Talk:Dravidian civilizations

The subject matter of this article is about Dravidian people. The term "Dravidian civilization" usually refers to the proto-Dravidian people before their contact with the Indo-Aryan people. So, the title of this article is misleading.

Also, a lot of the content has been taken verbatim from many articles such as Thomas the Apostle, History of South India etc, without any attribution, which makes this a GFDL violation.

At best, this should be a disambiguation page, with links to proto-Dravidian people and Indus Valley Civilization. utcursch | talk 12:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That is why for some of the articles I have had a link to "Main Article" if you have seen that. Also, can you provide sources that show that Dravidian civilizations refer to only Proto-Dravidians? I know why there is much fuss about this article is because of POV nationalistic biasedness. I'm sorry, but I do not write mix and match made up articles with false claims and no sources. One thing I always do is to provide as much valid sources as possible. Unlike other articles that don't, and if they do, they just post a random title, and in most cases not even books, just web sites. As for my referenced sources they are all mostly backed up by titles, with author's name, and page numbers. Wiki Raja 16:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My point was not that the article contains erroneous information or lacks references. My point is that the article doesn't contain the information that it should. In short, this is an article about History of South India and Dravidian people, while it should be about proto-Dravidian people.

Here are some of the sources, which use the term "Dravidian civilization" to refer to proto-Dravidians or Indus Valley Civilization (since some of these believe that IVC is a candidate for proto-Dravidain civilization)

"the megalithic Deccan Dravidian civilization, which flourished in the first millenium B.C."[1]

"status of women in Dravidian civilization prior to the Aryan invasions"[2]

"The Dravidian civilization of the Indus valley- related to ancient Mesopotamia-flourished be- tween 3000 and 1500 B.C."[3]

"Yoga and meditation originated in the Dravidian civilization of the Indus Valley"[4]

"Dravidian civilization was pre-dominant in India before the coming of the Aryans"[5]

"impacted on the Dravidian civilization of the Indus Valley"[6]

On the other hand, not a single of the 32 references in the article support the claim that the Tamil Nadu-Andhra-Karnataka-Kerala form a separate "Dravidian civilization".

If you are actually interested in writing an article that talks about Dravidian history, arts, culture and architecture, you could probably edit Dravidian people. All groups like the Bengali people, Gujarati people and others have their own arts/culture/architecture, but that doesn't mean that they are a separate "civilization". I can't imagine an article on Bengali civilization, Gujarati Civilization, U.P.-Bihar civilization or North Indian civilization. utcursch | talk 04:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The article title reads "Dravidian civilizations". But Mister Manticore a spirited defendant of the article seems to think it is about a "civilization"(singular).

So what is it about? Is this some homogenous civilization like the Roman civilization or is it a collection of several different civilizations? If it is the latter, can either Wikiraja or manticore tell me who/what the constituent civilizations are? If it is the former, can they tell me where/which region this civilization is/was native to, who were its kings, what was their capital, what language did they speak.. etc etc.,. Sarvagnya 18:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there's no significant difference in whether it's singular or plural. This page could just as easily be retitled to one or another, depending on preference. Take Category:Civilization which points to Category:Civilizations instead. It's a style concern here, nothing more. As for the rest, I suggest you read the article. It's right there in the lead section. In any case, I see no reason to remove the category, so I'm going to once again re-add it. I suggest you refrain from removing it, as I'm concerned that does nothing whatsoever to convince anybody of your position, but rather seems a lot like vandalism to me. Again, if you truly do disagree with the contents of the page, take it to the AFD and make your case there. FrozenPurpleCube 01:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether singular or plural makes hell of a difference. If you see that Category page that you link to, all the civilizations named there are singular - Maya "civilization", Minoan "civilization", Vedic "civilzation", Indus Valley "civilization" etc.,. Can you hazard a guess why they're not "civilizations"? Also can you get wikiraja to confirm what you said? 01:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvagnya (talk • contribs)

See Special:Movepage option. It doesn't make a big difference to me what title this page, or those other pages are at. Sorry, but your objection just doesn't make for a convincing one, it seems to be focusing on a needless technicality. And no, I'm afraid I can't get WikiRaja to do anything. If you wish to contact that editor, try his talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 01:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You can try pretend all you want, but you arent impressing anyone with your nitpicking. You obviously know nothing about the subject and I'm not wasting any more time with you. Sarvagnya 01:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, you're not impressing me either. There is a singular Maya civilization just like there is a singular Tamil civilization. Furthermore, there is a plural Meso-American civilizations (Maya, Aztec0, Olmeca) just like there is a plural Dravidian civilizations (Tamil, Telugu, Brahui). Wiki Raja 02:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So you're saying that the s does matter here. Right? Mister Manticore, are you listening? Sarvagnya 02:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"So you're sayting that the letter s and the letter q and the letter g are all letters in the alphabet soup?" Sarvagnya, do you know how pathetic your argument sounds? Wiki Raja 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Since you also talk of Meso-America, well let me show you Meso-America on the map. Here it is. Now can you show me where this "Dravidia" is. I only hope you dont point me here. Sarvagnya 03:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're not going to discuss things with people, that could create problems. It's never a good idea to slam doors in people's faces. Me, I'm not especially concerned about whether or not the plural or singular is used, both could be accurate at the same time. Take Western Civilization. People do talk about it. Yet they also talk about Western Civilizations. It's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, especially with regards to page title or being in the category. If you wish to make an argument for a different name for the page, go for it. I don't see that the category itself requires the singular tense, so that's a non-issue as well. If there's any confusing usage in the article, that can be served by judicious editing to use the appropriate tense where appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 03:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You make me feel like Adam Sandler from this movie. Sarvagnya 04:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're getting upset by a discussion, that might be a sign that you need to take a step back from it and consider why you're upset over it and whether that's influencing your position. FrozenPurpleCube 04:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, you mean Dravida Nadu. By the way, who gave you the liscence to go on a rampage reverting and changing article names like you did here and here? Wiki Raja 03:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Dravida Nadu"? Can you locate that for me on a map? And which part of Dravida Nadu were these 'civilizations' native to? "Brahui 'civilization'", for example. Sarvagnya 03:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I have already proven myself with my numerous referenced sources, maps, etc., etc. If you cannot back up your claims with legitimate sources drop the subject. Enough said. Wiki Raja 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not a single of your references/sources/maps support the claim that the Tamil Nadu-Andhra-Karnataka-Kerala form a separate "Dravidian civilization". They just talk about the history of Dravidian people, their arts, culture and architecture. This is like claiming that there is a separate North Indian civilization, Punjabi civilization or a Bengali civilization because North Indians, Punjabi people and Bengali people have their own history, arts and culture. utcursch | talk 04:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up separate countries with separate civilizations. There are two to three separate civilizations in a single Indian country. Just like in the U.S. we have various Native American nations in a single U.S. country. By the way, I wonder why some of you feel threatened by this. Some people feel like as though these educational articles are actually going to divide India... Is that why the History of India keeps getting changed and revised, just like what happened in the state of California by the Hindutuva history revisionists? Now, how pathetic is that? Wiki Raja 04:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you say "They just talk about the history of Dravidian people, their arts, culture and architecture." which is what I call a civilization. FrozenPurpleCube 04:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

@Wiki Raja: I am not afraid about this article "dividing India" -- I am just opposed to the use of term "Dravidian civilization" to refer to an article on Dravidian people. The information in this article would be perfectly valid in the article Dravidian people. There is no problem with an article on "Dravidian civilization" either, but such an article should talk about what scholars call Dravidian civilization -- about the proto-Dravidian people, before their miscegenation with other groups such as the Indo-Aryans. As about your example of U.S., there are articles on White American people, African American people and Asian American people, but they are not located at White American civilization, African American civilization and Asian American civilization.

@FrozenPurpleCube: The word "civilization" has different connotations. Every single group including Punjabi people, Bengali people and Gujarati people have their own history, language, and culture. That doesn't mean that articles about these groups should be called "Punjabi civilization", "Bengali civilization", and "Gujarati civilization". Besides, I've given enough sources in the section above to illustrate that this article should be about the history of Dravidian people before their miscegenation with other groups i.e. the proto-Dravidian people. utcursch | talk 05:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not concerned about the title of this article. If you want to propose renaming it, there is a process for doing that. You can even make an argument for merging with Dravidian people which I note doesn't contain any of the cultural components that can be found in the articles on the Punjabi or Bengali peoples. Perhaps they better belong here, or perhaps it should be merged. However, none of that equates to deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 05:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts, FrozenPurpleCube -- I would love to see all this being mentioned in the article on Dravidian people (or History of South India). But, it doesn't seem that the article was created with an intention to talk about the culture of Dravidian people. As evident from the comments below, the creator of the article is talking about "Dravidia Nadu which constitutes the Dravidian nations (Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees, etc.)" and "Indo-Aryan nations". utcursch | talk 10:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Utcursch, I don't think you quite understood me. Native Americans constitute of different nations since they have inhabited the U.S. for thousands of years prior to the arrival of the Europeans, Africans, and Asians. As a matter of fact, there is an area which constitutes the Southwest (Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado) which is also considered the nation of Aztlan amongst the Chicanos. Likewise, in India we have Bharat which constitutes the 16 Mahajanapadas or the different Indo-Aryan nations (Gujurat, Punjab, etc.); likewise in southern India, there is Dravidia Nadu which constitutes the Dravidian nations (Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees, etc.) Each of these groups who comprise of each state in India have been in existence in India for thousands of years. As a matter of fact, the formation of India was not till the 17th century by the British. Therefore, India is a country, with nations from within. This does not mean that each nation within India is a separate country. That is why India is also referred to as the Indian Union. Enough with my lectures for today. Wiki Raja 05:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Native American civilization" doesn't refer to the Native Americans who are now a part of the mainstream American society (e.g. Arthur C. Parker, Wilfred Johnson or Bruce Whalen won't be considered a part of Native American civilization). It refers to Maya civilization, Inca civilization, Aztec civilization etc. Similarly, Dravidian civilization doesn't refer to "several groups which belong to the Dravidian family of ethnicities and languages in South Asia", as the first line of the article states. It refers to proto-Dravidian people, before they (along with other groups) became a part of the larger miscegenated society of the Indian subcontinent (which was quite sometime ago, unlike the colonization of America, which happened in last 500 years or so).

As far as I know, there has never been a kingdom called "Dravida Nadu" (as you call it) in last 2000 years. What is now South India, has been ruled by different dynasties (Satavahana, Chalukya, Pallava, Rashtrakuta, Chera, Chola, Pandya, Kakatiya, Hoysala, Deccan sultanates, Vijayanagara Empire). There was no period in history, when these dynasties united and formed a "Dravida Nadu". None of these dynasties had control over the entire region that today comprises of the four major South Indian states -- only the Pandyas, the Cholas and the Vijayanagar empire came close, but even these didn't control the entire area that today comprises of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Many of these southern dynasties also ruled areas where non-Dravidian langauges are spoken (today's Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa).

Much before the Brtisih came to India, many empires, right from Mauryans (map) to the Mughals (map), ruled substantial areas of what is now South India. There was a small area (in today's southern Tamil Nadu and Kerala) that was ruled by ancient Tamil dynasties and which remained independent of rulers such as the Mauryans -- it is covered in the articles ancient Tamil country, Agriculture in ancient Tamil country, Industry in ancient Tamil country etc.

I don't know what do you mean by Gujarat and Punjab being "Indo-Aryan nations" (probably you mean ancient Mahajanapadas which were in place of today's Gujarat and Punjab). In any case, the "Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees" are not (and never were) "Dravidian nations". Several dynasties have ruled South India and their boundaries have overlapped Tamil, Telugu, and Kannada speaking areas (and often, even non-Dravidian-speaking areas). In my knowledge, there was never a period, when there were clearly defined boundaries of what you term as "Dravidian nations (Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees, etc.)" or "Indo-Aryan nations". Travelers such as Megasthenes (ca. 350 BC - 290 BC) mention cities such as Madurai as part of Indika, not Dravida Nadu or Arya Nadu. Since at last 1500 years, the term "Bharat" has been used to describe the subcontinent, not just the Aryan Mahajanapadas -- here's a sentence from Vishnu Purana (II.3.1), dated latest fourth century CE, and earliest first century BCE): "The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam").

The independent Dravidian kingdoms (or non-Dravidian kingdoms) are not considered a separate civilization; their borders changed often and overlapped with other areas, and they had cultural similarties with rest of what is now Republic of India. Even the ancient Tamil country, which remained independent of major areas had a lot common with the neighbouring Dravidian (as well as non-Dravidian) areas (e.g., Tamil script which is derived from Brāhmī script, just like other Indic scripts; religions such as Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism etc.).

India sure is a union of states, but that doesn't mean that each of its constituents is a separate "civilization". The terms like "Tamil Civilization" or "Dravidian civilization" refer to pre-miscegenation period. utcursch | talk 10:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a small addition; None of the literary works in Kannada in the past 2000 years mention about something "Dravida" or "Dravidian" or anything of that sort. Kumara Vyasa a 14th century Kannada poet named his epic KarNaTa bhArata katamanjari. Gnanapiti 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Nobody except Tamils have referred to themselves as 'Dravidians'. Karnataka has been referred to as Kuntaladesha, Karnatadesha, Carnatic and even Mysore(in recent times). Never as "Dravida". For all we know, even Tamils didnt call themselves that until the 20th century. Andhras always called themselves Andhras... never as Dravidas. "Dravida" has always had many connotations with each of them having nothing to do with the other. "Dravidian architecture" for example has nothing to do with the "Dravidian" used in linguistics. Caldwell himself concedes in his book that "Dravidian" was a very poor choice on his part to name the language family. What's ironical however is that rabid non-Aryans had to choose an "Aryan" word to name their concocted 'race' and 'nation' :D Sarvagnya 17:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The terms like "Tamil Civilization" or "Dravidian civilization" refer to pre-miscegenation period. -- And even that, is only a hypothesis... very far from 'undisputed fact'. Sarvagnya 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My answer to the hoax tag question posted on the main page is that I have already provided links to the articles of which particular sections have explained about. All one has to do is to take a closer look right below some of the sections titles and they will see that there are links. I will make it easy for you. For example: Main article:(Carnatic music). Also, in regards to referenced sources, all one has to do is to click on the link stating references, or just scroll down to the section where it says references. Try it, it's easy. Now you will see that there are over 30 referenced sources. And wait a minute, these referenced sources are titles of books, and these books have the names of the author, publisher and location. And just one more thing, if you look really really close at the end of the referenced sources, right after the year are listed the page numbers! Wow! How cool is that!? Now, the next step would be for the reader to jot this information down (title, author, page number), go to a library and look up that book and page number. That wasn't so hard was it? Now enough with this nonsense. I am getting really tired of having to have to repeat myself several times. Grow up! Wiki Raja 06:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You talk so much about your so called "references". Can you give references that there was something called "Dravidian civilization" or "Dravida nadu"? I'm not asking about your "Thanthai Periyar" version of Dravida nadu. Loosely connecting sentences picked from books here and there doesn't make an article meaningful. None of your references talk about so called "Dravidian civilization." Illusions and concocted theories doesn't make any sense anyways, like this one. Gnanapiti 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Gnanapiti, both you and I know that I have already provided numerous references to back up all my points in the past up to now. You are just simply rambling and just starting problems. Therefore, let me recommend that you stop with your nonsense. Wiki Raja 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen, first of all you might want to go through WP:NPA for all your betterment. I've already told you once, you are not going anywhere by making personal attacks. Since the very beginning you kept on harping that you back your hoax with references but till date, I haven't seen one, even one from you. By the way, since the audience is big now and stage is all set, why don't you unveil your "numerous" references for our viewing pleasure? At least once let us be blessed with your sacred "references". Gnanapiti 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Raja, we all agree that you've done great work in creating the article and backing it up with numerous references. The article is clearly about Dravidian people, and you've still not provided a single reference for the claim that "Dravidian civilization" refers to "groups which belong to the Dravidian family of ethnicities and languages", and not the ancient Dravidians (before 1000 B.C.). All the references in the article . Why not just merge this stuff into article on Dravidian people or History of Dravidian people, and turn this into a disambig page (pointing to proto-Dravidian or IVC), or perhaps an article about the proto-Dravidian speakers? utcursch | talk 17:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's your position, perhaps you might try {{merge}} tags to open up a discussion on the issue. Or perhaps open up an RFC. FrozenPurpleCube 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is an out and out synthesis and hoax and there is nothing to merge or redirect. All the info in this article already exists in the articles that it possibly can be merged into. For example, merging Kalaripayattu(a 'Dravidian' (martial) art) into Dravidian people would be like merging Bhangra(an 'Indo-Aryan' art) into Indo Aryans. That would be plain nonsense and if we started doing that, there would be no end to it. Sarvagnya 20:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I take it that's your position, fair enough, for you I would recommend an RFC, given that there doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete on AFD. I believe {{RFChist}} is the tag you want. FrozenPurpleCube 21:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The template {{RFChist}} is for articles concerning history; not for hoax articles. You can't imagine things out of illusions, create a synthesized article about your imagination and call it history. Still I don't see a single evidence that there is something called "Dravidian civilization". Gnanapiti 21:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Gnanapiti, seeing Manticore's other contribs on other AfDs (some like this one, where he knows next to nothing about the subject) its quite clear that he's either here to just try and game the system for kicks or is just trolling, pure and simple. Either way, pls read up on this. Sarvagnya 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, commenting on the contributor like this won't make your point for you, sorry. You may also wish to look at the no personal attacks policy. And of course, considering how your own comments look. Believe it or not, I don't care about this article very much, I don't much worry about it, however, I do think the arguments made against it are relatively poor and not very convincing. However, to give you a fair chance to make your position in an appropriate environment, I suggested RFC. I really hope you're not adamantly opposed to using the venue, as I don't know that there anywhere else that would address your concerns effectively. I suppose you could go back and try to make a more persuasive argument on the AFD, but given how acrimonious things are close to getting, I'm not sure that'll be effective. FrozenPurpleCube 23:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it'll be an easy RFC, where folks agree that there is no such thing. However, it's unlikely to happen in the current AFD, given the way the discussion quickly turned. FrozenPurpleCube 23:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless the first line of the article is cited and the context is explained clearly and satisfactorily, I propose blanking this article and redirect it to Dravidian people. Sarvagnya 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the outcome of this vote was that the article and title stays. Wiki Raja 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, may I kindly ask why you are placing a {{Fact}} tag for every sentence here when in fact those sentences which belong to the paragraph came from the referenced source provided at the end? Wiki Raja 03:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The outcome of the vote was "no consensus" with the closing admin recognizing the need for a "thorough-going rewrite"; several of the people who voted keep said that the article should be rewritten to reflect what "Dravidian civilization" refers to. utcursch | talk 05:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And that would take all of five minutes to do. I will wait for a few more days and if the article doesnt take any steps towards sounding coherent and encyclopedic, I will blank it and start from a clean slate. Sarvagnya 05:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out by the closing admin and several of the users who voted "keep", this article needs to be rewritten about what actually the term "Dravidian civilization" refers to. So, I suggest that the content that is not actually about "Dravidian civilization" be merged to Dravidian people. utcursch | talk 05:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with merging is that, I hardly see anything that can be merged with "Dravidian people". The arts and architecture for example, have nothing to do with the fact that its practitioners spoke/speak a "Dravidian" language. Carnatic music, Bharatanatya etc., are tradtions that have evolved and drawn heavily from pan-Indian traditions. Even the most basic texts and definitive treatises in these arts are in Sankskrit. Merging it with Dravidian people would be flawed logic. The practitioners' mother tongue and the art itself are two very different things. For that matter, I wonder why Hindustani music doesnt find mention in this article! Karnataka has produced some of the all time greats in Hindustani music. Or did the likes of Bhimsen Joshi and Mallikarjun Mansur and Gangubai Hangal suddenly become "Aryans" in Wikiraja's eyes? Sarvagnya 05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, there is a lot of content in the article that can be merged. utcursch | talk 05:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There might be scraps... but I am not sure there's a lot. In any case, merging whatever is worth merging is fine with me. Sarvagnya 05:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The right article to merge most of the content here is South India and/or Tamil Nadu(considering that half of the content is about Tamil, Tamilians and Tamilnadu) Sarvagnya 05:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support merging with South India and few sections with Dravidian people. - KNM ^Talk 03:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support to merging with South india. But seems still need some clean-ups for the claims regarding Sri Lanka. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I support merging with South India and few sections with Dravidian people but only after many of the "kingdoms" are removed from the article. I will look into this carefully in a day or two. Hoysala, Chalukya, Rashtrakuta, Kadamba etc. cant be called a part of "dravidian civilization" strictly. They all patronised Kannada, most scholars generally agree they originated somewhere in Karnataka, which does say anything about race. As such they are middle kingdoms, not early early kingdoms. The FA's pertaining to these articles cite more than a dozen scholars who only talk of their language which was Kannada and they also patronised Sanskrit. Race and language are two different issues and cant be mixed. I have read many books on these empires while writing the FA's and none call them a part of "Dravidian civilization", just an empire in South India. The Satavahanas patronised Prakrit, there is not even one full length inscription in Telugu or Kannada from their period, though in their inscriptions many words from these vernacular languages have been found indicating fully developed Telugu and Kannada languages.Dineshkannambadi 19:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support merging sections to South India, Tamil people, and Dravidian languages. The article synthesizes too many unrelated things as of right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakasuprman (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - as per the comments above. Gnanapiti 15:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is the "Bangladesh" template there on this page? Please see the top. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 09:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just Bangladesh. By WikiRaja's golden logic, Pakistan and Sri Lanka templates ought to be there too. Go figure. Sarvagnya 09:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan (Brahui) and Sri Lanka (Tamils) may be relevant. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 10:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed these two refs([7] and [8]), because they don't mention that "Dravidian family of ethnicities throughout South Asia bear resemblances of the indigenous people of Australia and Eastern Africa".

The first ref just talks about "Phenotypic similarities between Australian Aboriginal People and some tribes of India". There is only one sentence that mentions the word "Dravidian": Dixon [28] noted some similarities between Dravidian languages of southern India and Pama-Nyungan languages of Australia" (Note that even this is a fringe theory -- Pama-Nyungan languages and Dravidian languages are considered two completely different language families). There is no doubt that some of the tribes speaking Dravidian languages have been found genetically closer to the Australian Aboriginal People. For example, Toda people, Irulas etc.

There are studies talking about an Australian substratum in the Dravidian group or vice versa, but that doesn't mean that all the people speaking Dravidian languages are directly related to Australian Aboriginies -- the modern speakers of Dravidian people have varied origins, and their identity is chiefly linguistic and cultural, than a separate "race". The origin of the proto-Dravidian speakers is uncertain, and there are several hypotheses regarding their origin (ranging from Elamo-Dravidian/Kushite[9]/Mediterranean to pseudohistorical Lemuria hypothesis).

The second ref is about the "Out of Africa" or Recent single origin hypothesis (according to which it is believed that all the Homo Sapiens are descendents of a single group from Africa; the earliest groups to arrive in South India came directly from Africa belonged to the same stock as the indigenous Australians -- see Journey of Mankind). These earliest groups were not same as the proto-Dravidian speakers, which came much later. It might be possible though, that some of these tribes later assimiliated with proto-Dravidian speakers and started speaking Dravidian languages). Irulas, for example, are believed to be of Negrito stock by anthropologists[10][11][12], but they speak Dravidian language(s) now.

Also, it would be better if the sentence explains exactly what kind of "resemblances" do Dravidian people bear to the indegenious Australians. Genetic resemblances do not necessarily imply biological relations. (Here's a study: "Despite their morphological similarity there is no genetic evidence to suggest that the Indian tribes and Australian Aboriginals are biologically related."). utcursch | talk 10:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just one question. In Haiti the people are of African decent, but speak French. So, does that make Haitians Europeans since they speak French? Wiki Raja 22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Interpreting it your way, they would be counted under "Indo-European civilisation"! Sarvagnya 00:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, please stop with your personal attacks. Wiki Raja 03:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks there.Bakaman 17:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Bakasuprman, please dont make personal attacks on Mr. Wiki Raja. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question is. Of course, the Haitians of West-African descent remain of that descent irrespective of whether they speak French or not.

My point above was that the refs provided don't substantiate the information provided. The term "Dravidian" primarily indicates a linguistic/cultural identity, and includes many ethnicities (just like the term "Haitian" denotes a national identity, not a separate "race" -- Haitians consist of people of African, mixed White-African, Arab and other ancestries). So, it's not proper to say that all Dravidian ethnicities are of the same stock as indigenous Australians, just because the first ref says that some Indian tribes have been found genetically closer to the indigenous Australians.

Similarly, the second ref talks about the "Out of Africa" or Recent single origin hypothesis, according to which the earliest people to arrive in the Indian subcontinent came directly from Africa (and labeled as "Negrito"/"Austric" by the earlier anthropologists) -- the study doesn't say that these people were the speakers of the proto-Dravidian language.

In fact, these earliest people are widely believed to be the speakers of Austro-Asiatic languages, not the speakers of proto-Dravidian (see doi:10.1007/s004390100577 and doi:10.1101/gr.1413403). Many of these communities (such as Dravidian-speaking Kanis of Kerala) may have acquired Dravidian langauges in more recent times through the influence of the economically more advanced mainstream societies. (see Peopling of India on IISc website). utcursch | talk 13:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi all! Before we put our own interpretation on individual papers I would like you all to read Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 13:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey talks about the Recent single origin hypothesis (Spencer Wells is one of the better known proponents of the theory). According to him, the humans are "all Africans under the skin", since all of them migrated from Africa to other places (directly or indirectly).

His theory is that the Dravidian people probably migrated from Africa to India via the Middle-East, and the Indo-Aryans came from the Steppe (and ultimately, like Dravidians, from Africa). I don't think that this can be used as a source for "the Dravidian family of ethnicities throughout South Asia bear resemblances of the indigenous people of Australia and Eastern Africa" (as the article states). By this logic, every other group bears "resemblances" to any other group, since they all are from Africa. If this sentence stays, it should be specified what kind of "resemblances" are present (genetic? linguistic? cultural? anthropologic?), and a source that actually substantiates this sentence should be mentioned.

For those who don't have access to the book, The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey mentions Dravidian people/languages on pages 166-168. It talks about M17 as the Indo-Aryan (Steppe) marker and M20 as the Dravidian marker. The author says "M20 defines the first major wave of migration into India from the Middle East", and that M20 is "found at highest frequency in the populations of the south, who speak Dravidian languages"... "In some southern populations, M20 reaches a frequncy of over 50 per cent..." (p. 166, ISBN 978-0691115320)

Spencer Wells also states that another marker, M172, shared by both Indo-European and Dravidian speakers, is associated with the spread of agriculture, and that there are cases of IE/Dravidian groups giving up their language, and taking up another language: "Thinking in terms of actual behaviour, many Indian descendants of Neolithic farmers have learned to speak Indo-European languages, while fewer M17-carrying Indo-European speakers -- up to this point -- have given up their language in favour of Dravidian." (p. 168) utcursch | talk 14:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And M 130 marks the genetic marker that the first migrants (which Dr Wells call as Dravidians -not my POV) from Africa share with Dravidians and Australian aborigines. M 130 is not as common as M 89, M 9 or M 20 amongst Arabs and Northern Indians (very less with South Indians) and hence marks the second wave which Wells call as Aryans. So with M 130 Dravidians are genetically related closer to Africans (Eastern Africans to be specific) and Australian aborigines. Hope we are now in an understanding. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 15:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Spencer Wells states "M130 is only found at low frequency in the Indian subcontinent - 5 percent or less." (p. 73, ISBN 978-0691115320). He doesn't mention proto-Dravidian/Dravidian speakers as an example; he mentions the "isolated populations of the so-called Negrito" as the M130 groups that closely resemble Africans/Australians, and states the tribes of Andaman Islands as "the most obvious example".(p. 74).

The "Negrito"-like tribes found in India do not include all of Dravidians (who form much more than 5% of the Indian population); these tribes include groups like Kadar, Paniyan, Irulas, Kotas, Kurumba etc. of Tamil Nadu/Kerala[13], many of which speak Dravidian langauges now (often, in addition to their tribal languages).

As about the "first migrants" thing, the context here is comparison of the Dravidian speakers to Indo-European speakers (who arrived later). It is widely believed that the Austro-Asiatic speakers arrived much before proto-Dravidian or Indo-Aryan speakers (see the dois in my earlier comments).

To be more clear -- I agree (like I said earlier, in my first comment above) that there are some Dravidian-speaking groups, which have been found directly related to indigenous Australians, but this can't be generalized -- the modern speakers of Dravidian people have varied origins. Like Prof. Ramasamy Pitchappan puts it: "'Dravidian' were more a culture, and then a 'linguistic family' and the last a 'sub-divided gene pool'"[14]. So, it's not quite right to say that all the Dravidian-speaking groups throughout South Asia are directly related to the indigenous people of Australia and Eastern Africa. utcursch | talk 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wells is pretty sure that the first habitants that he is talking about are indeed Dravidians. Just have a look at his interview[15]. I think we are slowly moving to a consensus or are we moving away(?). ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 16:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I did have a look at the Rediff interview much earlier -- the context here is comparison of Dravidian and Indo-European groups (which form the major chunk of the Indian pouplation) -- he doesn't speak about other groups (Austro-Asiatic speakers). In his books, Wells clearly differentiates between the M20 group and the M130 group. He states that the M20 group migrated from the Middle East and is "found at highest frequency" (over 50% in some cases) among the speakers of Dravidian languages (p. 166). M130, he states, is "found in low frequency" in the Indian subcontinent, less than 5% (p. 73-74). The examples given for M20 are majority of the Dravidian speakers, while examples given for M20 are "Negrito" groups (specifically, people of Andaman Islands). Since the modern Dravidian people are not a single "race" or "tribe" (unlike the proto-Dravidians), it's not surprising that there is a M130 substratum among the Dravidian people -- but that's not true for all of the Dravidian speakers. As for Austro-Asiatics being the earliest to arrive, there are plenty of modern genetic studies (e.g. doi:10.1007/s004390100577 and doi:10.1101/gr.1413403). utcursch | talk 16:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why Wells calls them similar and not ditto. Isn't this the basis of population genetics? ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 16:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't call them "similar" (unless you're talking about Out of Africa theory, in which every single group is "similar"). utcursch | talk 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Utcursch. I do not see why there is a denial here of the obvious. If you by your interpretation mean to say that some Dravidians share genetic relatedness with most Australian abrogines, then I would say 'go for it and state it in the article. If you intend to verify the interpretation feel free to consult editors of Population Genetics related articles. As of now, there can be no difference of opinion given that we have enough references that atleast some Dravidian are genetically related to Australians[16]. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 08:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the content on claims that Kannada literature belongs to a particular race. I have written wiki articles on Kannada literature ranging from Rashtrakuta Empire to Mysore Kingdom, read over 8 books on the topic (all of which are listed a the bottom of my user page), but none of those books mention Kannada literature as a Dravidian literature. In fact Kannada literature is neither Aryan nor Dravidian. Can the authors' of the article please provide proof from verifyable sources that Kannada literature is Dravidian or Aryan for the matter. IMO literature itself can never belong a race.Dineshkannambadi 02:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Then who do they belong too? Wiki Raja 02:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To none. It need not belong to anyone. - KNM ^Talk 03:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Literature of all South Indian languages viz., Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Tulu and Kannada can be safely put together as 'Dravidian Literature' because all these languages belong to Dravidian family. Kumarrao 12:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britanica lists Kannada under Dravidian literature[17]. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 12:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets first understand that Literature is mans way of expressing sociol/cultural/political developments in his sorroundings. Just because its written in a particular language and included in Britanica under Dravidian languages does not make it dravidian literature. Lets take into consideraton the various works written over the ages in Sanskrit and later translated into the dravidian languages. How do you suppose to claim this as Dravidian literature? Was'nt the original in an non - Dravidian language. Many so called original literary works were also inspired by writings in non-dravidian languages. A good example at this point is Geeta Govinda, a musical treatise and a writing in Kannada on Vaishnava philosophy by Chikka Devaraja Wodeyar (1673-1704), the king of Mysore kingdom. This work was inspired by Geeta Gopala by Jayadeva who wrote it in Sanskrit centuries earlier. How can anyone call this literature dravidian or aryan? One could equally argue it is Aryan literature as it was inspired by an earlier writing in Sanskrit.Dineshkannambadi 12:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you show references for your claims or else it is POV. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 13:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

* If we go by that logic you will have to remove Chamarajokti Vilasa and Geetha Gopala from Mysore Kingdom literature since they are not originally from Mysore.ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 19:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Try reading (for example) Mysore Kingdom literature for a start, an article I wrote recently. Then I can point you to more reading material and guide you as we go along. BTW, the Encyclopedia example you gave clarifies that Kannada literature is influenced by Sanskrit models (though Vachana - of Virashaiva and Haridasa sahitya - Of Vaishnava movements are considered unique and native, though one cant argue its dravidian or aryan) and hence strictly cant be called "purely dravidian" literature, though it is in a dravidian language.Dineshkannambadi 13:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Purely or not is not the question. Neither is it about influence of Sanskrit. Just because Kannada language per se has Sanskrit influence in it doesnt make it Sanskrit, but it is still Kannada. Sameways, even with influence of Aryan literature you may find in some, it is Dravidian. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 13:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Look who is POV'ing now. I dont mind if you call Tamil literature as Dravidian as it may have had lesser (relatively) influence from Sanskrit, purely based on geographical seperation, but try not to drag other peoples into your notion of race etc.Dineshkannambadi 14:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not up for trolling. But I have based my view on reference. Please do not call it POV. You havnt shown me a single reference for you claim on Kannada literature not as Dravidian. But you have stated what would be classified as WP:OR. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 14:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not used to trolling either. Brittanica is not an expert on literature nor can you use that one page as a reason to classify Kannada literature as dravidian only. You would need to produce citations from well known and established linguists that Kannada literature is indeed dravidian literature. If you have sufficient number of citations to bank on, then we can go to the next topic of discussion on this article.Dineshkannambadi 14:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have shown atleast once and you have shown none. So it stays that it is Dravidian literature untill you can chalenge with sources. You can ask for more only if you have contradictary sources. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 14:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sir, If none of my books say "Kannada literature is not dravidian literature", its possibly because there is hardly an arguement that it is dravidian literature. Dont try your negative logic on me.Dineshkannambadi 15:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Producing reference is to show what it is, not for showing what not it is. You can't produce a reference for what doesn't exist. By Dravidian literature in Britannica they purely mean literature in Dravidian languages; not literature by "Dravidian civilizations". What you need to produce is a reference that Kannada literature was indeed a product of "Dravidian civilization". Until you prove that, Kannada literature stays out of this article. Gnanapiti 15:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice argument, but unfortunately its POV. Because people here are telling me that Kannada literature is neither Aryan nor Dravidian. For this THERE SHOULD BE A REFERENCE. Failure to produce it, is indeed POV. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As already said before, nobody can produce reference for what something is not. If people are telling that Kannada literature is neither Aryan nor Dravidian, that's because none of the scholarly works on Kannada literature even consider this issue. They can't produce you thousands of pages from hundreds of books just to show you this. Onus is on you produce a reference which says Kannada literature is the product of "Dravidian civilization". Gnanapiti 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Forget producing a ref that it is a product of "Drav civ"... I am still waiting for a ref as to what the hell this whole "Dravidian civilization" is! Sarvagnya 16:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I indeed showed you what is said in Encyclopedia Britanica, isnt it? Why deny it?ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't show that Kannada literature is a product of "Dravidian civilization". What you showed and what you claimed are different. Gnanapiti 19:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is on if Kannada literature come under Dravidian literature and thats what I have showed. Please explain what in your understanding that I have shown and it would make things easier to explain. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 20:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No. That is not what this discussion is about. The discussion is about whether Kannada literature has any place in this article. This article is about "Dravidian civilization(s)" - whatever that is. Your link, otoh only justifies adding details about Kannada literature into Dravidian languages, at best... and I guess, its already a part of that article. If it is not, feel free to add it. Sarvagnya 20:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the above messages first by DineshKannambadi

...but none of those books mention Kannada literature as a Dravidian literature. In fact Kannada literature is neither Aryan nor Dravidian. He states Kannada literature is not Dravidian literature

KNM states that Kannada literature belongs To none. It need not belong to anyone. My reference lists Kannada literature under Dravidian literature.

Hope that explains what this discussion is about. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 20:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Sarvagnya 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Does some one have a reference here which says Kannada literature is a product/part of so called "Dravidian Civilization(s)"? And a reference which says Dravidian literature is a product/part of "Dravidian Civilization(s)" ? - KNM ^Talk 23:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can prove that Kannada is not a Dravidian language it can be exempted from 'Dravidian Literature'. Kumarrao 14:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Kumarrao: Please do not deviate from the discussion. No one here seems to be claiming "Kannada is not a Dravidian language". We are not even talking about Dravidian languages section in this article. The discussion is about "Dravidian Civilizations" and "Dravidian literature". Please answer my questions, which are right above your comment. - KNM ^Talk 14:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no deviation. Is it a new concept that we treat arts and literature as something different from a civilization? Civilization encompasses all that is manifested by a society in a refined manner. Please refer to Will Durant's books. Kumarrao 13:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Kumarrao, I think you need some time off from this debate, especially after you did this-->(User:Tejam).cheers. Dineshkannambadi 19:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You must learn some manners. Confine yourself to the topic of the discussion.Kumarrao 13:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarrao (talk • contribs) 13:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, you cannot simply blank pages without sound refereneced proof. Your blatant claim that all the martial arts texts were in Sanskrit are false. Martial arts of Tamil Nadu were written in Tamil language in a piece of literature called Varma Cuttiram. Martial arts of Kerala were written in the Malayalam language. Revising history to suit one's POV doesn't solve anything. Wiki Raja 02:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, please discuss first with the other users before blanking a section. Wiki Raja 02:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, I have asked you a few times to discuss first with other users before blanking a section. Please stop. Wiki Raja 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagny, I think you are not listening to me. Your continuous blanking of sections of the article constitutes to edit warring. Please stop. Wiki Raja 02:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Raja: You have not discussed before adding any of those sections. For me it looks pretty much clear why those sections have been blanked. Give me just one good reason, why those sections should not be deleted? How are those sections related to this article, even remotely? Unless all the tags are addressed it will be even more confusing to the reader what this article is all about it, let alone those adhoc sections related to South India. - KNM ^Talk 03:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire content in this section seems to be just an amalgamation of several religions articles. Apparently from the article, there has been no linkage between so called "Dravidian civilizations" and these religions. Not even a single reference cites that these religions are of "Dravidian civilizations". I propose removing this section, and if not already present we can merge certain content with other religion articles. Any thoughts? - KNM ^Talk 03:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The author of the artlcle has put together several religious traditions that are common to much of India and does not pertain to any particular civilization. I agree that that section needs to be removed.Dineshkannambadi 11:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If nobody is opposed to merge with relevant articles (South India, Dravidian people etc.), I'd suggest merging such sections to those articles. utcursch | talk 11:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The growth of Hinduism from Vedic religion owes a lot to Dravidian civilization and its gods, goddesses and symbols. Similarly, the spread of Buddhism and Jainism in South India was promoted by native Dravidians such as Nagarjuna. Large scale conversion of Dravidian Hindus in the modern times to Islam and Christianity, especially in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, justifies the inclusion of these two sections also. This is supported by the fact that these alien religions have absorbed lots of Dravidian customs and traditions. It may be proper not to disturb the current status of the article. Kumarrao 14:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Kumarrao, bring a citation for the existence of "Dravidian civilization" and please see WP:NOR. Thanks, Gnanapiti 14:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dravidian Civilization was described in: The Outline of History, Volume I, by Herbert G. Wells, 2004, Barnes and Noble Publishing, New York; ISBN 0760758662. Please see pages 155, 222 and 376. Kumarrao 10:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody has questioned the existence of a "Dravidian civilization". The dispute here is regarding the assertion that the term "Dravidian civilization" refers to the medival/modern speakers of Dravidian languages -- the article states that there are various "Dravidian civilizations" that "comprise of several groups which belong to the Dravidian family of ethnicities and languages". As pointed out in the first section on this talk page, almost all the editors opposed to the content in this article believe that the term "Dravidian civilization" is used to describe ancient speakers of proto-Dravidian languages or Indus Valley Civilization (per the hypotheses that the Indus script is Dravidian).

Can you please quote a single sentence where H. G. Wells uses the term "Dravidian civilization" to refer to the stuff that this article talks about? The original version of this article talked about Dravidian architecture, Dravidian literature, and what not. Here's a quote from the book you have mentioned:

"The Dravidian peoples in the Ganges valley developed upon parallel lines to the Sumerian and Egyptian societies. But it is doubtful if they ever got to so high a range of social development; they have left few monuments, and they never achieved any form of writing." (Page 152, ISBN 0760758662)

He uses the term "Dravidian civilization" to refer to ancient (earlier than 1000 B.C.) speakers of Dravidian languages i.e. the Proto-Dravidian speakers. In fact, he also uses the term "Dravidian civilization" to describe the civilization of miscegenated Indo-Aryans and Dravidians -- he credits the Indo-Aryans with "reviving" the Dravidian civilization. For those who don't access to the book, here are the relevant sentences from the book mentioned by Kumarrao:

"The Aryan tribes who had come down into the peninsula soon lost touch with their kindered to the west and north, and developed upon lines of their own. This was more particularly the case with those who had passed on into the Ganges country and beyond. They found a civilization already scattered over India, the Dravidian civilization. This had arisen independently, just as the Sumerian, Cretan, and Egyptian civilizations seem to have arisen, out of that widespread development, of the neolithic culture, the heliolithic culture, whose characteristics we have already described. They revived and changed this Dravidian civilization much as the Greeks did the Aegean or the Semites the Sumerian." (Page 376, ISBN 0760758662).

I think we've waited enough for people to refute the claim that the term "Dravidian civilization" generally refers to ancient civilization, and not anything after 500 B.C. It's time to merge this article and create a disambiguation page with links to proto-Dravidian, Indus Valley Civilization and Elamo-Dravidian. As Kumarrao mentions, the growth of Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism owes a lot to to the speakers of Dravidian languages -- this can be mentioned in the article on Dravidian people. utcursch | talk 13:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a mere mention of a that word does not mean it is a historically and widely accepted theory. Wikipedia only records mainstream theories.Dineshkannambadi 11:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is fishy let alone the Religion section. I would suggest to merge all sections to the relevant articles -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a merge of whatever we already dont find in South India or Dravidian people is probably the way to go. But I really wonder if there is anything to merge at all, because I'm guessing all this material came from those very articles in the first place. So in effect, we may just end up deleting this section. Sarvagnya 16:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The guy who created this article and lobbied for its template has taken a long 3 month hike, indicating where this article is headed. I suggest we just delete sections that dont satisfy the intention of the article (though I am not sure what actually in the article satisfies the intention). This way, this long distracting discussion is put to sleep. Sarvagnya is right, moving chunks into other articles is meaningless because the info came from those articles in the first place.Dineshkannambadi 17:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• It was not a mere mention nor a theory.

• The Dravidian Civilization was DESCRIBED in detail by H.G. Wells. Please read the book.

• Another book "Ancient India: From the Earliest Times to the First Century AD" by E. J. Rapson (Asian Educational Sevices, New Delhi; 1995; ISBN 8120611071) provides much more details in a chapter (pages 24-35) devoted to Indian Civilizations.

• The noted historian Abhayankar has written an article in "Current Science" (89: 2174; 2005) published by the Indian Academy of Sciences, about how two mighty civilizations of India Viz., Aryan and Dravidian were bridged by the sage Agastya which resulted in the great Hindu civilization of India. This article (http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2174.pdf) is an eye-opener for those arguing against the article Dravidian civilizations.

• Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore conducted a symposium in 1971 titled "Dravidian Civilization" and the research proceeding were published in a book form: Symposium on Dravidian Civilization, ed. by Andree F. Sjoberg, Jenkins Publishing Company, Pemberton Press.

• A "Conference on Dravidian Civilization" was held at the University of Texas, Austin, USA in December 1968 and the proceedings were published in book form: "Dravidian and Indo-Aryan: the Indian linguistic Area", Univ. Texas, Austin.

• Another book which discussed Dravidian Civilization in light of Islam is: History of Islamic Philosophy by Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Oliver Leaman, 1996, Routledge Publishers; ISBN 0415131596.

• For a research article, see: Dravidian Culture and Civilization by C. Balasubramanian in Annals of Oriental Research, pp.1-11, University of Madras, 1980.

• Please comment after reading the books and the article in Current Science. Personal bias and prejudice should not cloud your contributions to WP. Better to rest your oars. Cheers.Kumarrao 14:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Kumarrao, Some researches use the term Dravidian civilization loosely based on Dravidian languages. That does not prove that a "dravidian" civilization actually existed.There simply is not enough archeological evideince for that. If lots of literary sources in a dravidian language dated 2000BC written in Harrappa or any other location in India existed, predating the rig-veda, then one could make a feeble arguement that a seperate dravidian civilization may have existed. Even that would be suspect because the dating of the Rig-Veda itself is not certian.Dineshkannambadi 15:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources, but I'll repeat this for the hundredth time: nobody here is disputing the existence of a "Dravidian civilization". Please go through the above discussion.

We're disputing the assertion that the term "Dravidian civilization" refers to what this article talks about (this article insists that there are various "Dravidian civilizations" consisting of speakers of Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Tulu etc.).

The sources provided by you only further establish that this article is completely inaccurate.

I've already provided quotes from the book by H.G.Wells in the section above (#Religion_section). The book clearly talks about proto-Dravidian speakers (before 1000 B.C.), not about what article mentions. In fact, the author even states that the Dravidian civilization was revived by Indo-Aryans.

This article dates Agastya back to 4000–5000 BC and credits him with combining "two ancient civilizations", viz. "the Aryan (Sanskrit) civilization of the Indo-Gangetic plain and the Dravidian (Tamil) civilization of the Cauvery basin, into the mighty Hindu civilization of India." It doesn't mention anywhere that the term "Dravidian civilization" refers to the stuff that this article is talking about. In fact, it only further refutes the creator's claims of separate "Indo-Aryan nations" and "Dravidian nations"[18] By the way, most of this article looks like pseudohistory and Hindutva propaganda (the Indo-Aryans are believed to have arrived much after 5000 B.C.)

The title of the book "Ancient India: From the Earliest Times to the First Century AD" itself implies that the author is not talking about modern Dravidian speakers.

It's same with the rest of your sources. All of them talk about proto-Dravidian speakers of period before 500 B.C. None of them state that "Dravidian civilizations comprise of several groups which belong to the Dravidian family of ethnicities and languages in South Asia".

In short, this article needs to be completely re-written at "Dravidian civilization", and the current content needs to be merged with Dravidian people and South India. utcursch | talk 14:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As per the discussions above, User:KNM corrected the article to describe what the term "Dravidian civilization" actually means. As per the discussion in Merge and other sections above, I've merged the history of the article to Dravidian people to maintain GFDL compliance. The article currently redirects to Dravidian civilization. utcursch | talk 15:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)