Talk:Devaneya Pavanar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reception

This section is quite POV, only mentioning positive reviews of his work and ideas. At a minimum we need to mention that his Lemuria idea is on the extreme Fringe, it is something that no geologist takes seriously. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This article should be removed immediately. It would be funny if it were not so outrageous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.240.36.97 (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont know why this article continues to find a place in Wikipedia. Mr.Pavanar had not adduced any evidence for his wild theories. His supporters are equally illogical and make tall claims without substantiating them. This article makes a mockery of everything that wikipedia stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.240.36.97 (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

caste

He is not Devendra kula vellalar, his grand father is Muthusamy Thevar. Tanjavur district Needamangam is his grand fathers place. Muthusamy Thevar worked for christian missionary thokasu in sankarankovil. I found this info in his molziyaraichu katturaikal (மொழியாராய்ச்சிக் கட்டுரைகள்) page xvii --Kurumban (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC) No caste for Tamil people!

If there is no caste for tamil people, then why does the Government have a caste-based census? Why do the Dravidian people encourage it? Why should there be caste-based reservations? Why? Why?Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.240.36.97 (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Glaringly POV, needs to be seriously rewritten or deleted

Not to put too fine point on it: looks like yet another sample of egregious nationalism. There are people like this from all nations, and all ages. I've read similar far-fetched writings starting from Middle Ages onwards, from all cultures, where they claim to be somehow the origin and fount of all knowledge, keeper of ancient secrets, and obviously the best. Nationalistic, jingoistic, racist, fringe. There is no reason to believe this particular case being any saner than all the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.27.173 (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

His most distinctive theories are overwhelmingly not accepted by the consensus of mainstream scholarship (linguistic and otherwise), but that doesn't mean that the article will be deleted (if he has legitimate claims to notability). It does mean that we can say that his most distinctive theories are overwhelmingly not accepted by the consensus of mainstream scholarship... AnonMoos (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Why has this article not been removed yet? It is an insult to the intelligence of the browsing public. Please delete this article immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.240.36.97 (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Please delete this article immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.240.36.97 (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC) This article does great harm to the cause of truth. It should be deleted forthwith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.240.36.97 (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're missing the point -- if a topic is nonsense, but notable nonsense mentioned in reliable sources, then the article on it won't be deleted. So for example, we have an article on Time Cube... AnonMoos (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Pseudohistory of Zero Scholarship

The works of Devaneya Pavanar are not taken seriously by a single Indologist or linguist working on the Indo-Aryan or Dravidian languages. As such, they are of use only to the ultra-chauvinist Dravidian nationalists, activists demanding secession of Tamil Nadu from India, assorted 'Mughalistan' fanatics, and others on the fringes of sanity.

The article speaks from the Point-of-View of these Dravidian nationalists, and never from a dispassionate stand required for a linguistic analysis of Tamil/Sanskrit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.162.64 (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Many better articles have been deleted. I don't know why this article is so sacred or sacrosanct. I never realised that Wikipedia encouraged notable nonsense, whatever that may mean. If I shout nonsense from the top of the world trade centre, does it make it notable? The lunatic fringe of the tamil world gets more prominence in Wikipedia than the rich cultural heritage of the Tamils. It's a pity. The credibility of Wikipedia is severely dented by such articles. Another exasperating thing is that it is not written in good English, either. -- 05:30, 8 August 2012‎ 121.240.36.97

References needed for pseudohistorian and or pseudoscientist

It is clear that the ideas Pavanar puts forth are pseudohistory and pseudoscience however there is no discussion of that in the article. There has been some here but I do not see any RS about the reaction, analysis or interpretation of his work. Could someone provide some references? The article could then be edited to reflect the mainstream consensus and the critical appraisal of his theories. Thanks in advance. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)