Talk:Influence of the Indus Valley civilization on Ancient Tamil Nadu

untitled

Pardon my French, but most of this article is plain wrong or at least highly biased. As the Indus Valley civilization ist concerned, quite everything is highly unsure and hypothetical. You simply cannot say "there are close linguistic similarities between the Indus Valley civilization and Ancient Tamil Nadu", as long as the language of the Indus Civilization is completely unknown. The Dravidian hypothesis may be plausible, but it's far from having been proven. Same problem with the rest of the article: Theses, which may well be true, but may as well be not, are depicted as facts. Besides, even if we take the Dravidian hypothesis for granted, a common origin of the Tamils and the Indus people doesn't say anything about "influence of the Indus Valley civilization on Ancient Tamil Nadu". Sorry to say that, but this article on the main page does not exactly throw a good light on Wikipedia. --88.66.54.70 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Dravidian hypothesis is mainly based on the similarities of the signs discovered in the ancient pottery and celts of Tamil Nadu with those in the Indus Valley finds. This is what I actually mean by "linguistic similarities" and not the language. I have also provided enough in-text citations from reliable sources to this regard. And one, especially, which Iravatham Mahadevan described as the "discovery of the century" has found a spot on the main page in the DYK section. Thanks -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 01:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to modify the subheading and include whatever you feel appropriate :-). I could'nt find any other word than "linguistic similarities". -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 02:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I have tagged this article for speedy deletion since it qualifies as a hoax, unverifiable, unencyclopaediac, original research and blatant misinformation. It does not even merit a separate article and should probably go under the Indus Valley Civilization page. 65.49.2.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC).

The article may need a renaming, perhaps. But that does not mean that the factual accuracy of this article is dubious. I understand that you are new to Wikipedia and lack understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines as is evident from your talkpage. I guess there are enough citations to establish the genuineness and notability of this article. And FYKI, it is even a DYK-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 00:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ravichandar84, this is nonsense. Just slapping a few weblinks on a randomly titled page doesn't constitute "enough citations to establish the genuineness and notability of this article". What this article is trying to do is tout the possibility that IVC = Proto-Dravidian culture. This is already the mainstream assumption, and the only reason this is "controversial" is Hindu right-wing chauvinism (Hindutva's Indigenous Aryans).

this boils down to

Iravatham Mahadevan commented that the latest discovery was very strong evidence that the Neolithic people of Tamil Nadu and the Indus Valley people "shared the same language, which can only be Dravidian and not Indo-Aryan."

this isn't a remarkable observation, since nobody is suggesting Neolithic Indians spoke Indo-Aryan in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 12:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on! You call this "nonsense" and yet you agree that this article isn't controversial. On one hand, you say that it is already a mainstream assumption that IVC is related to Proto-Dravidian culture and on the other hand, you call it a nonsense. I would like to have some clarification on this-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 13:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already said that I might be wrong about the title of this article. But this is definitely not a hoax as 64.49.2.98 who had tagged it for a speedy seems to say. Regardless of whether the article can remain as a separate entity or needs to be merged with something else, it is still factually accurate, right. And it isn't a random nonsense URL that I pasted. It is an article from The Hindu-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 13:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I presume articles from The Hindu are reliable enough, right-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 13:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Hindutva historians aren't the only ones who feel that the claim is controversial. Ahmed Hasan Dani, too, has raised this question. The discovery of the stone celt is important, indeed, and regardless of whether this article remains a separate entity or is merged with something else, it should still be mentioned. I feel that a redirect would be incomplete without incorporating the contents of this article in the page to which it is redirected.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 13:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't call "nonsense" the proposition that there was "influence of the Indus Valley civilization on Ancient Tamil Nadu", I called nonsense your argumentation of how this article is valid. This is like creating an article called Vital importance of the liver referenced to "sources" like [1], [2], [3] because these happen to be the first google hits on the topic. By calling such an article nonsense isn't disputing that the liver is, in fact, a vital organ. If the celt is so important, discuss it in proper context. Here is a suggestion: Bronze Age India currently redirects to Periodization of the Indus Valley Civilization. If you are interested in discussing Prehistoric India during the Bronze Age, including the relation of North and South India, build a proper standalone Bronze Age India article paralleling Bronze Age Europe and Bronze Age China. dab --14:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

strike that, I note there never was a proper Bronze Age in South India. Instead, you want to discuss the epigraphic stuff at Indus script, and perhaps build a standalone Neolithic Tamil Nadu article for the 2500 to 1000 BC period. --dab (𒁳) 14:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)