explained, By Charles Philip Brown - [10]
I can give you hundreds more citations for the use of 'English' instead of British in this context. So, don't revert. Naming valid edits as 'vandalism' is a personal attack and you may be blocked for this. - Parthi talk/contribs 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they call them "English" in the scources you provided, the British are commonly called "English" but the term is incorrect because after 1707 it was the Kingdom of Great Britain. If this were a WWI article and you replaced German with Prussian that would be about the same thing you are doing now. Not all scources are correct and it is unencyclopedic to call the British "English" as there are also Scots, Welsh, Cornish, and Irish people in Great Britian and calling them all "English" is not correct and "English" needs to be changed to British. I hope a British user backs me up on this because what I am saying is 100% right and the vandalism warning I gave you is justified so please do not call it a personal attack as it is not. If I called you an insulting name or gave you a useless warning then it would be a "Personal attack", but since it is not I would appreciate you would stop vandalising the page by replacing the correct term of British with the incorrect term "English". User:Daniel Chiswick 13:00, 7 May 2007

As an English person, I agree re: British vs. English. fraggle 11:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Just like to add that there is some semi obvious sockpuppeting up here with User:Andrew Steller and User:Daniel Chiswick almost certainly the same person or two friends tag-teaming this article. More info and evidence at: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel Chiswick (2nd). Gdo01 16:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

British it should be. Not English. Sarvagnya 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, so it is agreed that English will be changed to British. User:Daniel Chiswick 9 May, 2007.

[edit] Citecheck notice

Sarvagnya, I see that you've added a {{citecheck}} notice to the top of this featured article. What is the misinterpretation here? The prose almost uses the language verbatim from the cited reference. If you don't give a reason here, I'd assume there's no problem whatsoever and remove the notice. If there's a genuine misinterpretation, you're free to reword the sentence, but don't remove cited content applying your personal judgment over references citing misinterpretation (even as there's no "interpretation" issue in a verbagtim quote). -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already been through this Adichanallur nonsense more than once. Expecting people to explain the same thing over and over again is bad faith editing, if not disruption. For starters, the script hasnt been deciphered. Secondly, there's very little(only 4) difference between brahmi and tamil brahmi(which many scholars call southern brahmi). If a script that is far from being deciphered can resemble 'tamil brahmi' then it ought to resemble 'brahmi' too. And in any case, all your reports are just speculative "FIR"s filed by the media. Research in this is still pending. So stop bringing speculative reports and weaseling. In any case, this info/detail doesnt even belong in this article which is supposed to be a summary article. This weasel belongs, at best in the Brahmi or Tamil Brahmi article. Sarvagnya 07:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you have a complaint, let's approach someone to have a look at it. Another possibility would be to agree on a rewording. Since the Tamil Brahmi detail is not critical (I agree with you that much) to this article, would you agree with the following prose? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
“ The earliest clear evidence of the presence of the megalithic urn burials are those dating from around 1000 BCE, which have been discovered at various places in Tamil Nadu, notably at Adichanallur, 24 km from Tirunelveli, where archaeologists from the Archaeological Survey of India unearthed 12 urns containing human skulls, skeletons and bones, plus husks, grains of rice, charred rice and Neolithic celts, giving evidence confirming it of the Neolithic period 2800 years ago. Adhichanallur has been announced as an archaeological site for further excavation and studies.[1] [2] ”
Remove weaseling about the script and keep whatever else you want... though imo, everthing else starting with the comma after "Adichanallur" is superfluous and unnecessarily wordy for a SS article. Sarvagnya 07:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
And btw.. what is it with megalithic urns containing 'neolithic celts'. Mind throwing some light? Sarvagnya 07:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What's the contradiction here? If there's no contradiction, Marcus' version with Lotlil's suggestion shall be restored. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 15:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I support Sundar and have written to Archeological Survey of India for further Documentation:

"To Whom it concerns, I am seaching for Archaeological Survey of India publications and peer revieved journal articles regarding the early Tamil Brahmi script inscriptions found in burial urns at the Neolithic site at Adichanallur, Tirrunivelli District, Tamilnadu in 2005. This discovery has been described by T.S. Subramanian (Feb 17, 2005) The Hindu, Rudimentary Tamil-Brahmi script' unearthed at Adichanallur .

I am seeking authoritative references to support my statement: "The earliest clear evidence of the presence of the megalithic urn burials are those dating from around 1000 BCE, which have been discovered at various places in Tamil Nadu, notably at Adichanallur, 24 km from Tirunelveli, where archaeologists from the Archaeological Survey of India unearthed 157 urns, including 15 containing human skulls, skeletons and bones, plus husks, grains of rice, charred rice and Neolithic celts, and one having writing inside resembling the early Tamil Brahmi script on it, giving evidence confirming it of the Neolithic period 2800 years ago. Adhichanallur has been announced as an archaeological site for further excavation and studies." which i wrote in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Tamil_Nadu&oldid=148895770#Pre-historic_period but which was rejected as being non-authorative.

Any Archaeological Survey of India publications or peer revieved journal article references regarding the early Tamil Brahmi script inscriptions at Adichanallur would increase public understanding of this important aspect of early Tamil Nadu History.

Sincerely, Marcus Sherman"

I await their response-Marcus 07:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Suggestion Since Hindu is a reliable secondary source, we can depend on their attribution. So, we should be able to use the article to say something like

According to archaeologist Dr. Satyamurthy and epigraphist M.D. Sampath, the script resembles the Tamil-Brahmi script

Lotlil 13:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

Congrats to contributors and editors on this FA article. Some suggestions on this important piece of work. 1. This article is too vague in details and written in a winding prose. 2. Timelines and geographic patterns are not followed 3. It lacks a cohesive, comprehensive introduction 4. Many contradictory, superfluous information and invalid references 5. Use of maps, illustrations and timelines could be considered

Being a tamil myself, I am constantly amazed at the depth of this great article. Some TLC could be used in this article. Please unlock it. RC

Thank you for your feedback. It would be useful to be a bit more specific with your comments. It will also be useful to note that this article has been through extensive peer review and feature article candidate nomination and review. You will certainly be aware that an article is not given the FA status without it having to meet the highest quality criteria. See WP:WIAFA.
Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 01:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)