Talk:Dravidian peoples

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeDravidian peoples was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed

Mythology?[edit]

Shouldn't in this article the fact be mentioned, that according to Srimad Bhagavatam 8.24.13 the Manu Vaivasvata, son of the sungod Surya, brother of Yama and founder of the vedic ("aryan") society in India after the great flood, is called "the king of Dravida"? That this contradicts the "Arian Invasion Theory" must not be mentioned explicidly.--87.178.207.98 (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ETHYMOLOGY[edit]

In Ukranian and Russian
 ancient is DREVNI. 
Because Eastern-Iranics Jas,Ossetians,alans,Sarmatians,Scythians lived in  Ukraine
modern East Slavic has 40% of it's words ethymologically related to the Indo-Iranian languages including Sanskrit .
Dravidians  in Sanskrit means the Ancient ones .Edelward (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which has nothing to do with the actual etymology of drāviḍa - how could it? A Sanskrit word cannot have been derived from Ukrainian or Russian. If you want to talk about the etymology of DREVNI you are on the wrong page. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Dravidian peoples[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dravidian peoples's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Sengupta2006":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LA king's observations are tangeñtial to some extent ,about others it is far distants & confusing. Abdullateefkh20 (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change the name Dravidian to tamil people. There's no civilization in the name of Dravidian. The name Dravidians is a small community came from other land to this tamilnadu noted pls GovindanGanason (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamils[edit]

I understand that Tamils may be the most 'proud' people who are dravidian, but that doesn't mean you should flood the people infobox with tamil people. For example, Thiruvallar is put first in the infobox (and although he may be great), he was the father of Tamil literature etc. However, Adi Shankaracarya was an Indian saint known all over India known for his principles of Advaita which changed Hinduism to what it is today. That is one example. Subramaniya Bharti was a tamil poet, (significant in Tamil Nadu), but not very known and important outside of it. Keep in mind that Tamils are not the only Dravidian peoples, and if anything, are possibly the furthest in genetics to the actual 'Dravidian' people from the middle east who brought the language over. There must be diversity represented by this infobox as that is the purpose of it. It actually looks extremely unorganized and ridiculous as of now, especially how it was said earlier that Dravidian history begins with tamil history. It is mentioned that the Katar is a 'Tamil' Dagger, while it is not said that Kalaripayattu is a martial art of Kerala.Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is way too much of the Tamil POV in this article. ManofManyTrophies (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As of July 2017, I noticed certain occasions where the words 'Dravidian' and 'Tamil' were used interchangebly. I believe this is not correct and have replaced it with the word 'Dravidian'. Please take a moment to go through recent changes to make sure this is appropriate. Gireeshgprasad (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Dravidian peoples[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Dravidian peoples's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Kumar":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pandian never mentioned as Dramira in stated sources[edit]

I verified the sources stated in wiki for Dramira which mentioned Pandian. But 3 sources quoted in wiki never mentioned Pandiya as Dramira. So I am going to remove those contents related to Pandian of Dramira. The links for 3 sources given below.

  1. Strabo Volume 15, Chapter 1, Section 4 [1]
  2. Strabo Volume 15, Chapter 1, Section [2]
  3. The cyclopædia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia By Edward Balfour [3] --Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scytho-Dravidian people of Maharashtra[edit]

This article does not talk anything about the existence of Scytho-Dravidians of Maharashtra. I am adding a passing note with credible evidence. Kindly check the below URLs. My only request - discuss on this page before making abrupt changes. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=LnoREHdzxt8C&pg=PA31&dq=scytho+dravidian+maratha&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAGoVChMIl5nD0YD6yAIVxsamCh0SDgSd#v=onepage&q=scytho%20dravidian%20maratha&f=false https://books.google.co.in/books?id=8WNEcgMr11kC&pg=PA71&dq=scytho+dravidian+maratha&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAmoVChMIl5nD0YD6yAIVxsamCh0SDgSd#v=onepage&q=scytho%20dravidian%20maratha&f=false

Amit20081980 User talk:Amit20081980 09:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dissimilar[edit]

Reich et al (2009)[edit]

Reci et al. does not say

"... (ASI) who are distinct from ANI and dissimilar to all other known populations outside South Asia." diff

What it does say is

"the ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other" (p.489)

and

" India contains deep-rooted lineages that share no common ancestry with groups outside of South Asia for tens of thousands of years." (p.489)

That's something different. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly! My point is ASI is restricted to South Asia, which you can see on Harrapa Ancestry Project and various other admixture calculators on Anthrogenica. I think you seem to have mistaken that i said ANI is restricted to South Asia. But, it should be mentioned that ASI is unique and restricted to South Asia. 117.192.210.83 (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another point, when you vaguely state ASI being "clearly distinct from ANI" without having to explain who ASI are related to or not related to only brings up more questions. It's important to state that ASI is unique to South Asia or that they're not related to groups outside South Asia.117.192.210.83 (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reich does not say that ASI is "restricted" to South Asia; they say that the Indian population is build up from two ancestral components. We report what the sources say; the rest is WP:OR. And yes, that rings up more questions; so what? That's how science works! Basu et al. (2016), though, have got something more to say on ASI:
"The absence of significant resemblance with any of the neighboring populations is indicative of the ASI and the AAA being early settlers in India, possibly arriving on the “southern exit” wave out of Africa. Differentiation between the ASI and the AAA possibly took place after their arrival in India." (p.1598)
So, Basu does say something like "dissimilar," but, in regard to the "neighboring populations." They also say that the ASI may have been (or descend from) the first settlers in India. I've added a note. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but ASI is unique to South Asia, if it was wide spread then it would show up in European or African admixture calculators but it does not.
Even Moorjani et al. (2013) states that : "Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent."117.192.210.36 (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC) / — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannadiga (talk • contribs) 06:36, 26 March 2016[reply]
"not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent" is not the same as "dissimilar to all other known populations outside South Asia." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reich et al. (2009):

" One, the ‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other."

And please, don't remove sourced info as you did in these two edits diff diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regrading this- "Northern Indians and higher castes are more related to Eurasian and Caucasian people, while southern Indians and lower castes are less related to Eurasian and Caucasian people." :- The wording (Eurasian & Caucasian) is strange when it should be West Eurasian while Eurasian can mean anyone from Asia & Europe, and caste should not be emphasized knowing how sensitive this would be, it will only create conflicts.
Better wording - "Northern Indians are more related to West Eurasians, while southern Indians are less related to West Eurasians." 117.192.210.36 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another point : "According to Basu et al. (2016), the ASI are related to the "Australasians", the earliest settlers of India." I can't find source for this, and Australasians or Papuans do not show ASI admixture in calculators but Austroasiatic would be more appropriate term to use here. We still do not know who ASI is other than this component being restricted to South Asia, see conversation here[1] and here as well [2] Please do not classify people into racial types. 117.192.210.36 (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4965-POST-EURASIA-14-RESULTS
  2. ^ http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3539-Eurogenes-K13-Results
You're right; Basu also uses the word "Austroasiatic". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relation with caste[edit]

But you also removed again sourced content: "higher castes," "lower castes." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention why, see highlighted "Regrading this" - "caste should not be emphasized knowing how sensitive this would be, it will only create conflicts." especially, considering current political scenario, do show some sensitivity. 117.192.210.36 (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything "insensitive" in the content you deleted. We don't cover up facts in the name of some imagined social good. It is not our job to do so. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcrose not, there is nothing to cover up but it can still be explained better without having to use highercaste/lowercaste terminology as it will cause conflicts, i'm sure you know that. "Northern Indians are more related to West Eurasians, while southern Indians are less related to West Eurasians." is accurate and not demeaning. 117.192.210.36 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are refusing to see the point. The higher castes throughout India have more ANI genes than lower castes. I think you are whitewashing and distorting the sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, it's not inaccurate according to source either. Northern Indians as whole have higher levels of ANI admixture than South Indians simply because of it's geography and various (not just one) ANI related migrations. 117.192.210.36 (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, now you removed the castes a third time.It's notjust what Metspalu (2011) says, it's what a long series of publications have been saying throughout many years. It's not only a matter of geography, it's also a matter of social status. Period. Stop it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austroasiatic link[edit]

With the same edit, you changed the link from Australoid race to Austroasiatic languages. I can understand why, but this is not about languages, but about genes and peoples. I've changed the links again, to Negritos, which is the AAA we're talking about here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think linking to Austroasiatic languages fine. We seem to have close correlations between language families and the genes. We should definitely not link to the old racial types such as Australoid and Negrito, unless we have RS that do such linking. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not fine. I absolutely dislike this term Negrito, but ASI and AAA is not about languages, but about people. The Austroasiatic languages article says nithing about migrations. If "Austroasiatic" is a better term, and used by WP:RS, then we could move that article. But... Lipson et al. (2014), including David Reich, used the term as recent as 2014 in Nature. And Aghakhanian et al. (2015), Unravelling the Genetic History of Negritos and Indigenous Populations of Southeast Asia, was published by Genome Biology and Evolution, Oxford Journals. So it seems the be a quite common term. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JJ, the "Austro-Asiatic people" in Basu (2016) are just the present-day speakers of Austroasiatic languages, nothing more and nothing less. The hypothesized AAA are the ancestral population of these speakers. There is no reference whatsoever to the 19th century idea of "Australoid" people. According to Basu (2016), both the ASI and the AAA were part of the original "Out of Africa" migrations, but they don't say how they got distinguished later. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to remove it until we have better clarification in the future, we still don't know who the ASI were. See here, people are still discussing to find it's component and admixture. [1] What you added in the note regrading ASI "possibly arriving on the “southern exit” wave out of Africa." is better explained than racial classification. I have reworded this "According to Basu et al. (2016), the ASI are related to the Austroasiatics, the earliest settlers of India.[2]" as Basu does not mention it being Negritos but Austroasiatics. The note you have added is better explained and we should keep that. 117.192.210.36 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4425-Looking-for-ASI
  2. ^ a b Basu 2016.

So, you removed the link again, you removed sourced info, and you're making statements which are not supported by Basu et al. (2016) diff. Basu discenrs four ancestral groups in India, AAA being one of them. According to Basu, the ASI are are related to the AAA, but not exactly the same. The AAA are descendants of the earliest settlers (but not exactly the same; the ASI are derived from the AAA (and possibly some other early population). Basu does not say "the ASI are earliest settlers in India"; they say "the ASI and the AAA being early settlers in India." I admit that I also used the word "earliest," so we may need to fine-tune that term; but you can't remove the term "AAA" just because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't know what your problem is, but you can't censor basic facts. And note, again, that "Negritos" is a common term in scholarly publications.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the source info back, as you can see here.[1] The term Austroasiatic = Negrito is wrong and they're not synonymous. Basu says AAA is Austroasiatic is most likely to be Munda not Negrito.
Munda is appropriate term to use here, NOT Negrito. Here is the source according to Basu
" High levels of genetic diversity of mtDNA haplogroups in Munda speakers and an independent assessment of Y-STR diversity of haplogroup O2a in India, dating its origin to ∼65 KYA, have been used to argue in favor of a model that assumes direct descent of Austroasiatic speakers from the initial settlers of India (fig. 1C) and their subsequent dispersal to southeast Asia, possibly before the Last Glacial Maximum [2] Base et al"

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dravidian_peoples&diff=712083067&oldid=712079985
  2. ^ http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/2/1013.full#ref-5

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.210.36 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 26 March 2016

Basu speaks about ancestral AA; and based on research on the Munda-people they conclude that the AA-speakers descend from the AAA - that is, the Negrito-people. So, what's your problem? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Problem = "Ancestral" Austoasiatic is not synonymous to Negrito, there is nothing in that study that says it is synonymous to Negrito other than Austroasiatic being initial settlers of India. Munda is still appropriate term to use here instead of Negrito, why don't we add that instead?. 117.192.210.36 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The quote above is notfromBasu et al. (2016), but from Chaubey et al. (2011). Andthe diff you added forthe infoyou supposedly put back, is a diff for an edit by me. Are you deliberately messing-up? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Negrito forms "a distinct, fifth ancestry." NOT related to AAA! I don't get why we still have Negrito linked to Ancestral Austroasiatic when it should be Munda.117.192.210.36 (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this study, I'm sure you have but you seem to have missed this. [1]

" By sampling populations, especially the autochthonous tribal populations, which represent the geographical, ethnic, and linguistic diversity of India, we have inferred that at least four distinct ancestral components—not two, as estimated earlier (9,10)—have contributed to the gene pools of extant populations of mainland India. The Andaman archipelago was peopled by members of a distinct, fifth ancestry. "

Negrito forms distinct, fifth ancestry, not related to the four ANI, ASI, AAA and ATB.

" The absence of significant resemblance with any of the neighboring populations is indicative of the ASI and the AAA being early settlers in India, possibly arriving on the “southern exit” wave out of Africa. Differentiation between the ASI and the AAA possibly took place after their arrival in India. The ANI and the ATB can clearly be rooted to the CS-Asians and E-Asians, respectively; they likely entered India through the northwest and northeast corridors, respectively. Ancestral populations seem to have occupied geographically separated habitats. However, there was some degree of early admixture among the ancestral populations as evidenced by extant populations possessing multiancestral components and some geographical displacements as well."

Therefore, Munda is still appropriate term to use here when we are talking about AAA in terms of India. 117.192.210.36 (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1594.full.pdf Genomic reconstruction of the history of extant populations of India reveals five distinct ancestral components and a complex structure
  • India harbors four distinct ancestral components ANI, ASI, AAA and ATB.
  • Andaman archipelago (Negrito) forms distinct, fifth ancestry not related to the above components.
  • Ancestral Austro-Asiatic (AAA) is not synonymous to Negrito.

Therefore, we should delink it from Negrito and just add Ancestral Austro-Asiatic/AAA 117.192.210.36 (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kautilya3 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I surrender - though "earliest settlers" could still be linked to "Negrito." Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll even admit: the two of you were right about the link. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is the gentleman editor! - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hided contents[edit]

At the talkpage, the table of contents is contained within the to do list, and collapsed. At the main page, the TOC is also collpased. Which template is being used here, and where? And how can we get back to the standard display, both for the talkpage and for the main article? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the issue with the Table of Contents on the talkpage being part of the to do list, by forcing it lower on the page. Generally table of contents are made automatically by the system. The collapsed TOC issue I think may be something on your end as they are both showing fine on mine, perhaps a setting or you may have collapsed them prior and it has remembered the setting. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mcmatter: thanks! A "remembered setting" does indeed seem to have caused my second problem. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dravidian peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dravidian people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dravidian people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Population numbers[edit]

@Kautilya3: They are giving false population numbers, "http://www.friendsoftelugu.org" and "http://tamilo.com" is not government source. They have also added random flags with outsourced content. We have govt sources on Tamil language page, it's 75.8 million, not 78 million. And, telugu language page also has govt survey source (india times) says 74 million first language speakers. We should remove population numbers from all, or else they will keep adding false numbers every week, as langauge page and ethnic group page gives better population information.

Near East : Given source of genetic study said "Nonetheless, the fact that we can reject West Eurasian population sources from Anatolia, mainland Europe, and the Levant diminishes the likelihood that these areas were sources of Indo-European (or other) languages in South Asia." As study says, Zagros neolithic farmer are from Elam region, it's not in Near East (Levant/Anatolia).117.192.206.150 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok for you to copy the numbers as well as citations from the corresponding language pages. Please state that you are doing this in your edit summary so that people know what you are doiong.
For the second point, Ancient Near East lists Elam as part. So that should be ok. (I don't understand your point about Indo-European languages but I also don't see how it is relevant.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source for Population says 200 million but the Article says 250 Million, Can someone with Access fix this, please?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dravidian people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Modern Dravidian Migration[edit]

I would like to point out that currently Dravidians are also found in Australia. Modern migration has been taking place over the last eight decades. Some countries already mentioned are Malaysia, Singapore, UK, USA and Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.246.180.191 (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Narasimhan 2018[edit]

I have some time ago deleted/changed the statement: " Archaic Ancestral South Asians, descended from the first migrants out of Africa who are not related to any group outside of the Indian subcontinent." to " Archaic Ancestral South Asians who are not related to any group outside of the Indian subcontinent." My change was based on the given reference. The edit was reverted because it is written in the source, but I can not find any part of the reserach that support this claim. I have also used the search function. The word "african" is not included in the reseach and is not used to call them migrants out of africa. (At least I do not find this part). Could someone show me this part of the research? And include the part as comment to the reference? Thanks, 212.241.98.39 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If no one responds here, I will again delete this statement. I will wait two days from now. 212.241.98.39 (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is awkward, but it's quite obvious that AASI are related to the first settkers from Africa. "Not related to any group outside of the Indian subcontinent" is incorrect; they are related to south-east Asian people. It was introduced here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see... but I can not agree on your new edit. The former is more correct, as there is no source supporting this claim. It should be mentioned that the "obvious relation" to OOA is not sourced. I will include a cititation needed, but will accept this theory for now. 212.241.98.39 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have further read a study that claim that the ASI and AASI are closest to Khonda Dora people/tribes. They are clearly distinct from Onge populations. I can give you the link aswell. 212.241.98.39 (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would be welcome! The lines on Narasimhan in the first alinea of the Origins-section are messy anyway. The original sentence, added by me, was:

According to Narasimhan et al. (2018), Dravidians formed as a mixture of Archaic Ancestral South Asians,and neolithic farmers from Iran.[1]

This was changed by 213.162.72.209 (blocked for block evasion by User:WorldCreaterFighter) into

According to Narasimhan et al. (2018), Dravidians have a mixture of origins: Archaic Ancestral South Asians, descended from the first migrants out of Africa who are related to Negritos and Australian Aborigines. Related groups are the indigenous inhabitants of the Andaman Islands and much of Maritime Southeast Asia. Another group is neolithic farmers from Iran. These farmers brought agriculture to the Indian Subcontinent, but are distinct from the later Indo-Aryan migrations.[1]

<br.

References

  1. ^ a b Narasimhan 2018.
I will re-insert my original sentence. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for clarification. 212.241.98.39 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Dravidian history ignored?[edit]

Whenever I read an article on ancient Indian history, I see people only writing about the Indus valley civilization and the Aryans. But what about Dravidians? Didn't they exist even before the Aryans came to India? Also I see a lot of other languages follow the Dravidian script or something similar like the Georgian, Korean, Sri Lankan etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nittin Das (talk • contribs)

Orphaned references[edit]

This article is full of orphaned Harvard-style references like Lockard 2007. I strongly suspect they originated as the result of sloppy copy-paste moves of chunks of text from other articles. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

The article's grammar and capitalization needs polishing. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To fix[edit]

Why does the map show a Dravidian group called Malto, but the Malto people are nowhere mentioned in this article? Please fix. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021[edit]

Please change the opening sentence to reflect the chosen title of the article, e.g. The Dravidian peoples, or Dravidians… 96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 21:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dravidian genetics lead -- violation of WP:SYNTH, WP:VER, WP:RS[edit]

I refer to the following content from the lead:

The Dravidian peoples are of a mixed genetic origin and formed initially due to the mixture of indigenous South Asian Hunter Gatherers and Neolithic West Asian farmers from Iran, with all[1]/almost all Dravidian groups later additionally acquiring admixture from Steppe Yamnaya pastoralists.[2][3][4] From these interactions and migrations arose eventually the so-called "Hindus synthesis", after 500 BCE.[5]


There are multiple problems with these references. Together they appear to form a synthesis of unsupported original research.

  • The first reference, [1], is a FountainInk.in blog post by a man named Srinath Perur. I can't find info that he is a reputable genetic expert, but a blogger and novelist. Thus, this source is not a formally peer-reviewed source, or maybe not even an expert opinion. Furthermore, it does not appear to contain the word 'Yamnaya'.
  • The next reference, [2] is a bioRxiv preprint, Narasimhan, et al. (2018). My understanding is that, per WP:SCIRS, only peer reviewed sources should be used regarding the origins of ethnic groups. The paper does not contain the word 'Yamnaya'.
  • Reference [3] is a peer reviewed Nature paper whose lead author is David Reich, a renowned geneticist. However, it does not appear to contain the word 'Yamnaya'.
  • Reference [4] is a Twitter post from Vagheesh Narasimhan. In addition to not being an admissable source, it does not contain the word 'Yamnaya'.
  • Reference [5] mentions no such events and predates all of the 4 previous sources by several years.

The notion that the Yamnaya, a Bronze Age people who lived in Ukraine from 3300-2600 BCE, relocated to South Asia and donated genetic material to the ancestors of Dravidians, is a very specific idea, which should be supported with high quality secondary sources, which actually contain the word 'Yamnaya', per WP:SCIRS. Since none of these are secondary sources, and only Reich, et al. can be considered a valid primary source, I removed this content. Thanks for reading, and happy editing! Hunan201p (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not Yamnaya-people, but Yamnaya-related people. This is such common knowledge that I wonder what you try to reach with this nitpicking. Same for Narasimhan (2018), which can be replaced with Narasimhan (2019). Try to improve by editing, not by removing the obvious. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's still pretty inaccurate in my opinion. According to the theory, Yamnaya people were ancestors of all Indo-European languages, predating even the Indo-Aryan speakers. There is certainly a timeframe problem involved here.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the Yamnaya (and/or closely related groups) were ancestral to all Indo-European cultures, it seems the Indo-Aryans (and the Dravidians with whom they intermixed) would have Yamnaya (or Yamnaya-related) ancestry, would they not?. Skllagyook (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Srinath Perur, The origins of Indians. What our genes are telling us., Fountain Ink Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine Quote: "Sometime between 1,900 to 4,200 years ago, profound, pervasive convulsive mixture occurred, affecting every Indo-European and Dravidian group in India without exception."
  2. ^ Narasimhan et al. 2018, p. 15.
  3. ^ Reich et al. 2009.
  4. ^ Narasimhan, Vagheesh (20 April 2018). "The only tribes in India without steppe ancestry are Tamil speaking tribes in the Nilgiris and Munda speaking tribes in Eastern India". @vagheesh. Retrieved 15 May 2020.[non-primary source needed]
  5. ^ Lockard 2007, p. 50.
What do you mean with "even"? 3,000 BCE does indeed predate 2000-1500 BCE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say, that only a branch of the Yamnaya population, which later developed into Indo-Iranian and yet later to Indo-Aryan people had this influence on India. A generalized statement on Yamnaya is not helping to highlight this significant nuance.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

"Dravidians are also present in Singapore or the United Arab Emirates through recent migration" ... and many other places too. This sentence is pointless. 216.8.188.31 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

brahmins are not dravidians[edit]

there is a line linking a "tamil brahmin madisar" to the clothing of "dravidian women". there are no links to a tamil brahmin, who follow indo aryan culture, to that of the native dravidian people. adopting a sari does not make them "dravidian". genetic studies also disagree. Temporary 1010 (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for "ethnic cleansing"; people are generally identified as those speaking a particular language or following a particular culture for generations and identify themselves as belonging to that group; this can even override any genetic analysis. It's just whatever the sources say. Rasnaboy (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copied and pasted messages don't work buddy, you need to stop pushing your offensive and dominant ideologies on others' who want nothing to do with you. Temporary 1010 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sheduled tribes in India[edit]

Are all Central Dravidian (Kolami–Parji), North Dravidian (Brahui-Kurukh), Gondi-Kui languages speakers considered as sheduled tribes in India? Kaiyr (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dravidian_peoples&oldid=1194451495"