Talk:Tamils/Archive 2

Untitled

This morning, a serious of vandalisms were carried out by the IP 203.115.205.56, reverted by myself and JeremyA (talk · contribs). --149.159.72.70

Important proposal

I feel that the current article is in a bad shape. Shall we rewrite the article from scratch following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups Template? Volunteers please signup below. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:27, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

1. Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 21:03, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC) (Yes, good idea.)
2. Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:06, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) (Signing up myself.)
3. Arvind 00:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)(Yes, will help as much as I can)

I've copied the template to Tamil people/temp. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 23:01, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Well done by Arvind (Vadakkan) and Brhaspathi in improving the article. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:06, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) Following is the discussion from Talk: Tamil people/temp:

Mauritius

Should Mauritius be listed here? From what I know, Tamil is not spoken there extensively, but many of the residents are of Tamil origin. Does this qualify? -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 23:17, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Take a look at my edits - does that fix it appropriately? Arvind 22:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes! That seems to describe the situation perfectly. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 22:58, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

General comments

• I've made a start on the "History" and "Geographical distribution" sections. The problem I'm having is that I'm not too sure how to intelligibly separate "History" from "Geographic distribution". Should the Sri Lankan conflict go under "History" or "Geographic distribution? Should the "svaya mariyadai iyakkam" (and the Dravidian movement generally) go under History, Geographic Distribution, or Culture? My instinct is to put everything after independence under "Geographic distribution", but I'm not sure how logical that is.
• As I was writing, I kept thinking that we will have to proof all of this very carefully for NPOV.
• Should we put a notice on the Tamil people page saying that the article is being rewritten, and asking them to make changes here?
• Religion figures for India are Hinduism (88.7%), Christianity (5.7%), Islam (5.3%), Jainism (<0.1%). Does anyone know where we can get figures for Sri Lanka? And (eek) do we or don't we count Sri Lankan Muslims as Tamil, given the huge amount of politics associated with that question?

-- Arvind 22:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My personal opinion is to list the Dravidian movement etc under History. Geographical Distribution should probably only say where Tamil people are found today, while History should mention when and why. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 22:58, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

I'm thinking it may be useful to have a section on "Society", covering the family structures, the caste system, festivals, and so on - things that don't fit readily within culture, but are nonetheless important and interesting. If we do that, the Dravidian movement will probably fit well into that. We should also discuss at least briefly the so-called "Dravidian" religious beliefs - the aiyyanars, nadukals, amman, pattini, and so on, and that too may fit better within "society" than "culture". There's enough to talk about under "culture" on language, literature, and classical arts! --Arvind 18:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV - we can probably remove any alleged POV if we quote the source immediately after each "bold" statement. This should probably deflect criticism from the article to the references. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 23:10, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

I see your point. The difficulty is going to be finding sources that aren't biased. Perhaps we could solve it by citing a fair balance of biased sources. --Arvind 18:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook mentions Sinhalese 74%, Tamil 18%, Moor 7%, Burgher, Malay, and Vedda 1% for Sri Lanka. It has a different idea of Sri Lankan history though. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 23:14, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Thanks. What I've not been able to find is a breakup of Sri Lankan Tamils by religion (how many are Christians and how many are Hindus). I guess we'll just leave that out. I'll try to find some sources to cite for the history, to justify the "divergence" from the CIA World Factbook. --Arvind 18:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the overall religion breakup for Sri Lanka is Buddhist 70%, Hindu 15%, Christian 8%, Muslim 7% (1999). We don't know exactly how these are correlated with the ethnicities. Eg: are the Sinhalese largely Buddhist and Tamils largely Hindu? And other questions like this. But omitting this for now should probably be OK. I'll hunt around for data. If we find anything we can add it with a citation. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 23:17, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

History

Please take a look at the history section. Is it too long? I think it's fine largely because I don't think I'll be able to condense 2500 years of history into anything shorter! But do others think it would it better to hive it off into a separate Tamil history article, with just two or three paragraphs here? --Arvind 18:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Continue your good work with the history section. In due course, when it becomes too long (2500 years' history!), we can hive off a separate article like History of Russia etc. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 04:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Indian Tamils were stripped of their nationality?

Arvind, in this section, you seem to have added "Indian Tamils were stripped of their nationality and were forcibly repatriated to India" which is confusing. Where did this happen? Shall I presume in Sri Lanka? -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 04:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've copyedited that section. Can you check if that version is OK? -- Sundar 08:44, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at [1]. I've reworded the section a bit more - it was a little too strong. Arvind 11:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected the sequence of events of the Indian Tamils' disenfranchisement. I also added a section on MGR and Thondaman. 220.247.240.241 17:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Shall we update the main article?

Hi, as you might know, Tamil language is being featured on April 14. We can expect some visitors to visit Tamil people that day. It would be good if the article is reasonably good that day and also if the skeleton was in place, it might help in improving the article. So, if we can wrap up the culture section, we can update the actual article with the temp one. For the arts section, can we take a summary of the arts listed currently in the article? -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 08:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I thought this was a good idea, so I went ahead and did it - hope that was OK. Could you please read and edit that article? Also, would it be a good idea to shift this discussion page there as well? Arvind 22:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 04:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Great Stuff. -- RC 14:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comments by an anon moved from the article space

The articles in this web site are so nice.but, i think we can improve the speed of downloading the pages by eliminating the background pictures of the web pages.B'coz personnaly i feel that those pictures doesnt play a major role in publising the information about the great Tamilians

-- A Tamilian

Religion

Kudos goes to Sundar and Arvind for the *great* work. But, the religion part is messed up, IMHO. Tamil culture was originally free from religion. I understand that the word "Tamil hinduism" is used to handle neutrality--but unfortunately no truth; the Tamil gods and worships are still not accepted as "Hinduism" by orthodox hindus. I don't want to edit/mess your great your; just thought of pointing out the technicall error. --Rrjanbiah 18:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had little part in the recent improvement. I do agree that the gods worshipped by ancient tamilians and the methodology of worship are not standard "vedic hinduism". But, that doesn't mean the tamilians were rationalists/atheists all along. Think of the "ayyanaar temples" in every village, "iRai vaNakkam" in most clasical works etc. AFIK, only after the "pakuththaRivu iyakkam" by Periyar and others did atheism take hold. So "Tamil hinduism" is just a convenient and approximate name for "Tamil religion". AFIK, hinduism was never an "organised" religion. Any body, who doesn't practise any other organised religion and lives in India was called, though loosely, a Hindu. But these days, the ancient practices are currently subsumed under hinduism. This is what the section tells i.e. in present tense. Though I'm no big fan of religion, we need to accept the reality. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 03:46, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm responsible for that section. Basically, as Sundar points out, I was trying to describe Tamil religion as it is today and give a very brief idea of its historical roots.

the Tamil gods and worships are still not accepted as "Hinduism" by orthodox hindus.

I don't think orthodox hindus have a problem with accepting it as Hinduism, only hindutva-people. But that's not a very important issue. The worship of the aiyyanars, Murugan, and Amman have things in common with the forms of worship of northern Indian gods, so it also (to me) makes logical sense to treat it as a Tamil variant of a broader hinduism. After all, even the shamanistic practices of many Himalayan tribes is called Hinduism.

Tamil culture was originally free from religion.

I've heard this, but I'm not too sure about it - there is plenty of religion in the ettutokai, for example. But I think we should have an article on the Tamil sangam period, where we can also discuss Tamil religious beliefs in that period. I would love to see a good article about how Tamil religious beliefs evolved over the years, how Murugan came to be identified with Karthikeya, and so on, but I don't know enough to write that effectively. Incidentally, what is your opinion on this article[2] by Professor George Hart? Arvind 00:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Even I would love to see such articles. While we are at it, let me ask Arvind a couple of things that I always wanted to.

1. Where did you get to read all the books and research papers that you cite in these articles. If you've soft copies of any of them, can you send it over to me by e-mail to my yahoo.com id sundarbecse.

I have a collection of books and articles on Tamil culture, many inherited from my grandfather (and great-grandfather), and several of my own. There are a few good resources online too - New-Kolam has some very interesting articles, for example. And there is the article by George Hart I linked to above. Arvind 11:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

2. minor suggestion: while editing sections, do not put your comment within /* */ as in /* Religion - a couple of points */ because the /* */ creates an automatic link in the recent changes. To me it appears like #Religion - a couple of points, which is a non-existent section. You can write your edit summary outside /* */ like /* Religion */ - a couple of points. -- Sundar 05:57, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ooops! Noted. Arvind 11:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The last Chera king is said to have converted to Islam and travelled to Arabia to become a companion of Muhammad, and the mother of one of the early Pallava kings is believed to have been Christian.

Would be nice if a link is provided to the document that supports this. Companion of Mumammad - sounds implausible. Calvinkrishy

I've qualified it as a "popular legend" (which it is) - does that fix your concern? Arvind 00:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Haven't heard about this one! Informative, thanks.Calvinkrishy 15:36, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

How about adding reference to Alwars, Nayanmars in the religion section? Calvinkrishy 15:36, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Statistics on distribution of Tamils in India

An anonymous user added these statistics in the article. They're more than 30 years old, and a little too much detail for this article in my opinion, so I've removed them. If anyone has more up-to-date statistics, there may be a case for an artice on Language distribution in India or some such thing. -- Arvind 14:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

State/Union Territory Tamil-Speaking The distribution of Tamil-speaking population found in the States of India according to the book ‘Distribution of Languages in India in States and Union Territories’, 1971, is given below

• Andhra Pradesh 552,42 1.27
• Assam & Meghalaya 2992 0.02
• Bihar 15,167 0.03
• Gujarat 15,995 0.06
• Jammu & Kashmir 823 0.02
• Kerala 505,340 2.37
• Madhya Pradesh 28,735 0.07
• Tamil Nadu 34,817,421 84.51
• Maharashtra 233,988 0.46
• Karnataka 990,409 3.38
• Orissa 9160 0.04
• Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. 6128 0.02
• Rajasthan 3564 0.01
• Uttar Pradesh 9222 0.01
• West Bengal 21,454 0.05
• Andaman and Nicobar Islands 14,518 12.62
• Delhi 37,343 0.92
• Lackshadeep, and Minicoy Islands 113 0.35
• Manipur 834 0.08
• Tripura 82 ----
• Dadra and Nagar Haveli 11 0.01
• Goa, Daman, and D 3347 0.39
• Pondicherry 419,830 88.95
• Nagaland 469 0.09
• Arunachal Pradesh 638 0.14

Canada too?

Phenomenal work to all those who have contributed to this article. I hadn't looked at it in awhile, and when I came back it was like a butterfly that had come out of its cocoon. Under the section of the table with 'significant populations in', I wonder if Canada would qualify? There are many Tamils in the Toronto area, specially Sri Lankan emigrants and their descendents. There are at least one or two Tamil Hindu temples I know of in the Toronto area. Does anybody have any population figures? QuartierLatin1968 17:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

There are over 150,000 Tamils in the Toronto area alone. Additionally England, Australia and parts of Europe have significant diaspora populations.

Canada has 300,000 Tamils, it's a widely known statistic in Canada.

Australia

Im just curious as to know the number of tamils in Australia. How many tamils are there throughout Australia?

A call for help

You guys have done a great job with this article in getting it to FA status, but our Sri Lankan friends are having plenty of trouble. There has been incessant vandalism by various sinhalese chauvinists who peddle the myths spread by their government. In fairness, some tamils have been spreading the BS that some overly pro-LTTE websites promote, but the concerted efforts of the sinhalese chauvinists have essentially ruined many Sri Lankan Tamil articles. This is just trying to draw attention to this so that we can get some people to help fix these articles up. Peace.

Regions with significant populations

I strongly feel that the current information on "regions with significant populations== should remain unchanged as the data seems realistic. As you all know, the largest tamil population is is in india (At least 55mil) of course, then followed by Sri Lanka, Malaysia ( 1.5mil) , Canada, Singapore and the rest im not sure. So keep up the good work. previously the data wasnt that accurate. whoever found this info did a good job yea.

Cuisine

The first paragraph is an adaptation of cuisine section of Chennai. Feel free to improve this draft so as to be included in the article.

The staple food of most of the Tamils living in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka is rice. (Should add info on emigrant populations).This is usually steamed and served with about two to six accompanying items. Typically the items are sambar, dry curry, rasam, kootu and thayir (curd) or moru (whey or buttermilk). Lighter meals usually include one or more of pongal, dosa, idli or vada, and are often served for breakfast or as an evening snack. Coffee is a popular beverage in the metros in general and Chennai in particular. Another popular beverage is strongly brewed tea found in the thousands of small tea kadais.

Each region in Tamil Nadu (someone should add info about other places) has its own distinct variant of the common dishes and also a few dishes native to itself. The Chettinad region comprising of Karaikudi and adjoining areas is known for both traditional vegetarian dishes like appam, uthappam, paal paniyaram and non-vegetarian dishes, made primarily using Chicken. Chettinad cuisine is now popular even in non-Tamil speaking areas as well. Madurai and the other southern districts of Tamil Nadu are known for non-vegetarian food made of goat meat, Chicken and fish. Parota made with maida, perhaps an adaptation of the north Indian Paratha, is also commonly eaten from food outlets in Tamil Nadu, more popularly in districts like Virudhunagar, Madurai and the adjoining areas. Parota is not commonly prepared at home as it is a laborious and time-consuming process.

• • I have created a new page Tamil cuisine with an introductory paragraph. I propose to further develop the page during next 2/3 days.--Bhadani 18:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd been asked to contribute talk here, but it looks like I wouldn't be much help. I've done some research and found a few interesting things, but that's it. If I think any of it might be useful, I guess I'll put it in as notes on the discussion page of your Tamil cuisine. --Mothperson 18:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent images added

Someone has added a couple of images. But the copyright status is unverified and also I'm sure the actress Sneha image is not copyright free. Moreover, since there is a picture of a female dancer is already given down below, I would like to have the image of a couple (male+female) in the traditional dress than the current one, which gives a synthetic look. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 04:11, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the Sneha image either. Commons has a number of images of Tamils and Tamil Nadu. Perhaps we could substitute the Sneha image with commons:Image:Tamil couple working on a farm.jpg (or any of the others at commons:Category:Tamils). We could also use commons:Image:Farm in tamil nadu.jpg or commons:Image:View of coimbatore in tamil nadu.jpg for a picture of Tamil Nadu if the one in there at the moment isn't GFDL. I'll leave it to you to decide. -- Arvind 15:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Furthur, the image, Tamil Nadu landscape, looks like the aerial picture of a flood affected region :(! Calvinkrishy 15:27, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've added some of the images from commons. Someone please check the formatting. Also, I would like to see this image somewhere. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 06:51, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Can someone provide free images of Silambam or Jallikattu? The bottom part of the article doesn't have pictures at all. Also if we were to add a section on Tamil cuisine, would it come under the culture section? -- Sundar June 28, 2005 06:36 (UTC)

Tamil recepients of Magsaysay Award

Moving the following list that an anon has recently added. If you want to have this information, please create a separate list of Tamil recepients of Magsaysay Award, but do not add them here. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Aruna Roy, Chennai
• Jockin Arputham, Bangalore
• Dr Shanta, Chennai
• Dr.M. S. Swaminathan, Chennai
• MS Subbalakshmi, Madurai
• TN Seshan, Chennai

New revisions

How's the edit look? Hope I didn't cause any undue trouble to anyone by heavily editing a featured article right before it went up; there was just a lot I felt could be improved. And sorry if I reverted a few grammar fixes, I'm exhausted and there were a bunch of edit conflicts to deal with when I finished.

Also, I'll agree that "most Tamil Christians today are either Catholic or Protestant" is a really, really weird way to phrase that. It made me stop and think for a minute when I read it too. The only way I could think of to make that sentence not sound ridiculous is if you added some sort of statistic saying how many Tamil Christians are Catholic, etc. -Silence

WARNING

Certain idiotic individuals are repeatedly vandalising this page by putting an image of an erect penis at the top of the article, despite repeated attempts to stop them. could the moderators please get involved.

Would the moderators please remove the disgusting pictures of the penis from the history page..Even thought it is not listed in the page anymore, it still shows up in the history...please remove all references to the picture.

I'll look into it. Which picture are you talking about? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

A small objection

At the begeninng of the article, the author states: "Unlike many ethnic groups, the Tamils have never been governed by a single political entity;" I do not agree, many (maybe most) ethnic groups have never been governed by a signle political entity. Consider for example Berbers, Kurds, Jews, Gypsies to name a few I can think of. I think this statement should be modified, or at least put in context.

Skander, Sep 24th 2005

Sure, please go ahead and change it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I disagree with removing it. First of all, the sentence simply says "Unlike many ethnic groups," not "Unlike most ethnic groups"; there are a lot of ethnicities, enough for "many" to not indicate anything like "almost all ethnicities." Second, the Tamils are noteworthy for historically being divided governmentally, but united linguistically, even if they are far from being the only ones; rephrase if you want, but don't remove the actual information provided. Third, all of those ethnicities have never been governed by a single political entity? What about (if you're willing to accept Biblical accounts at all) the united Twelve Tribes under Saul, David, Solomon? Or the theory that the Roma were once low-caste Hindus in India, possibly under one ruler?

But none of that matters overmuch; all the sentence says is "Unlike many ethnic groups," not "like no other ethnic groups". For the sentence to be valid, it's quasi-irrelevant whether there are other ethnic groups who have also never been governed by a single political entity; what matters most is that there are a significant enough number of ethnic groups who have ever been governed by one political entity for the word "many" to merit use. Check out List of ethnic_groups and decide for yourself. -Silence 12:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The picture on the main page is awful.

Really, that picture is racist and it portrays a whole group of people as persons who dance in colourful clothes. Change the picture to something more appropriate please. Lapinmies 09:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What alternative do you have? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"Racist" is a bit strong, but yes. Though I'd also point out that the picture really isn't especially good; it looks like a drawing of some sort, and I'm not sure a featured article's central image should be an illustration unless the drawing is very famous or there are no better alternatives; I'd slightly prefer the image of the two girls at the top.

Of course, then we'll get people complaining about us portraying the Tamil people as all being adorable little girls... You can't teach people anything without offending somebody. -Silence 12:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What? No serious mention of the politics of caste and class? Of separatism?

This article is sadly deficient in that it fails to address Tamils as Dalits, the racism of the caste system, the Tamils' refusal to accept it, and the ongoing struggle for independence from India of the TLF and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Rather topical -- don't you think -- given the violence in Tamil Province and elsewhere in recent years?

You are welcome to draft something. The original author is away till Monday, so please feel free to add some text here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. No can do. I've got a couple of deadlines this weekend, and I'm off to the anti-war demonstration downtown. It's a shame no one thought to include any of this, IMO, really obvious stuff in the article before it made FAS, and I don't usually check the upcoming front page pieces, so I'm also at fault. Peace. deeceevoice 13:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed that politics of caste and class and separatism needs a serious mention. However, we should take care that the article continues to use summary style. Will try to work on that. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The Tamil Eelam struggle is mentioned quite prominently in the section on Sri Lankan Tamils and on "Institutions", and has been from the beginning. There are references to the Self-respect movement (Dravidian Movement) and its mission to fight casteism in the section on "Institutions", which have been there since the beginning. In my opinion (others may of course disagree), given the need to keep to summary style, this is adequate. for this article. A more detailed consideration of the question of the introduction of casteism into Tamil culture is, in my opinion, better placed in an article on Tamil history. And, of course, the biggest discussion will have to be in the article on the Self-respect Movement itself, which is at the moment an extremely tiny stub. Separatism in Tamil Nadu has not been a serious issue since the DMK's decision in the 1960s to suspend its demand for independence, and I don't think it's major enough to be mentioned here (although it probably deserves a mention in the article on TN, and perhaps even an article of its own). --- Arvind^{currently on extended wikileave} 14:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC).

Tamil fonts

The article is excellent -- congrats to all who have contributed. I am having trouble with fonts, tho: for example my current settings seem unable to handle things like ̲

So would someone pls advise me? and maybe others are having the same problems... I am in IE version 6+, with Tools > Internet Options > fonts set to Latin-based. But when I try to change this to Tamil, either Arial Unicode MS or Latha, the browser doesn't appear to accept it: for the former I press OK and instantly it reverts back to Latin-based, for the latter after I press OK it grinds for a bit but then also reverts to Latin-based. And I continue to see a programming box instead of the proper character.

--Kessler 16:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you tried using another browser. Its hard to say where the problem lies. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll try another one on Monday... I have an old Netscape version in here somewhere, altho I'll have to update that... But I think anything in Wikipedia really has to conform to IE: that's 94% of the user market still.

My IE browser has no problem reading Tamil at other sites: for example, [[3]]. So no, I don't think it is IE. Seems to me that it is a settings problem, either that or the syntax used here in the article is wrong -- I see that none of the Tamil comes through, from this article, although Unicode Tamil on plenty of other sites online works fine.

--Kessler 21:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks ok on my IE. There's hardly any Tamil on the page to begin with, and I'm sure there would be more complaints if it wasn't rendering properly. I can't pinpoint the exact fault. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The article uses a large number of unicode diacritics to transliterate Tamil into the roman script. I strongly suspect that is what is causing the boxes. Arvind ^{currently on extended wikileave} 21:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Tamil language 'Crisis'

The article seems to ignore the fact that there is a reduction in the number of people who speak Tamil. It is on a decline in Singapore [4] (added that) and not many Tamils speak Tamil well. Same is the situation in Chennai, with English overtaking Tamil slowly. Many of my friends can't read or write Tamil, despite staying in Chennai. I'm not sure about the stats but this number seems to be big. - Bnitin 23:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree about the decline of Tamil speaking people in Chennai. Tamil is compulsory subject in schools till 10th Standard in Tamilnadu & Puducherry. Even if you are studying in a CBSE school you should study Tamil has one of the subject (3rd language). The number of students in CBSE schools in TamilNadu is less than 0.5 %. The presence of English has not affected Tamil. Tamil have different ascents and this doesnot mean "not many Tamils speak Tamil well".

This is not true. Many CBSE students take Sanskrit/Hindi as their 2nd and 3rd languages. Even ones whose mother tongue is Tamil. It's not mandatory to study Tamil in Chennai. Lotlil 20:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

division of tamil history, etc.

is the division of tamil history into pre-classical, classical ... etc standard? it it based on literary history? in the article, the dividing dates between the periods is a little hazy. can this be fixed?

i think a shorter summary of the spenser wells study will suffice. for instance, the mention of Kalahari bushmen having the "oldest DNA" and "earliest significant wave of human emigration from Africa was..." are not particularly relevant. retain perhaps only the final line?

the caption for the image of the gopuram(?) of the madurai meenakshi temple shld be labelled as such? i.e. as gopuram. in the text, temple "spires" are mentioned, but not identified as Gopuram.

where in the article is the right place to introduce the pejorative(?) label "tambi"? :)

Doldrums 04:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Division of Tamil history into pre-classical, classical, ... is inline with the literary history. The dividing dates are hazy as it's difficult to clearly demarcate the periods.

I'm not able to summarise the Wells study info without affecting the flow. Anyone is welcome to do that.

I've fixed the image caption.

I don't know of the "label" tambi. The Tamil language word tambi literally means younger brother and rarely used as an euphemism(?) for penis. However, I do not know of any context in which it's associated with Tamil people and/or is pejorative? Please explain. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Some North Indians refer to Tamilians as Tambis, but it's not too popular. Madrasis is more commonly used to refer to all South Indians. Tambi is apparently used for Tamilians. -- Bnitin

Tamil Population Figures - References???

300 000 Tamils in UK, USA, and Canada. Where is this data from? Are these guess estimates? What is the basis for these assertations? --Natkeeran 05:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Thanneer added those in this edit. You can ask at his talk page. If there is no response, we can revert to the previous figures. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Sundar. I am just skeptical about the numbers because, there are only two sources for this data, Ethnologue and Country stats. Both need to be cross checked if possible. Country stats are not always easy to interpret. For instance, some stats about Tamil population in Sri Lanaka indicate that it is around 3.5%, which is grossly misleading. Because, that does not include Tamil people under LTTE controlled area, that not include Tamils of Indian origin, and that does not include Muslims who speak Tamil. Another grossly misleading figure is 300 000 Tamils in Canada. There are no official stats supporting this claim. The last official figure about people speaking Tamil at home is 92 010 [5], in 2001. Usually upto 200 000 Tamils are thought to be living in Canada, and it seems that figure has been pushed upwards to 300 000 within year or two, which is highly unlikely. Similar issues arise in many other countries, including India. However, stats about Tamils living in Singapore, and Norway are quite readily available. This is why an effort to compile such stats in Tamil Wikipedia is stalled as well. Anyway, I’ll pose the above question in the user page and wait for the response. --Natkeeran 14:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Tamil Cultural Differences in Sri Lanka

I propose a section about the variations of the Tamil cultural groups in Sri Lanka beyond Ceylon Tamil vs Indian Tamil. The Tamils have a different culture based on whether they are from Jaffna area, Colombo, or Trincomalee (east coast).

Please do so - this article has been written almost entirely by people from Tamil Nadu, and we don't really know enough about these differences. There is an article on Sri Lankan Tamils, which has really improved in recent times but could probably use more information. The best way forward may be to add very brief information here, and detailed information in the article on Sri Lankan Tamils. Arvind 15:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil cuisine

How about adding Sri Lankan Tamil cuisine to the already established cuisine category? There are some differences with Indian Tamil cuisine.

Please add more details to Tamil cuisine article. Currently it has practically nothing specific to Sri Lankan/Malaysian/Canada Tamil cuisines. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tamil Language (Dialects?)

Some discussion within the language section needs to consider that Sri Lankan Tamils speak a different dialect of Tamil than people from India.

That probably belongs in the Tamil language article. The differences between the Tamil spoken in northern and southern Tamil Nadu are nearly as big as the differences between southern Tamil Nadu and Jaffna, and there are a number of similarities between southern Vellala dialects and Jaffna Tamil. And, of course, Batticaloa Tamil is quite different from Jaffna Tamil. If you feel like starting an article on Tamil dialects, that would be more than welcome! -- Arvind 15:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Would love to see that article come up. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

See stub Sri Lankan Tamil dialectsRaveenS

Tamil Guiness Record Holders

I am looking for information on a Sri lankan Tamil Guiness record holder who was active during the pre 1983 days. He died either swimming across the Palk Straights or soon after. I have not being able to locate his name. Please help. RaveenS ^\talk\ 1:15, 1 March 2006

Could you be thinking of V.S. Kumar Anandan? He held several records in his day including for the quickest crossing of the Palk straits although - if I remember - he met his end in 1984 trying to swim across the English Channel rather than the Palk Straits. -- Arvind 21:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's him. Thanks RaveenS ^\talk 8:52, 3 March 2006 (EST)

Population numbers proposal

As of today (March 9, 2006), the population numbers given in the infobox are too many for that context. We should retain only those numbers with sufficient references. Also, only countries where either there are significant number of people (in millions) or their population percentage is significant (>10%) shall be mentioned in the infobox. Other numbers can be given in an appropriate section or in an article like Tamil diaspora. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Which among the numbers shall we retain? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote for India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Singapore (Canada, South Africa: optional). - Cribananda 01:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - India, Sri Lanka and Malaysia have populations in excess of a million, and it is an official language of Singapore. We might perhaps consider adding "Diaspora" and lumping the other countries together. I would also suggest reverting to the numbers which the Ethnologue gives, unless we can find some sources for the higher numbers that have crept in. -- Arvind 12:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As a first step, I've removed the entries except those mentioned above. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Myths surrounding the Tamil people

As a proud Tamil, I feel the need to reiterate my opinion on certain myths surrounding the Tamil people:

Firstly, I don't agree that Tamils are Dalits. Culture is horizontal, caste is vertical. Tamils are Tamil by culture, and Dalits are Dalits by caste. The Tamil people include people of all the castes, including Brahmins.

Secondly, I don't believe that caste was Brahmin-initiated. It was a king, Manu, who initiated the caste system, and kings are Kshatriyas.

Thirdly, the picture of two Tamil girls on the article creates an impression that Tamils are uniformly dark and rural-looking. I would advise you to have a picture which is more representative of Tamils (who are of varying colours and appearances).

I'm not sure if you're commenting on the correct article. This article does not say that Tamils are Dalits, nor does it discuss the origins of caste apart from saying that it was institutionalised during the Pallava period (which is a historical fact). As far as the pictures of the two little girls go, there is also a picture of a Brahmin couple lower down in the article. It's going to be pretty hard to get a picture of Tamils of all hues, and I think having different pictures does the job just as well. -- Arvind 16:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to the suggestion that the picture of the two girls should be replaced, because it may represent Tamils as dark. On average Tamils are dark people compared to North Indians, and if the picture reflects that fact, that is accurate. --Natkeeran 21:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Natkeeran, the issue is a dead one now. :) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Tamils" and "Tamilians"

I removed a rather odd statement that Tamils in India find being called "Tamil" insulting, and prefer to be called "Tamilians". This is simply not true. I'd like to see the source whoever inserted this claim is relying on. -- Arvind 16:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Flag and interwikis

I'm the one who inserted this flag into the article - I put it there largely to fill the need for pictures and to have something at the top of the template. Neither of these applies any longer, and I personally think we should remove it from this article because I don't think it's notable enough to merit inclusion in *this* article (as opposed to an article on Tamil nationalism or some such topic).

Also, bizarrely enough, the interwiki link to the Sinhala wikipedia seems to lead to the article on Sinhala people. I can see why someone might have thought it funny, but it really should go after someone who can read Sinhala takes a look at the link. -- Arvind 00:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

True, I accepted the inclusion of the flag not without a pinch of salt. Let me go ahead and remove it. Regarding Sinhala wiki, let's approach some Sinhalese Wikipedian. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Martial arts

It was the arts of Kuttuvarisai and Varma Kalai which is believed to be learnt by Daruma Bodhidarma who travelled to China.

One editor says Bodhidharma was a master of Kuttuvarisai and Varma Kala, another says he was a master of Kalarippayattu, another says he was a master of Vajra Mushti, one editor even says that Bodhidharma was a master of Gatka. If all of these editors are to be believed, what Indian martial arts was Bodhidharma not a master of?

How about saying "x says that Bodhidharma was a master of y" instead of "Bodhidharma was a master of y".

This way, one makes a cited, verifiable statement instead of an uncited, unverifiable one.
--JFD 02:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

black

The Black people article is lumping Tamil together with American blacks. American blacks user:deeceevoice are saying that Tamil people are really Africans that had been walking along to Tamil Nadu.

Tamil people cannot be classified as blacks as we range from dark brown to olive in colour.Our facial features are clearly different from africans.

That user user:deeceevoice must be an afrocentric.Afrocentrics ideas dont have any base.They even claim that Jesus was black. So just ignore those morons.

Who put the pic of those kids?

who ever put that pic there should remove it, its not like all tamil kids look like those.

Population Estimate

The estimate for the number of Tamils is around 10 years outdated! Can we find a more recent census?

Ayyavazhi

I think that can be mentioned in the article with a NPOV.  Doctor Bruno  12:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please stop revert warring on this. It needs to be resolved - find a way to discuss and resolve the issue with comments from people instead of going back and forth. Cribananda 20:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've many time told them and am ready for the discussion though it is of no use because i may have to repeat what I told earlier. And i noted in every my reverts, to discuss . But they don't and reverted and even I was blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR. Please see the edits and edit summaries i wrote here

Regarding Ayyavazhi, Three districts are declared as a Holiday for an Ayyavazhi festival. Then how it become unnotable in a Tamil Society article? Asuume if three states declare holiday for a festival of a particular socity named XXX. Was that XXX society unnotable in a article about India society?

Also in this case of Ayyavazhi I've cited with university sorces for the thousands of Ayyavazhi worship centers. Even Few thousands and few syrian orthodoxies are noted. But they are refusing in Keeping Ayyavazhi. I don't know why. - Paul 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the list of different religions followed by Tamils already present in the article, I don't see how Ayyavazhi can be excluded in good faith. Can the people removing mention of Ayyavazhi please explain their reasoning on the talk page? —Hanuman Das 23:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the latest government policy in Southern Districts regarding this  Doctor Bruno  00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the Hindu article states very briefly that 4 March 2006 is a holiday. Please note that per [6] governement offices are closed on Saturday. --BostonMA ^talk 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If Ayyavazhi is mentioned, then it would seem that all other sects should be mentioned as well. Otherwise, we would be giving undue weight to one sect. Is it appropriate to mention all sects in given state within that state's overview article? I am inclined to think not. For a related discussion see Talk:India/Ayyavazhi --BostonMA ^talk 00:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say sect rather than religion. I've browsed some of the Ayyavazhi writ. Unless the translation is wrong, it self-identifies as a religion. —Hanuman Das 00:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are many sects which self-identify as a religion and claim to be "the true Hinduism". However, I find it difficult not to view a denomination of which its adherants claim that it is the true Hinduism to not be a sect of Hinduism. --BostonMA ^talk 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is with the notability and verifyability criteria. Ayyavazhi followers may claim their faith to be a separate religion. They may even cite a research paper to support that. However the fact remains that this is not a recognised religion by the Government of India. This religion has dozens and dozens of articles in WP, all created by a single user. He has also inserted links in hundreds of articles. However if you go searching for independent sources, both online and off, you will be hard pressed to find any supporting the claims of the articles in terms of its spread and the number of adherants. There is nothing wrong in keeping the dozens of articles on this faith, but my problem is the incessant proletyzing by this user. the question is is it notable enough to be included in a summary article dealing with the whole ethnic group? IMHO it is not. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 00:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see what the Indian Government has to do with it at all. Maybe it is because I was born in the U.S., but it is my understanding that whether or not something is a religion is determined by its followers. The government may recognize it or not as it wills, but that has nothing to do with anything except the government - it does not change whether a religion is a religion or not. The article on it says it is a religion. It also says it is monotheistic, which immediately differentiates it from Hinduism. I'm not necessarily arguing that the text about the holiday should be included, but I think it should be included in the list of religions of the Tamil people. Allowing the govt to determine what is and is not a religion seems to me to be the ultimate in foolish abdication of responsibility! —Hanuman Das 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't let the government dictate as to which religion to include here, however it is a good measure of the notability of the religion. The only difference IMO between Ayyavazhi and any other minor religion that may be practiced by a small minority of people is that one of the Ayyavazhi follower has the knowledge of WP and its power and the time to create these dozens of pages which have proliferated across the internet space into the thousands of mirror pages, thereby giving it a numerically higher presence in the web. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 05:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is an incorrect view of Hinduism to identify it as polytheistic. Monotheism is a very strong trend in Hinduism, perhaps the strongest trend. According to monotheistic views, there is a single god who has many forms, or aspects. Not so different from the Christian trinity. So no, Ayyavazhi does not differ from other sects of Hinduism on this point. I am not contesting that Ayyavazhi is a religion, however, I don't think sect and religion are necessarily exclusive of one another. --BostonMA ^talk 14:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read this discussion and the extensive one on Talk:India/Ayyavazhi, I guess a consensus was reached not to include this. (My two cents - Notable, may be, but not worth a mention in the article. In some ways - I'm not really equating the two - a bit likeJedi). Cribananda 03:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all I am telling Ayyavazhi is not a sect. Right from the beginning the LMS missionarries placed them in a Triangular venue in Travancore where Christianity (LMS based protestant as majority and a very few chatholics) Hinduism and Muthukuttyism (Ayyavazhi) are the main players. They see Ayyavazhi exctly away from Hinduism and moved hard against Ayyavazhi because it stood right against the fast spread of Ayyavazhi. The same LMS reports itself says about the fast spread of Ayyavazhi spreading equal to them, in Travancore where the LMS highest succesive venue in India. Don't think that LMS report reports are not valid in Ayyavazhi matter. LMS acts as a anti-ayyavazhi agent and called Vaikundar and Ayyavazhi as satanic agents. So their social views towards Ayyavazhi is completely acceptable.

Again i come to know that the 'Temple entry aggitation' commonly seen fact in 19th century Travancore remain untouched by Ayyavazhi followers. All the denominations of Hinduism (saivite vaishnavite etc..) participated in it without sect varriations. But Ayyavazhi don't belive in entering to Hindu temples. They have worship centers of their own. If they've seen them among other Hindus they might have participated as other sects do. But they palce them significantly outsite Hinduis. Not only this there are many to tell about the diverted nature of Ayyavazhi from Hinduism.

The above mentioned facts says about the deviated sociology of Ayyavazhi right from the mid-ninteenth century. And in belief related matters completely different. Hinduism as accepting other hindu scrptures of other denominations can't accept Akilam mainly because it says all previous (Hindu) scriptures had gone awry.

Like other Hindu denominations Ayyavazhi doesn't forms a part of Hinduism and vary from others in minor issues. But says original Hinduism had dead. If I say that 'XXX' religion is dead. Then how would i be considered as a follower of that XXX religion?

I was not telling all these of my own. But with university papers as citations. And have repeatedly cited all of them many many times. Weather it's true or not, Iam not claiming that Ayyavazhi is "true Hinduism" here in wikipedia. But only saying Ayyavazhi as seperate from Hinduism backing with university papers. The citations mentioned here are not self identities but independent third party University papers.

Also User:Venu62 noted that "They may even cite a research paper to support that". The reserch papers are from two leading Universities in Tamil Nadu. Are the university research is considered invalid in wikipedia? Also one user can't write many articles here in wikipedia? The article about the ethnic group deals with the 'religion' issues in Tamil Nadu and so the religion with holiday for its festival in three districts is definitely notable. Also i cited already for the thousands of worship centers across south India with University papers. It show that Ayyavazhi is 'not so minor' as highlighted by you in every discussions.

As told by user User:Hanuman Das, weather or not the India govt recognise that. it doesn't matter. But the university papers are really valid much more than that. May be the Ayyavazhi article find a place to not the lack of official recognition. And it was already noted two times in Ayyavahi article. Fist in the introduction and then in the controversy section. Also in every cross reference it was noted as the first sentence.

Also if it is not notable then why it is not appropriate to mention in the article? Easpacially because three southern districts are declared as a holiday for an Ayyavazhi festival. Neary 9 % of the population of Tamil Nadu is experiencing the holiday. See even few thousand jains and very few syrian orthodoxies are mentioned. And see that few thousand Jains are even added in the Tamil people template in the article. But Ayyavazhi have no right even to find a place even in the article?

Ayyavazhi differ from Hinduism religiously very much than it do so sociologically. See the discussion in Talk:India/Ayyavazhi - Paul 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul Raj, in my opinion, posting very long comments, such as this one here, and the one that you posted on the India page makes discussion difficult. Rather, when someone makes a short point, I think it is best to respond succinctly just to that point. Could you please name one property, that you believe that Ayyavazhi has that is shared by no Hindu sect. Then let me respond to that one property. And let us continue discussing that one thing until we have some agreement upon it. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 19:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I see now that Ayyavazhi is mentioned in the religion section, in fact near the beginning of the section. I agree with others that it does not need to be covered in any more detail in this article. —Hanuman Das 19:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Also the Ayya Vaikunda Avataram should not be excluded. Because it was not like other local holidays which was usually for one district. It should be seen very next to State holidays since this holiday was for three districts. Since other festivals without holidays such as Thaipusam and Adipperukku are noted apart from the major festivals Deepavali and Pongal. - Paul 19:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Many to tell but as you told so I say one thing. Religiously, Akilam says all Hindu elements (including that of all denominations) are true till the birth of Kali Yuga. But then onwards it had gone awry and only Akilam should be followed.(this was the issue i previously mentioned in the discussion page of India and so for the detailed discussion about it see there. Thanks - Paul 19:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see here for the thousands of worship centers here Grand sacle is not point of views because three districts are declared Holidays. Do a holiday be declared to one or two people's celebrations? Also Daily thanthi is a leading news paper in Tamil Nadu. I've cited the paper Edition and name published date. Also it was cited from the Tamil Wikipedia, here translated here.

Also please discuss before the reverts. Thanks - Paul 07:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi POV

Paul Raj/Vaikunda Raja please stop inserting your POV into this article regarding Ayyavazhi worship centres. Whether the celebrations are of a 'Grand Scale' or of a 'Stupendous scale' is POV of the person writing it. There is no need to insert such adjectives into this article. There is no other instances of such superfluous glorification in this article. Be happy with the mention of Ayyavazhi in this Featured article, eventhough I have strong reservations against mentioning this minor un-recognised religion. If you revert again I will ask for a RFC on this matter.Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 07:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have cited with university papers for the number of worship centers. My queastion is simple, Will the government declare a holiday for one or two peoples's celebrations? Also, The local holiday is cited from a leading news paper of Tamil Nadu . Here is no place for the POV. And i may decide to remain happy or not for anything done here. I am ready to scan and present the news paper report. Offline notabilities are impotant. Also, Please don't make personal attacks.

Also after these citations, some two users decided to format out the sentences moving away from the path of citations. They collectively reverted 4 times and If I revert with citations, they say they will complain.

Others please comment. - Paul 09:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion

General Comment. There are dozens of local festivals like Feast of Our Lady of Snows (Aug 5 - Local Holiday in Thoothukudi District), Nellaiappar Car festival (local holiday in Tirunelveli District), Nagaraja festival (local holiday in Kanyakumari DIstrict), Kallagar festival (Madurai District). So if we start to include all the functions, just because a local holiday has been declared, that will become a big list. That can be included in an article like "Religious festivals of Tamil Nadu", but I think that such a list is beyond the scope of this article on "Tamil People"

Dear Paul, I am living in Southern Tamil Nadu. While I can see that the Ayyavazhi function has been recognised and is being observed in Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari and that the community and the celebrations have become notable, I am still having doubts over the use of word "Grand Scale" If at all something is celebrated in Grand Scale in Southern Tamil Nadu it is the Kulasekharapattinam Dasara. I fully support the inclusion of Ayyavazhi, and I can verify that the functions are celebrated and government has taken note of the increasing popularity, but as of today (year 2006), i don't think it deserves the word Grand Scale in an Encyclopedia. I agree that Ayyvazhi is a religion. But I have few questions. The article does not mention about Ramzan or Bakrid. Do you say that more people celebrate this function compared to Ramzan or Bakrid. OK !! You can tell me that Ramzan and Bakrid or common all over the world and that Ayyavazhi is the local phenomenon. I understand, but I hope that you too understand that Grand Scale is not NPOV.

Dear Venu, While I agree with your stand regarding this matter, I am having reservations about your comment regarding daily thanthi being non-verifiable. How can you claim the newspaper with 1 crore readership as non-verifiable. Can you please explain  Doctor Bruno  12:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean that daily thanthi newpaper is non notable nor unacceptable. I mearly meant that the offline paper is not easily verifiable. My language might have reflected my frustrations with this matter and I apologise fro that. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. That settles it. Keep the good work going on.  Doctor Bruno  20:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Doctor Bruno

But presently, the article give high importance to festivals centered on Tamil Nadu or Tamil people, and seemingly so the reasons for exclusion of muslim festivals. Ayyavazhi is a religion centered mostly on Tamil. I think the Thaippusam and Adipperukku are not even holidays and still mentioned in the article because it is tamil based. Ayya Vaikunda Avataram is that of a Tamil based religion. Also the head quarters (Swamithoppe), which receives a high religious Gathering for this festival is in Tamil Nadu. So definitely it deserves a place in the section.

May be the phrase ' grand scale ' not fit here. But the present mentioning, "The Ayyavazhi Festival Ayya Vaikunda Avataram is celebrated in the southern districts of Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi." says that this festival is only celebrated in these three dists. But as per the earlier presented citations, for 'thousands of worship centers across south india', this festivals are celebrated also outside this dists and across south India.

So as per my view the sentence should be reframed. Some thing like this, "The Ayya Vaikunda Avataram is celebrated by Ayyavazhi's across the state, mostly in the south." - Paul 00:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your preferred sentence is self-contradictory. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 00:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned that the present text show that the celebrations are bounded within the border of those districts. But i've cited the presence of Ayyavazhi across the state and also beyond. I just told to mention it so. Also the text mentioned above is my preference. That's all. But a reframe needed to the present text as per the citations. Thanks - Paul 18:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally, why 'grand scale' cannot be used? This festival is not like other local holidays. First, it was not for one but for three districts. Secondly, this was not a temple festival, where people gather in one place in large number as, Feast of Our Lady of Snows, Nellaiappar Car festival, Nagaraja festival, Kallagar festival etc.. But Ayya Vaikunda Avataram is declared as a holiday not for people gathering in Swamithope, and the celebrations are not confined to Swamithoppe, But across the place where Ayyavazhi people live. But the car festival in Swamithoppe too attracts a huge crowd, and if it is declared as a holiday then it could be compared to other local Holidays since the celebrations are confined to Swamithoppe.

It is just as the difference between Diwali and Nagaraja festival in Kanyakumari district. while both are holidays here, the former is celebrated by all Hindus in their houses while the later is celebrated in only at Nagaraja Temple.

The celebrations in Swamithoppe during this festival is in high vein because of religious importance Swamithoppe earns from Akilam and Ayyavazhi ideology. The celebrations of the festival here is grand than any other parts in the country but still the celebrations took place across the whole worship centers through out the country. In Chennai and in Mumbai Ayyavazhi's celebrate the festival with processions. Also in Thiruchendur (where Ayya incarnated) the grand celebrations next to Swamithoppe.

So if users compare this festival with other local holidays and through reject the usage of the word 'grand scale' for this fest, then it is incorrect. Or can, 'celebrated grandly be used alternative to 'grand scale' ?

Any way the present format, "The Ayyavazhi Festival Ayya Vaikunda Avataram is celebrated in the southern districts of Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi." does not fit even as per the cited sources for the spread of Ayyavazhi beyond those areas. Please consider - Paul 19:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The current sentence is appropriate. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Parthi, I've explined above well, why the present sentence in not fit. How can you tell simply "The current sentence is appropriate." Iam telling once again, the current sentence will bring a false notion that the celebrations of this fest in confined to these three dists and not outside those areas. No Ayyavazhi's are living beyond these dists? Also what about the citations for the spaning of W.Centers across the country? - Paul 16:15, 20 December 2

Language, Ethnicity, and Tamil

Hello all,

I have noticed a sentence which contradicts itself in the next. Please read below:

The Tamil identity is primarily linguistic, although in recent times the definition has been broadened to include emigrants  
of Tamil descent who maintain Tamil cultural traditions, even if they no longer regularly speak the language. Tamils are  
ethnically, linguistically and culturally related to the other Dravidian peoples of the Indian subcontinent.

Should the first sentence be taken off? After all isn't Tamil an ethnicity as well? For example, if a couple from Japan had a child in the U.S., and the child born for the parents from Japan does not speak Japanese, is the child ethnically a Japanese or not? I know that sounds like a wierd question, but I just had to mention this. I think the second sentence is good though since Dravidian is a family of ethnicities as well as a family of languages primarily in Southern India. I also wanted to bring this up since there are others who have helped contribute to Tamil people, I would not want to make any edits without notifying anyone and having constructive dialogue. Regards.

Wiki Raja 10:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE THE AFROCENTRICS QUOTES IN TAMILS PAGES-VANDALISM

REMOVE THE AFROCENTRICS QUOTES IN TAMILS PAGES-VANDALISM

Why there is quotes of Afrocentrics in the Tamils Page-Remove it once and for all!!!! Why should we have to quote afrocenntric quotes hereE.g Dops and Rushidis here.I have long noticed that tamils and tamil pages in wikipidia have been vandelised by Afrocentics or people who pretent to be afrocentrics. Even in the black peoples artices there was furious arguments by the afrocentrics to include tamils with them.THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR AFROCENTRIC IDEAS.please remove any association with the africans in the Pre-historic period in this article ASAP.Those dont have any base —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.100.93 (talk • contribs)

I introduced the information you're referring to, and it is accurate and sourced. Not only that, it is corroborated by mainstream historians and by objective fact. You cannot discredit information simply by labeling it "Afrocentrist" (or any other thing) without providing some sort of rationale why it is objectionable and should not be included. Hell, I learned 30+ years ago in a mainstream American classroom, in a white public school system that the ancient Dravidians of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa were black, African peoples! There is ample evidence in the historical/archaeological, linguistic and genetic (DNA) record that supports these facts.

I'm sorry that such information offends you. It's tragic when people have bought into white supremacist lies and refuse to learn/accept their true history. There are, in fact, at least three types of Dravidians/Veddoid/Sudroid peoples of southern India: 1) the peoples to which Diop refers (similar to the peoples of the African Horn, with straight hair and narrow nasal indices, the so-called proto-Caucasoid, African blacks who later gave rise to Caucasian, or "white", peoples), who migrated out of Africa through the Levant; 2) the Africoid (Negrito types), who traveled a more southerly route and followed the sea coasts; and 3) the Australoid peoples indigenous to Africa (nowadays found, I believe, only in Iraq and the Saudi peninsula, who have remained there since ancient times, who also migrated from the Levant (the Habshis and others, who settled in the north of India) and, according to geneticist Spencer via a more southerly route (the Tamils) and went on to populate Australia and portions of Southeast Asia. Afrocentrist historians have been saying this for decades -- and now mainstream scholarship, finally beginning to free itself of old, white supremacist assumptions and racist propaganda and spurred on by science-based study and objective analysis, is finally catching up. Y haplotype studies show a significant percentage of Australoid and Bantu lineages in southern India -- where many of the black populations migrated from Africa and remained, and to where others migrated, fleeing Aryan persecution.

I suggest you do some serious reading on the subject of your own history instead of engaging in meaningless ad hominem attacks.

Horen Tudu was born in Bangledesh into the Santhal tribal group but grew up in the USA. He is a researcher and staunch Pan Africanist who has written extensively about African descendants in the Indian subcontinent. Asked whether Dalits are aware of their African heritage, he told Black Britain: “I do believe that they are starting to understand that the upper caste function from the paradigm of the Indo Europeans and that the Dalits and the tribals themselves are indigenous and that the proto Australoids are African'[emphasis added].”

But aside from the Dalits, India’s tribal groups make up another 84 million of its population. Tudu told Black Britain: “When you come to the tribals there is absolutely no controversy regarding the race of these people. They are clearly, physically, Africoid, they are linguistically distinct, religiously distinct; you can connect their spiritual systems to the spiritual systems in Africa – there is no ambiguity there.” [7]

I've provided a link to the web page, which includes information from Rashidi and Bangladeshi Horen Tudu -- and also a commentary on how Indians, Bangladeshis, and others have internalized, since ancient times, the virulent anti-black hatred of the Aryans, codified in the Brahmin caste system (and sensibly repudiated by the Tamil people because they are black peoples at the receiving end of the harsh injustices of caste and color discrimination), and who in modern times have continued to internalize white supremacist lies and values as self-loathing and color bias -- using bleaching creams and rejecting and discriminating in every way against those who are darker-skinned and less European-looking (the Bollywood syndrome), not unlike other people of color the world over. Read on -- if you dare.

Here's another link.[8] Pay close attention to the section on "The African Presence in Asia." deeceevoice 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To whom it may concern

To the anonymous user: This is not a place for personal abuse of other people's cultures. Please refrain from attacks and intolerant POVs towards other users and other users ethnic, religous, and/or national backgrounds. Thank you. Wiki Raja 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Am not attacking anyone but I feel I being a tamil is been attacked!.

Whats the point in quoting Afrocentric quotes here!.It is sure the work of some Afrocentrics.If you dont want me to remove :those then can some of you pls remove them.Dont we tamils have anything to say about ourselves??? Why quote some controverisal quotes????

--Vandh 01:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In the first place there are no quotes which are "Arocentric". I am not saying that Tamils are directly African, or European, or Asian, or what not. Just like the people of Northern India are not considered Iranians from Iran, but they are related to the people of Iran. Likewise with the Tamils and other Dravidians, there are a lot of similarities between us(including myself who is also an ethnic Tamil) and the people of East Africa and Australia in certain physical features, customs, and religion.

As an educational pointer, before Hinduism was introduced to the early Dravidians our ancestors practiced Animism which was a form of nature worship by the early Nagas and Yakshas. Animism is also practiced amongst the aboriginals of Australia and in some parts of Africa. In southern India there have been found many types of weapons excavated called Valaris [[9]] which resemble the boomerangs used in Australia. Also in certain parts of Kerala and Sri Lanka you will find aboriginal Veddas [[10]] [[11]].

These are facts that we cannot run away from, even if some of us are ashamed of it or not. As for putting sources in regards to the similarities the Dravidians share with the groups from Africa and Australia, there is nothing controversial about that. It almost sounds like in your messages that African culture is bad, negative, and perhaps inferior. Live and let live. We are all created equal even though we may all be of different ethnicities. Therefore, in my quotes, we are all one race, and that is the human race.

Lastly, Please refrain from attacks and intolerant POVs towards other users of different ethnic, religous, and/or national backgrounds. Thank you.

Wiki Raja 02:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Animisim is the primitive form of all religion in all parts of the world.All Ancient cultures still have some form of this. Hinduhism still have animism even today with Pantheon of gods.We all know that humans originated in Africa and moved to all parts of the world.So to say something like animisim and so say there is a link then there is a link to every other culture in the world.I am certainly not attacking anyone but to have Diops quote is totally Unnecessary here.I know that Veddas are similar to Aborigines but are Veddas tamils?.You have also mentioned that there are similar physical features,customs and religion. I cant find any customs that the tamils have in similarity with the Australian aborigines or the africans.Even the Jews have a similar culture like the tamils like the 'Poo punitha neerattu vila'.Puberty cerimony like the tamils.So are they similar to us?.You want to relate the valari with the boomerang but boomarang comes back to its owner but the valari doesnt only the shapes are simlilar.Even the greeks/romans had similar weapon like that(shape).I totally accept that all are one race that is the human race but in an article about tamils then it should be about tamils not how humans came to be tamils,english or Irish. --Vandh 04:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If it would make you any happier, did you know that apart from the Tamils who have aboriginal or East African features, there are a few Tamils who were mixed with Marathi during the brief Maratha rule of parts of Northern Tamil Nadu? There are Black Tamils, Brown Tamils, Light Brown Tamils, Olive complection Tamils, I have even seen some Tamils with freckles (Anglo-Indian or Anglo-Tamils). There are also some Tamils with fair skin, features and light colored eyes due to intermarriage with other ethnic groups from Central and Northern India. Did you know that intermarriage has been practiced for over thousands of years? Also, that certain primitive customs tend to vanish over time when introduced to newer more advanced cultures? This not only happened in South India, but in various other parts of the world.

As for animism, there were different kinds around the world. The Hinduism we see today practiced by Tamils is a combination of the indigenous Animism beliefs and North Indian pantheon of gods. Also, Murugan worship and the body piercing rituals of Thai Pusam are primarily practiced by Tamils in India, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere. If you have any further issues, please notify Wikipedia Administration. Thank you. Wiki Raja 05:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This site is about Tamil People

If u have a problem that Indians use skin lightening creme or Dalits get treated worst by "High" Cast Indians, it's your thing. This is not a place where you can moan about the worlds problems. This page isnt about Bollywood either. Pages which contains Tamil People allways get vandalised, something I noticed long time ago. Much respect to everyone but WE TAMILS ARE INDIANS and not Black or White. Get off your Black/White scheme and see the world in colours. Asian2duracell

Exactly Iseebias

Please work the following text (from Races of craniofacial anthropology) into the article.

Genetecist Cavalli-Sforza argues on page 119 of The Great Human Diasporas: "The Caucasoids are mainly fair-skinned peoples, but this group also includes the southern Indians (Dravidians), who live in tropical areas and show signs of a marked darkening in skin pigmentation, however their facial and body traits are Caucasoid rather than African or Australoid.

--BostonMA ^talk 21:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good addition -- but it must be counterbalanced by the fact that Cavalli-Sforza's findings are contested. These are word games. First, "Caucasoid" is not synonymous with "Caucasian," which means "white" -- a point seemingly lost on some of the contributors to the article. Indigenous, sometimes blue-black black Africans of North Africa, including Nubia, Somalia, Sudan and Abysinnia (the Oromo of Ethiopia and Eritrea), have been classified as "Caucasoid" because of certain craniofacial characteristics -- notably longer, more slender faces; thinner lips; and the absence of, or limited, alveolar prognathism; and because of, in some cases, finer, straighter hair than is the norm for so-called "Negroid", or sub-Saharan, populations.[12][13] Such characteristics are the result of naturally occurring biodiversity among African peoples and -- except, to my knowledge, those related to hair texture -- can be found in populations in sub-Saharan Africa, as well. It is these populations who are thought by some scholars to have been the founders of the ancient Indian civilizations of Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro and others. These are the non- Afro-Australoid "Tamils" (or "Dravidians"; the Tamils are not one people) of today.

The name "Caucasoid" when applied to these ancient North African populations refers to the fact that it is surmised that their ancestors -- indigenous blacks of the continent -- migrated out of Africa, through the Middle East and the Levant and eventually mutated over time into populations now termed "Caucasians," or whites. Some scholars have opted for the term "proto-Caucasoids" to describe these "seed" black populations. Others, like Blumenbach, have referred to them as the "brown race" or "Mediterranean race," when, in fact, they are none other than indigenous, black African peoples. They are responsible, in part, for the still very noticeable "Negroid" strain in the Levant/Middle East, in nations like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Other scholars -- Afrocentrists -- have chosen another word, one that encompasses the full range of phenotypes of black, African peoples, including Capoid, Australoid, Negroid, Veddoid, Sudroid, etc.: Africoid, arguing that a word which contains a geographic referrent to Europe is wholly inappropriate when describing indigenous African peoples, and is at odds with the longstanding tradition of naming peoples after their geographic points of origin (e.g. Mongoloids for Asians and Caucasoids for Europeans). deeceevoice 12:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, it should be noted that such variations in phenotype commonly occur within family groupings -- among siblings of identical parentage, even -- given the fact that among all the indigenous North African populations of the nations, noted Caucasoid as well as Negroid traits can be found. See the following links, for example, of old photographs of Nubian peoples: First, what would be termed a "Caucasoid" black woman, or a "Dravidian" type[14] (note the straight hair, the relatively narrow nose and longer, narrower facial proportions); second, a "Negroid" or sub-Saharan type[15] (note the broader features, alveolar prognathism and woolly hair); and the, finally, a Nubian woman who displays both Negroid and Caucasoid characteristics[16]. All are indigenous, black African peoples. All are Nubians. All are Africoid peoples. deeceevoice 12:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all stop stealing our civilisation(Indus valley) and say that it was created by you black africans.It was created by us dravidians. Original dravidian might have been dark skin but they are unrelated to africans(May be related by the single origin theory ONLY). On examining the teeth,structure of the head (of the skeletal remains found in THE iNDUS VALLEY)it has been proved that they are not africoids but resemble that of the present Indian.

  Skin pigmantaion is due to selective pressure.

Other than skin darking there is no such connection with the africans.Finally do realize that Tamils are not Dalits and No one in India treats them differently.Who the hell told you that people get discriminated based on the skin colour in India?.If you still belive that Tamils are related to africans then all the people white,yellow,red are related to you in the same way.Be happy with that and leave as to ourseleves.Dont bother us Deeecevoice with your own Stupid ideas!!!! We know our history,we know how we look ,we know about ourseleves.You dont need to tell us who we are. --Vandh 12:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm Tamil myself, and I dont think Tamils get discrimanated in social life, who told you that. Like u saidVandh, I tried to explain that deeceevoice guy that Tamils and Dalits are not the same. But he lives in his own world. If he think Africans will be something "better" if they ar related to us, then I feel sorry for him. I dont care about Nubians, Ethiopians or whatever, let them be what they are. And let us be what WE ARE. I dont care about race. This article is not suposed to be political motivated. Race should not be a matter in the Tamil People article. Its about culture.--Asian2Duracell

A little off-topic, but where did you get the idea that Oromos and Somalis are blue-black, DCV? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Calm down bro... I said they are Africans not "Blue-Black" or whatever, Africans in term of regularly Black people.Asian2duracell 00:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm, re-read my question and you'll see that. Wasn't it Deeceevoice who made this comment, though?

Indigenous, sometimes blue-black black Africans of North Africa, including Nubia, Somalia, Sudan and Abysinnia (the Oromo of Ethiopia and Eritrea), have been classified as "Caucasoid" ...

Anyway, re-reading it, I see that I misunderstood her comments. Why are you only referring to Oromo Ethiopians, though DCV (they don't live at all in Eritrea, btw), and not also Semitic-speaking ones? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

oh, I havnt seen the "DCV" in ur first post,.. my fault.Asian2duracell 22:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Style aspects

I'm showing my head here after a long time and haven't followed the discussions. So, I can't comment on the ongoing edit war yet. But, will someone change the population figures in the infobox from millions to the original notation? For South Asia related articles, the recommendation is to use Commonwealth English spellings and notations. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sundar: I guess I used "millions" by habit while updating the infobox parameters; I didn't know, though, that doing so runs contrary to a convention. I don't mind restoring or seeing all the zeroes restored, especially if most folk find that format easier to digest. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to change it, David. The convention is to use lakhs and crores as appropriate with figures in millions in brackets. I'm not too particular though. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if many English-speaking/reading folk have encountered lakhs and crores!  Yours, David (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what part of the world you come from and how you group English-speaking/reading folks. Cheers, --Blacksun 11:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed

"While Adiperukku is celebrated with more pomp in the Cauvery region than in others, the Ayyavazhi Festival, Ayya Vaikunda Avataram, is predominantly celebrated in the southern districts of Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli, and Thoothukudi."
The citation provided is just an entry in Hindu about that day being celeberated as a holiday. How does that citation support the part of the sentence that states it is predominantly celeberated? Furthermore, status of AV as a religion is being debated on its talk page. Till this issue is not cleared it is not right to have AV being drummed up as a seperate religion on this page. Not to mention all the additions regarding it are done in a crude manner clearly affecting the quality of an otherwise good article. They should be rolled back till issues on it being religion and its significance are resolved. --Blacksun 02:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Celebrated predominantly means 'celebrated mainly'(than the other parts of the state) in the southern dists. If not, are you telling that a festival with holiday for three dists is something celebrated by one or two peoples as some Tom's and Jack's birth days? The other festivals which are toned much up than this Ayyavazhi festival was not declared as a holiday even. Then, mentioning a relatively major (regional as per citations) festival in an article, affects it from being good?! Also, the seperate nature of Ayyavazhi is stated with different citations there in the article.

I very well know that you people don't even care me and instead call as my views and citations (including University papers) as POVs, and so no use of discussing here. If there is some one else, move forward; otherwise remove all Ayyavazhi related notes here, and pave the way for the article as remain as a good one, as User:Blacksun told. Thanks ==> _Д=|Ω|=_ДPaul| 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

famous Tamil people

Why aren't here any famous people mentioned ( at least pics) like it is on other ethnicity based articles. And I dont only talk about actors. People who contributed to the evolution of Tamil culture and identity.Asian2duracell 21:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What part of Jaffna are you from? Wiki Raja 00:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Special mention of Irulas

Irulas are not one person, thy are a community-I was talking about people like Barathi or Kamal Haasan or what who ever...Asian2duracell 17:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Special mention of Irulas Only

Why there is special mention of Irulas only in the Indian tamils section.It looks like there are no other communities other than them.Whats the need for that?. Any special reson?

Yes why? Irulas are the native people on the place where Tamils in India live. So why should they be mentioned? They're a small minority of hunters. Most Tamils arent. And most Indan Tamils dont work on tea plantations. Rewrite that section.Asian2duracell 17:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Irula's original language was not tamil.they have adopted it according to the regional habitat.Special mention of Irulas in this section seems to be totally unecassary.Can someone pls do the necessary amedments.--Sria 11:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

70 mill. (body text) or 100 mill (infobox??)

How come the discrepancy? Trondtr 06:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Lot of untruths and speculations 1.which evidence shows migration to india around 6000BC 2.Elamite connection to Iran and they are related to tamil show evidence 3.Adichannallur pots contains skeletons of mongoliod origin. The writings are not conformed to be tamil brahmi 4.silapathikaram does not make reference to kumarikandam it refers to tsunami 5.embassies sent to roman emperors from pandyan kings. show evidence. 6.Kalabhras theory is false there is not evidence to show kalabhras rule. 7.Western region or kerala was always distinct, they were refered as malayans in both tamil and sinhala literary works. there are more untruths , which i will discuss later. meghamitra 06:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with Sarvagnya!!

Ok, the quality of this article has gone down the drain. I never seen another Wikipeida article that needed so much citations. This is so ridiculous. Someone please fix this up. And Sarvagnya, its so obvious that you have some serious issues to deal with and i suggest you go take care of that first before contributing anymore to this article. The_Real_Wiki_Mania

I must say that I too find his behaviour disruptive. I do not think that that many references are needed (see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources). Most of the stuff is not controversial (at least from my point of view) and can be found in any scientific book on Sri Lankan history. I spent two hours on putting in the references anyway so that Sarvagnya can see they exist. Maybe we should at a later point in time get an outsider, preferably an admin, to delete those references that are objectively unnecessary. Cheers, Krankman 15:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kranskman for your work in removing the tags. Now most of the content is cited (with third party journal citations unlike some articles where every single POV sentence is pushed by citing a local vested author) Praveen 14:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

meghamitra 13:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Population figures

The entire population of Tamil Nadu is only 62.4 million[17]. How can there be 63 million "Tamils" in India? Sarvagnya 03:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Because, unlike some other languages, Tamil happens to be an official language not just in its own state... there are a couple of Union Territories thrown into the mix. I presume that should add a non-trivial number to the speakers of the language. Lotlil 03:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the linguistic composition of Tamil Nadu, I know 10% of tamil nadu is telugu people and there are significant number of Malayalees and Kannada people ,so we have to check the figures.meghamitra 07:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Lotlil 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The figures from ethnologue quoted are broadly correct. The 2001 Indian census quotes 60,793,814 as the Tamil population of the country, with, in particularly 55,798,916 in TN, 1,874,959 in Karnataka, 861,502 in Pondicherry, 769,685 in Andhra Pradesh, 596,971 in Kerala and 527,995 in Maharashtra and smaller numbers in other states. I have changed the number quoted in the article to the number in the Census, as the census (though likely an underestimate) is a more accurate source than Ethnologue, notwithstanding that the Tamil population will have risen significantly in the time since 2001. Inbetweener (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Srilanka page [18] Gives the number of srilankans to be 20,743,000 out of which 5.1% are Srilankan tamils who have been living since ages and another 4.3% who went to srilanka during british times as plantation workers. So the total number of srilankan's who are tamils is 1,949,842 , how come some many numbers where added. I want to change this any objectionsmeghamitra 13:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you can add reliable citations (not another wiki page), please go ahead and fix the numbers. Lotlil 14:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the figure of 4.3% are based on "Sri Lankan Tamils in government-controlled areas, not accounting for those in rebel-held territories". 4.3% is way too low. The Real Wiki Mania 10:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've revised the figures per the Ethnologue. I've also trimmed the countries included to four - the three where Tamil has some form of official status, plus Malaysia, where Tamils are a significant percent of the population (just under 10%). Canada, the UK, etc. do not have a significant Tamil population. Even if the figures cited were correct, Tamils are less than one percent of the population of those countries. That's not a significant number. -- Arvind 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

According to popular media reports, there are around 250 000 to 300 000 Tamils in Canada. One has to look at the actual numbers, not just the percentage. If you take only percentage into account, Tamil population in India is not that significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.41.96 (talk • contribs)

A little over 60 million Tamils in a country of a little over 1 billion people comes to around 6%. That is significant in comparison with Canada. But feel free to add figures for Canada to Tamil diaspora. -- Arvind 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The size of a community, and the propensity for cultural interchange, is defined by its population size and its proximity to each other and not by its percentage of the total population. Thus the significance of 300,000 Tamils is dependent on the denominator so that the Tamil community is, for example, a very small percentage in Canada as a whole but a relatively large community within the Toronto metropolitan area. Because they are largely concentrated in certain regions they form a community much more easily than if distributed randomly across Canada. A clearer example is that quoting Tamils as "only" 6% of India's population massively underestimates the sociopolitical effect of having that 6% constituting the overwhelming majority of the population of a significant geographical area, such as Tamil Nadu state. Although firm data on population figures for expatriate communities are not, and likely will never be, available I think it is significantly misleading not to represent list significant Tamil populations in the USA, Canada, UK, etc. Wikipedia pages on almost all other ethnic groups use this criterion - see the Wikipedia pages on Tajiks, Hmong people, Sinhalese people and pretty much any other population group for examples. Inbetweener (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

image

we do not need one men representig a population of about 70 milions....Asian2duracell 22:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag icons in infobox

Why is there a flag for Dubai — shouldn't it be the flag of the UAE? Nyttend 12:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Multi-ethnic

Tamils belong to Dravidian, Aryan, Moorish, Malay and other Oriental races. Anwar 20:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Video

Feel free to use the Video given below in place of a photo shot of the same. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Folk artists playing percussion instruments
A video clip of Tamil folk artists performing in honour of the deceased and to help people observe a wake.

That's quite a good video. I can't seem to find a way to add the template to the article in a box in the side - do you think you could add it yourself? -- Arvind 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Below are some possible ways. Feel free to refine them and choose one for adding to the article. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 01:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Click to view video clip

Tamil folk artists performing at a funeral Video clip (file info) — Watch in browser (media help)

I've tentatively chosen the second one and added to the article. However, the code needs to be parametrised and moved to a template. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 02:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks excellent. Thanks, Sundar. -- Arvind 10:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sikhs ethnically related to Tamils?

This is the first time I read this. I'm tentatively reverting it until a citation is provided. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In regards to a few Tamils being Sikh, Sikihism is a faith and not an ethnicity. It is like saying that because the Haitians (of African origins) are Roman Catholic, they are also ethnically related to Caucasians of Europe. Also, if China and Japan shared the same country, it would be like saying that Chinese are ethnically related to Japanese. There are some instances that Tamils may marry with Punjabis, that does not make them related ethnically. If a German were to marry a Chinese, would that mean Germans are ethnically related to Chinese. I would really like to say more, but would like to maintain civility on Wikipedia. Yes, I support you to revert that back. Regards. Wiki Raja 08:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As a faith, it can be practiced by anyone, yes. So, a Sikh can be technically be of any ethnicity. But, are even the people who are from the Punjab region and practice Sikhism for several generations ethnically related to Tamil people? That would be news to me if it were to be true. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Portraits of notable Tamil people on top right corner

I think it would be appropriate since Wikipedia articles about other ethnic groups have such pictures. I personally suggest including portraits of Chandrasekhar and Abdul Kalam (if pictures that don't fall under copyright rules can be found). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiedroid (talk • contribs) 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Tamils are not only native to Tamil Nadu. Tamils are native to 'Tamilakam', a region comprising modern day Tamil Nadu, Kerala, southern districts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, and northern and eastern Sri Lanka.

2. I like the portait as this is how all of the articles of various ethnicities are. However, I think there should be some more diversity in the image selection. Meaning, we should probably include famous Tamil women as well. Not to mention, a Sri Lankan Tamil would also be beneficial in making it diverse. We already have two minorities represented well - Tamil Muslims and Tamil Brahmins. Just a suggestion. I am not here to fight over who belongs on there, but I would think that at the least, we should include 1 female. Especially there are many to choose from, such as Aandaal, Auvaiyar, MS Subbhalakshmi, Lakshmi Saghal (the freedom fighter), Hema Malini, M.I.A., etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.108.181 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This new picture seriously sucks. All the other ethnicities have awesome pictures of the great people they contributed to humanity. Why do we have to go for a 'common-man' picture? An ugly one at that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.108.181 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I was recently looking at a 'Tamil people' article in another language (where it was also a featured article). http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamiler I think the picture they have in the top right corner is great. Although it needs to be formatted better (just like the current picture looks squished and could probably use some better formatting), I think the Tamil people flag is something Tamil people can be identified by. It removes the subjective "common man" picture and the controversial "famous Tamils" picture with something everyone can identify with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.8.65 (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why can not we use this pic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tamil_people.jpg We could just add one famous Srilankan Tamil also instead of one Nobel Award winner in the bottom. As someone said above, the new pic surely sucks big time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BennyWikipedian (talk • contribs) 09:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of material and citations

Resolved

I have removed some material and citations because it is hardly relevant to the topic at hand. It deviates from the article, Tamil people, and goes into the so called "Banned organizations". Unless there is citations that say that most Tamils accept LTTE as a organization that they wish to be identified with, this part it irrelevant to the topic. There is no citation that draws connection between LTTE as a organization that represents all Tamils even thought this might be true. Watchdogb (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of "hardly relevant" is pretty stretched. The article does not make any claim that the LTTE represents all Tamils ... just that it is an organization of Tamils. Just as an article about Americans could mention the Democrats and Republicans, while not making any claim that either party represented all people (or that all people were represented by one or the other). The material you removed is relevant, and is cited.Kww (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What ? How is my definition stretched ? LTTE is not a organization of only Tamils. It also included Sinhalese so I am not even sure how this can be put here. LTTE is a organization sure. LTTE is headed by Tamils Sure but LTTE is not a organization of only Tamils. Furthermore, there is very little relevance to the topic of Tamil People and LTTE. There are Tamils even in Sri Lanka, like Douglas Devananda, Karuna and so on who oppose LTTE being called a organization of Tamils. Even the Sri Lankan Government claims that LTTE does not represent Tamils, so then why is LTTE included in an article about Tamil people ? Another problem is that even if it were true that LTTE, as an organization, should be represented here it is totally off topic to give their proscribed part. Any such addition is POV and I will have to NPOV that addition by adding all the things that LTTE has done to Save Tamil from State Terrorism in Sri Lanka. This will further deviate this article to Sri Lankan Civil War from Tamil people. Watchdogb (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with Watchdogb - this is an article about the Tamils as a people, not the Sri Lankan conflict. Read the sentence together with the one above - the idea is to give a sense in a couple of sentences about the main institutions that relate to Tamils. Details about the institutions - plaudits, criticisms - belong in the articles about them, not this one. Thus, for example, the (many) controversies about Periyar's Self-respect movement are dealt with in the article about him and the article about the movement. The same should be the case for the LTTE - this article simply isn't the place to go into details about the outfit. As far as Watchdogb's request for citations goes, the sentence about the GoSL's contributions to the development of Tamil technical vocabulary was added at the request of a (Tamil) Sri Lankan editor when the article first went through the FA process. That was a long time ago, when the requirements for citation weren't as rigorous as they now are. I think it probably was Mayooranathan, who was the only Tamil editor from Jaffna here at that time. I'll trawl through the archives and see what I can find. -- Arvind (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Resolved

The order of pictures in thsi article does not demonstrate chrolnology. The fisrt picture should be associate with pre historic urn burials not the Bragdeeswara temple in Tanjore. Someone should look into the chronolgy of the pictures Taprobanus (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I did it myself today. It would be great if someone can provide a picture of the urn burials in TN Taprobanus (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

== Deleting Pictres - User:Theowne has deleted them without any explanation. I have added pictures from Tamil Wikipedia. User:Theowne has deleted them without any explanation. The only four pictures are not representative. --Natkeeran (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Famous Tamilians (or Famous Tamils)

Why are C. N Annadurai, R.K Narayanan and MGR (M.G Ramachandran) not included in pictures of famous Tamilians. These three people are the most famous Tamilians of the 20th century. They are much more famous than anynone shown here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunsel (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

They are known as Tamils NOT "Tamilians". Please make note of this in your references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MultiScholar (talk • contribs) 22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As I have noted in another section on this page, many people (especially those of Indian heritage, as opposed to those of Sri Lankan heritage) do use the term "Tamilian". There is no need to correct people about how they name their own ethnic or cultural group! --InvisibleMinority (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The most famous individual you mentioned, MGR, is not Tamil. He is a Malayali. He belongs to the Nair jati. Although, that may mean we would have to define what it means to be Tamil. Even Periyar and Rajnikanth aren't Tamils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.108.181 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Famous Tamil pictures have been edited, I have added, Honourable Vellupillau Prabhakaran as one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamilan101 ([[User talk:Tamilan101|talk]] • contribs) 00:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea PERIYAR and RAJINI are NOT TAMILS.So what is the great deal about it?Periyar was a Kannadian.Rajini is a MARATHI [arun1paladin117.193.193.217 (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Infobox image

I feel that the image in the infobox should be replaced with a "common man" kind of image for the following reasons:

1. Like the question raised in the previous section, there'll be demands to include one person or another.
2. A collage is a made-up image and hence stands out as odd instead of being natural.
3. The individual pictures used to create might have had various copyright statuses. Not sure of the copyright status of this composite image.
4. A gallery of notable people really belongs in List of Tamil people or some such article. In this article the individual images may find a place in a relevant section. Even in sections like arts etc., I favour images of unpopular people so that the focus remains on the subject of the section and not the person.
5. Pictures should only be used to illustrate the subject. Of course, if a single big icon is popular, like the Taj Mahal for India, it can be considered. Even inclusion of such icons have been disputed earlier.

If nobody has any objections, I'll replace it with the original 'pair of girls' picture until a better picture can be found. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it ok to have the picture on the right side in the infobox? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary Sundar. Other articles contain notable individuals of their community as well. Also, there are common people images in the article as well. Perhaps with the exception of one picture in the composite, all are free images. --Natkeeran (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Except the top four, we dont know who the rest are ? Can you give us some names please ? Taprobanus (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Even in the first four images whose names we know 2 of the pictures are not free/ Person #1 and person #4. Because of that the whole collage is in violation. If that is true ofthe first collage what about the second two rows whose names we dont know. This is a featured article, we cannot knowingly violate rules and Wikipedia sa an organization get's in trouble if we use non free images. They should be removed untill we determine the status and replace them with truely free images. For example see Sri Lankan Tamil people, German people & English people. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The image has been replaced again with an unfree image. Apart from the potential copyright violation, there's also an issue with the size of this image, which defeats the purpose of having an infobox. I've posted on the editor's talk page, asking him to bring his concerns here - since I follow 1RR, I'm not going to bring the original image back, but I have serious concerns with the new image. -- Arvind (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I will rollback . Taprobanus (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Killings

I'm not very read on the Tamil people, but I met a Sri Lankan Tamil in college who said she left a couple of decades ago in fear for her life, because another ethnic group were hunting down the Tamils. Is there any recorded instance of this? If there is, it should be on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.247.1 (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many recorded instances of this, one of which is Black July. The "another ethnic group" you are wondering about are the Sinhalese. This can be linked to the Sri Lankan Civil War and Black July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MultiScholar (talk • contribs) 22:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The prehistoric period section,

Resolved

Most of this section presents speculation as fact. It needs minimizing or a cleanup. Trips (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The section looks like it is well cited and backed by reference. If you have specific concerns, then please point it out explicitly so that we can take a closer look at the reference as well as the claim made. Watchdogb (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Going through references, the statements classified as synthesis, and largely concerned material suitable to the Dravidian peoples and languages pages, rather than the Tamil people page. Kumari Kandam was also removed as unsuitable for the prehistory section, as it is only used by the pseudo-historical Tamil nationalist/Dravidian parties as an explanation for the origins of Tamil people. Trips (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You may have a point but better off trying to get consensus befor embarking on such major edits on a Featured article. Taprobanus (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the previous version, and check the citations, the entire content was probably written by a single editor trying to push a viewpoint. Trips (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to assume good faith WP:AGF and calm down, no need to get into unnecessary assumptions and get worked up. I added the paragraph on Tamil language speakers not arriving from outside that is to counter balance the argument that previous editors had added as to the outside origin of Tamil speakers. In Wikipedia we provide all points of view provided it is from WP:RS sources and is not WP:FRINGE. The section on Kumari Kandam to me is Fringe but sections on outside origins, indigenous origins and about the burial practices are not. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Tamil ethnicity

Resolved

A edit-war has erupted over ethnicity of Tamils. For instance, are Iyers and Pallars from the same race? They speak the same tongue. But the similarity ends there. They do not even look alike. Their customs reflect the earlier pre-Tamil baggage. Why is it difficult to understand that the Tamil world is multi-ethnic. Periyar made the same mistake. The Oriental Cham people of Vietnam speak Tamil. Are they Dravidians too? All Tamils are not Dravidians and vice versa. Anwar (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Tamil is an ethno linguistic identity and is fraught with beliefs versus facts. I have tried to diffuse the situation with a different write up. Most Tamils including Iyers, Muslims, Parayars believe that they are Tamils ireepective of their origins, so that has to be the primary sentence about Tamils. Taprobanus (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlike other Indian tongues, Tamil spread out of the historical South Asian genepool. It is probably the only Indian tongue spoken (at home) by South East Asian races. For instance, most of the Urdu speakers also tend to be Pathans. Most of the German speakers also tend to be Caucasian. Most of the Chinese speakers also tend to be Han. Most of the Punjabi speakers (in India and Pakistan) also tend to be Indo-Aryans. The article must note this distinguishing trait. Anwar (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. If you believe Tamil people are multi-ethnic, so is every defined ethnicity in the world. Anwar please stop editing the article, you obviously do not have anything valuable to contribute. Trips (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree Tamil ethinicity in itself is an ethnic identity, multi ethinicity comes after wards when people dig further into it. I know many Muslims and Iyers who have no iota of doubut about their ethnic origin which is Tamil. So we should read artices such as German people which is written from an inclusive point of view. Germans are an ethnic group and that is their primary identity then it follows further below that Germans may have multiple origins Taprobanus (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anwar you had mentioned that Cham Malays speak in Tamil in Vietnam, where did get that information from ?Taprobanus (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a Cham. Anwar (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tamil is an ethnicity of one of many Dravidian aboriginal groups in South Asia. As for different looks of Tamils, just like African Americans, there are those whom are mixed with British, Portuguese, and even Persian and/or Indo-Aryan (for the Iyers, Brahmins etc.) It was stated earlier that even Malay Chams of Vietnam spoke Tamil. Well, between the 2nd and 4th century CE Tamils have travelled as far as Vietnam bringing with them the Tamil language and script which can be seen in early Cham writing. A lot of Malay words in Malaysia consist of Tamil too. Nothing too complicated. The French having colonized Haiti brought forth French speakers of Afro-Haitians. Does that make them French? No. Also, another thing, there is no such thing as a language called Chinese. It is the same as saying that there is a language called Indian. By the way, Anwar, can you say something in Indian? How do you say "How are you" in Indian. lol... Even the word "Indian" cannot be found in any ancient literature be it Sanskrit, Tamil, Gujurati, Pali, etc. India is a British derivation of the generic Greek word Indica for the Persian name of the Indus river of the Northern part of the Indian sub-continent. Anyways, no hard feelings. It would be better if you backed up your sources with references provided. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Indian Union was a Mughal imperial concept like "Napoleon's Europe". Anwar (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Oriental" Cham people? I see your choice of words such as "Oriental" is not only outdated, but a derogatory term for East Asians. Wiki Raja (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Anwar do Cham's consider them Tamils or Chams ? what is their primary identity ? Because we have Hindu Chams who cliam to be Brahmins and Muslim Chams in Hainan, Vietnam and Cambodia. Do only the Vietnam Chams speak Tamil at home ?Taprobanus (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I only include those Chams who speak Tamil at home. There are still some Chams left on earth who still speak the original Cham language. Most of the Cham have moved on to Tamil Saivite Hinduism and Tamil Sufi Islam. It is not unusual for a race to adopt a new tongue. Examples - Walloons, Macedonians. The problem is not source but lack of English-source. There are plenty of vernacular sources available in Connemara Library archives for anybody to walk in and check for themselves. As I said earlier, Tamil World is larger than the Dravidian World. Also, Malay historians have a curious trait. A single drop of Malay blood is sufficient for a person to be included within their fold. They still think Parameswara was a Malay Hindu and Munshi Abdullah was the first Malay Muslim journalist. Both were Tamil Muslims. Anwar (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything on these Tamil speaking Cham people. Only if they natively speak Tamil are they of Tamil ethnicity. Trips (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You can speak any language you want at home but what you consider yourself is what is your identity. Sri Lankan Muslims speak Tamil and are ethnically related Tamil Muslims but consider them to be a different ethnic group. We have many mixed situations like that. Most second generation Tamil Canadians speak Canadian English/French as their primary language but may consider them as ethnic Tamils. This is the reverse of the situation. Language si just one component of ones ethnic identity.Taprobanus (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's my point. A majority of the Sonagar speak Tamil at home (like the Cham). They have changed their tongue from Arwi to Tamil in the past millennium. Still they are mistakenly considered a separate community due to high miscegenation with Semitic races of West Asia. They bring Moorish rituals to the ceremonies of births, marriages and deaths. The Mamak of Malaysia or the Chulia of Singapore refer to the same Tamil Muslim pantheon though they bring Oriental rituals to their ceremonies. Each comes from a different genepool but speak the same tongue. If a cat is told repeatedly that it is a dog, then sooner or later, it starts behaving like a dog hijacking all its habits. This is the essence of nationalism. Infact, Sonagar alone are living proof of the multi-ethnic nature of the Tamil World. Anwar (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's true, though native language is the most important factor, the rest need citations. Trips (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How can ludicrous uncited statements suggesting Tamils are multi-ethnic and that a Tamil commonwealth existed, exist in a featured article, especially in the header. Trips (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Tamil is one ethnicity. If there are differences in looks, it is because of intermarriage in previous years. There is no such thing as multi-ethnic Tamils. Someone is sure trying to twist things on this article, by making Tamil to only be a spoken language. If one wants to talk about "multi", then it can be said that the Tamil language is spoken by multi ethnic groups other than those who are of Tamil ethnicity. Just like how there is only one ethnic French group, but, the French language is spoken by multi-ethnic groups. Take for example the Afro-Haitians in Haiti, and Tamils in Pondicherry. They speak French, but does that make them French? To put it plainly, Tamils constitute an ethnicity (people), language (spoken tongue), and nation (motherland). Wiki Raja (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of Tamil is a limited view of Tamils of Dravidian race only. As I said earlier, all Tamils are not Dravidians and all Dravidians are not Tamils. Pondicherry Tamils do not speak French at home to their kith and kin. English and French are used out of economic necessity. Austria, for instance, is a separate nation from Germany though both belong to the wider German World. Belgium, is a separate nation as well as separate race from France but both belong to the wider French World. This is undeniable reality. Whether Sonagars consider themselves Tamil or not is a political issue and irrelevant to this discussion. Miscegeneation is ongoing still.

As regards the Haitians, I can only quote Napoleon's deinition of who is French: France is not the hills, rivers, mountains and borderlines but wherever there there are Frenchmen and women. It means Africans who speak French at home to their kith and kin are French indeed. This is because they have lost their original identity. Anwar (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

While Wiki Raja and Trips have brought sources to defend their arguments Anwar has not done so. All the books I have read state the Cham language is similar to Acehnese/Malay. Here's a source [19] for that.Pectore^talk 01:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, Sri Lankan Moors really do not self-identify as Tamil. Tamil-nation, a jingoistically proud Tamil website, illustrates this in a thought provoking article[20].Pectore^talk 02:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Brahmins are not Tamils but just Tamil speakers like the Sri lankan Moors.Tamils went to Malaysia 2 centuries ago.Now many of them speak English at home.They speak Malay too.But does that make them Malays?Brahmins may speak Tamil at home.But the language they respect the most is sanskrit.Moreover their version of hinduism is very different from the versions of Tamils.They try to project their sanskrit verions,veda,gita as the solre version of hinduism (arun1paladinArun1paladin (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Pectore,I don't find that TAMIL NATION side better to be jingoistically proud.It's better than INDIA's OFFICIAL WEBSITE (arun1paladinArun1paladin (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Tamil Ethnicity Reality Check

Resolved

Ok, much debate has been going on as to whether or not Tamil is an ethnicity. Just like one would argue on whether Japanese is an ethnicity or not, since there are Chinese, Koreans, and Mongolians who may look like them. As idiotic as that may sound, this debate is no different. Let us define ethnicity:

ethnicity – relating to races or groups of people with common customs; a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of preferential endogamy and/or a presumed or real common ancestry. Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and by common cultural, linguistic, behavioral/ biological traits.

With regards to the article, the very first sentence states:

“ Tamil people (also called Tamils or Tamilians) refer to the people from the Indian subcontinent and South East Asia who natively speak the Tamil language, with a recorded history going back two millennia. ”

So, who are the people from the Indian subcontinent? What ethnic group do they belong to? Do they constitute an ethnic group? If not, then are they human? If they’re not human, then from which planet did we come from? Why does media refer to Tamils from Sri Lanka as ethnic Tamils, while Tamils in India are referred to as a language group? These are legitimate questions.

The next sentence goes on to state:

“ Number of ethnic communities have come to speak Tamil and assume a Tamil identity. ”

First of all, that is not even a complete sentence. Secondly, this sentence does not match the provided referenced source. Thirdly, what number of ethnic communities have come to speak Tamil and assume Tamil identity? What are these ethnic communities? This sentence fails to state that. Finally, we see a referenced link which takes us down to this info:

M. B. Emeneau (Jan-Mar 1956). "India as a Lingustic Area" (in English). Language 32 (1): 5. doi:10.2307/410649. Retrieved on
 2007-05-03. “Of the four literary Dravidian languages, Tamil has voluminous records dating back at least two millennia”

But take note, if one were to click on the link, it just takes the reader to the JSTOR page showing only a page 3. Further, it does not allow the reader to have access to the whole article to verify the actual info taken. However, at the end of the provided source above it states right after the retrieved date, "Of the four literary Dravidian languages, Tamil has voluminous records dating back at least two millennia." Part of that is in the first sentence, which is legitimate, but where on earth did the second sentence come from, which is not even a complete sentence? Sneaky, but not sneaky enough. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good spotting. Trips (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

First sentence cleanup

Resolved

So far, so good. Afterall, this article is about Tamil people, and not about Tamil language, since there is a separate article on Tamil language. Anyways, here is what the first sentence now states:

“ Tamil people (also called Tamils or Tamilians) refer to the people from the Indian subcontinent and South East Asia who natively speak the Tamil language, with a recorded history going back two millennia. ”

Good, but not good enough. The word people is used twice in this format:

“ Tamil people refer to the people... ”

Anyways, it would be correct to state the first sentence in the following fashion:

"Tamil people (also called Tamils or Tamilians) are an ethnic group originating from the Southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, and the Northeastern province Sri Lanka."

The second sentence could then state:

"They have a recoded history going back two millennia"

Then, after that sentence, the third one could state about Tamils in Southeast Asia such as in Malaysia/ Singapore, and possibly those who speak Tamil such as the ever much debated Chams. With regards to the Chams, perhaps there could be a special section on them and other Southeast Asian groups who have adopted Tamil language and culture into theirs. Don't forget that it was the Tamil kingdoms of the Pallavas and Cholas who embarked on their journeys into Southeast Asia from the 2nd century CE up to the 11th century CE.

Last, but not least, we need to do something about the link provided for the "two millenia" info:

M. B. Emeneau (Jan-Mar 1956). "India as a Lingustic Area" (in English). Language 32 (1): 5. doi:10.2307/410649. Retrieved
 on 3 May 2007. “Of the four literary Dravidian languages, Tamil has voluminous records dating back at least two millennia”

There is no way, whatsoever, for the reader to be able to read the actual content quoted without having to purchase the document. Even then, the web site does not allow the user to make any purchases. So, how can we provide this information to those who want to look it up? Wiki Raja (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Tamils vs. Tamilans vs. Tamilians

The very first sentence of this article states Tamil people (also called Tamils, Tamilans, Tamilians) are an ethnic group originating from the Southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, and the Northeastern province Sri Lanka.

Tamils are NOT known or referred to as "Tamilans" or "Tamilians". I have been to Sri Lanka, India and have lived in communities in both Canada and the US where there is a significant Tamil population and no where are these people known as "Tamilans" or "Tamilians". If anything, from my discussions with these community members, they confirmed that these two words were slang references to the official "Tamils". I do not think that these unofficial terms should be included in any article of encyclopedic nature, and as such have removed these false aliases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MultiScholar (talk • contribs) 01:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

MultiScholar wrote:

Tamils are NOT known or referred to as "Tamilans" or "Tamilians".

I'm sorry, but this is obviously false. Just do a search for "Tamilian" on Google, and you'll get 142,000 hits. Unlike the previous poster, I'm a member of the Tamil community -- my parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles were born in India and all speak Tamil. From them, I personally have been taught that "Tamil" is the language, and "Tamilians" are those who speak the language. And furthermore, I've heard the term "Tamilian" many times from Indians, even from non-Tamil speakers. (I'll admit that I've never heard the term "Tamilan", so I don't think it should be included.)

In my experience, the only people who insist that they are "Tamils" are Sri Lankan Tamils. That makes sense to me, because their culture is forcefully segregated and is constantly under threat from their non-Tamil-speaking neighbours. I don't begrudge them their right to identify themselves as "Tamils", but it doesn't reduce my annoyance when some outsider tries to call me a Tamil! (I don't generally want to be grouped with Sri Lankan Tamils, because their Tamil is so different as to be almost incomprehensible to us Indian Tamilians.)

Anyhow, beyond my personal feelings on the matter, the term "Tamilian" certainly is widely used and immediately understood by many people in India, and so the phrase "also known as Tamilians" should definitely be included in this Wiki page. Generally speaking, English dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive; that is, they describe how an English word is used, rather than how it should be used. The definitions in Wikipedia should follow the same rule.

As a separate issue, I think that no-one should edit out phrases like "the famous Tamilian author", because Tamil-speaking Wikipedia contributors of Indian heritage actually do use those phrases.

--InvisibleMinority (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have cited it, so it should calm down. Taprobanus (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The term Tamilian was the name given by north Indians to Tamils.I am a Tamil from India.Now Tamil Nadu Tamisl are coming out of north indian cultural imperialism.They are calling themselves as Tamils as not Tamils.Even in OXFORD dictionay the word TAMILS is found and NOT TAMILIANS.It tells that Tamils are the native peole of South India an Sri Lanka.

Just take many no. of books about Tamils written in English.You can find only the word Tamils and not Tamilians.It's the Eelam Tamils/SLTamils who got recongition for Tamils in the world.It was LTTE and 3 Million Eelam Tamils which made that there is a enthnicity named TAMILS on earth and not the 70 + million Tamil Nadu Tamils.

Tamil spoken by Eelam Tamils is just a dialect of Tamil and not a language different from Tamil Nadu Tamil.

INVISIBLE MINORITY has no knowledge in Tamil.I hope that he learn Tamil from Tamil Nadu films which use a MARTIAN language name Tamilish which is mix of Tamil + English + other languages.That's is why he find that Eelam Tamil is different from tamil Nadu Tamils.Even in Tamil Nadu various dialects of Tamil are spoken

There are about 70+ million Tamil Nadu Tamils and 3 million Tamil Nadu Tamils yet I find 995,000 hits for TAMILS in google and 95,200 hits for TAMILIANS in GOOGLE

(arun1paladinArun1paladin (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Vateluthu Vs Tamil Pallava

This senytence, Vatteluttu, or the Tamil-Pallava script forms the basis for several writing systems of Southeast Asia and beyond: Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.[12] makes an asertion that both the scripts are same but my reading says , although they may be realted they are not the same. Vattelutu was used in Pandya and Chera kingdoms. Pallav and Cholas used Grantha, what we call Tamil Pallava is a form of Grantha and with the rise in power of Cholas Tamil writing which is nothing but a modificatuion of Grantha of Tamil-Pallava became popular even in Pandyan kingdom. In Kerala it vatteluthu was eventualy was replaced. Modern Tamil script is derived from Tamil Pallava that is derived from Grantha, Valleluthu does not come into the picture. source 1 Taprobanus (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The confusion arises from the fact that the Pallavas for a while (between Simhavarman III and Nandivarman II) used Grantha for Sanskrit and Vattelutthu for Tamil (for example, on herostones). The Tamil script, which was a blend of simplifed Grantha and a few Vattelutthu letters, seems to have come into existence in the 7th century A.D., and to have replaced Vattelutthu in the Pallava region from the time of Nandivarman II (when the Pallavas switched from Sanskrit to Tamil for their inscriptions). The scripts of Southeast Asia are derived from the Pallava Grantha, i.e., the unsimplified Grantha which the Pallavas used to write Sanskrit, and from which the modern Tamil script also derives. It would probably be better to say something along the lines of:

The Pallava script, a variant of Southern Brahmi used by the Tamil Pallava dynasty, was the basis of several of the writing systems of Southeast Asia, including the Burmese, Khmer, Thai, Lao and Javanese scripts.

We'll also need to fix the articles on Pallava script and Vatteluttu, to make it clear that they were quite different scripts. -- Arvind (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change on this article, since I don't think it should be particularly controversial. I have temporarily changed Pallava script to a redirect to Grantha script - this is not perfect, but having it redirect to Vatteluttu was wrong, and misleading. I have also removed the references to the Pallava script from the article on Vatteluttu. Both Pallava script and Vatteluttu need a complete rewrite. -- Arvind (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally, thanks Taprobanus (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Pallava script is a generic term used to describe the curvey styled writing of the Dravidians and those of Southeast Asia introduced by the Dravidians. I'm pretty sure that the Cholas or Pandyas would not have called their writing Pallava, leave alone used English. Saying Pallava script is the same as classifying (generically) Katagana, Kanji, and Hiragana Oriental scipt. Or even, better, maybe the Cholas had a Chola script, and the Pandyas had a Pandya script. Perhaps, this Pallava scipt may have had an indigenous name? Sources on the page I've edited have been referenced along with page number, etc. Vatelluttu is a description of a style of script "curvey script" or "curley letters" in Tamil, just like Devanagiri (a Sanskrit word for this style) is used to categorize the Northern Indian style of scripts (Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi). As for Brahmi script, I'm very critical of that, since Brahmi is another word for Ashokan Brahmi. This implies that the Brahmi script was introduced by Emperor Ashoka to the Dravidian lands of Tamilakkam (of which he was never able to conquer). So, let's say, that Tamil and other scripts from South Asia originated from the Brahmi script. Then that would mean that before the 3rd BCE, Tamils had no form of writing for communication. On one of Asoka's edicts, he stated that the Cheras, Cholas, and Pandyas were outside of his domain, and that these Tamil kingdoms ruled independently. Thus, how could Tamil have originated from Brahmi, if these Dravidian kingdoms were already ruling prior to Asoka's conquest of much of the Indian sub-continent? Please revert the Vatelluttu page to its original edit, with the cited references. Perhaps we could work together on this article step by step. Thanks. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wiki Raja. Vattelutthu means "curved writing", yes, but the name, in Tamil as well as English, is only ever used to describe the old script that descended from Tamil Brahmi (or Tamili, if you prefer Gift Siromoney's term), and not the different script which the Pallavas introduced. That's borne out by Mahadevan's Early Tamil Epigraphy and Krishnamurthy's The Dravidian languages. Neither of the two books you'd cited in Vatteluttu or here say, as far as i can see, that the term "Vatteluttu" was ever used to describe the Pallava script. If you have a source which does say that, I'll put things back to your version. -- Arvind (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I was misled by reading these articles in Wikipedia, then I did my research to find out that Wikipedia articles were out of wack. The Rounded writings died out and its closest cousin is current Malayalam more than Tamil writing. Current Tamil writing was popularized by the Chola empire that inherited it from Pallavas who modified it from Grantha. Rounded writings that is the direct descendant of Tamil Brahmi is dead and lives in Malayalam a little bit. Taprobanus (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically speaking, it's now dead in Malayalam too - Travancore used vattelutthu until around the 18th century, when it switched over to the "arya-elutthu" Malayalam script (which, like the modern Tamil script, comes from Grantha). -- Arvind (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To reply to a question which I missed, Malayalam sources call the Chera-Pandiya script "vattelutthu", and the Grantha-derived Chola-Pallava script "kolelutthu". I don't think any name for the Chola-Pallava script is attested in Tamil sources, but given that Malayalam had at that time not wholly branched off, "kolelutthu" was presumably what the script was called even in Tamil. The two names certainly make sense together. -- Arvind (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the crux of the issue here. The common Tamil man thinks that what he is using is Rounded letters and this is what we are told from childhood. The common usage for tamil script in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka is Vatteluthu or rounded writing. Technically it is not, is a distinction made by experts. May the article needs to clarify that. Taprobanus (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, and when I first worked on the article on Tamil language, the infobox we put in called the current script "vattelutthu". But even in Tamil, technical / scholarly writers are very clear that vattelutthu is only used for the pre-Pallava script. Perhaps the article on vattelutthu can clarify this, if we can find a reliable source that describes the common usage. -- Arvind (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

@Taprobanus - Have you interviewed every single common "Tamil man" if he was told that Tamil letters are rounded? If the Tamil script are not rounded letters then, are they square? Wiki Raja (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

@Arvind - Hi Arvind, thanks for your input on this issue. It has been noticed that there has been a lot of promoting of Sankritization and Aryanization of almost everything in Dravidian cultures. True, there may be some Sanskrit influences in some of the languages (with Tamil having the least). If there is Arya-elutthu, is there a Dravidalutthu too.. lol :)? Agreed, let us work together citing our referenced sources on the Vatteluttu page. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see a clear Aryan/Sanskrit dichotomy when examining Tamil scripts, the two languages are quite intertwined. What is evident is that the Grantha script (the "Aryan" script as some term it) was the basis of SE Asian language scripts (Thai being a good example [21]). I would say I tend to agree with Arvind on this, that we should merely present academic consensus on the subject.Pectore^talk 04:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sanskrit and Tamil languages are not intertwined (or should I say in my words, perverted through Sanskrit). Grantha was created to accommodate foreign Sanskrit words back when India never existed and when holy Buddhist and Brahmin works were introduced. Also, there is a difference between scripts and spoken language. Tamil and Sanskrit are two different mother languages, while Tamil and Sanskrit scripts are both different. The categorization of the Indo-Aryan scripts of North India is called Devanagiri (the vertical scripts with the bar over it). So, my question is, if there is a name for the North Indian scripts, what is the name of the category of South Indian curvey scripts (including those of SE Asia)? Anyways, I support going off of academic sources and will be willing work with you and Arvind on this, if you guys like. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe me it was a shock to me when I found out that current Tamil script is a modified version of Grantha and not Vateluthu. Devanagiri is a name for only a few north Indian scripts, not all. Gujarati, Punjabi, Orriya along with Urdu do not use Devanagiri. Anyway the pre Brahmi potentially native Tamil or pre Tamil writing of South India is called Pre-Brahmi graffiti. It is found independently as along with Brahmi and Tamil Brahmi writing in potsherds and seals in South India and Sri Lanka at least 2500 -3000 year old digs. There must some academic publications on pre-Brahmi Graffiti that we should be able to write about one day in Wikipedia. Taprobanus (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did the name Pre-Brahmi "graffiti" come from? Who ever coined that term must have thought that Tamils had no form of writing other than aping other people's writing, perhaps spraypainting graffitti on the walls of caves. There were some European scholars who were genuine in their studies of Tamil and other Dravidian cultures, while others took a more racist Nazi approach. The reason could be of this attitude by sections of the European communities is that Dravidians have African features, while the Indo-Aryans of North India had European or Middle Eastern features. James Fergusson makes this clear in his 'HIstory of Indian & Eastern Architecture where he states that Dravidian architecture happened by accident! Wiki Raja (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wiki Raja. Devanagiri is a specific script, not a category of scripts. The script is used for Sanskrit and Nepali and - in the last two centuries - for Hindi (eliminating rivals such as Kaithi and Marathi (replacing the Modi script). In the 20th century, it's also begun to be used to write a few other languages that didn't have scripts earlier. But the term Devanagiri only applies to that one script - it is never used in relation to the Bengali and Punjabi scripts, or the related scripts of other North Indian languages. There is actually no generic name for the category of vertical scripts with a bar over them. Similarly, there is no generic name for the curved scripts of Southern India.

Anyway, the articles relating to these scripts definitely need attention, so I'm happy to collaborate on improving them using academic sources. -- Arvind (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Could anyone build a picture without copyright issues?

I'm not much familiar with this. Please help. Thanks. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not that easy, see English people, German people, Berbers and even Sri Lankan Tamil people as an example. Taprobanus (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please review the new picture. AFAIK there is no copyright problem anymore. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful attempt, only that someone may say that MGR is not Tamil and that he is Malayalee by ancestry. May bewe can replace that with an uncontroversal Tamil persons pic ? Just a suggestion. Taprobanus (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Very reasonable thoughts. I replaced him with Annadurai. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

But the pic is stil MGR ? Taprobanus (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm viewing Annadurai. Maybe you have to refresh or delete cache in your browser? --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks, this should leve this thorny issue for a while. Only thing is people will how about X versus Y, we should simply come up with a plan to answer that question. Please stay on this issue in this article for a while. There are number of solutions such rotations etc. Taprobanus (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

ANNADURAI is a TELUGU an not Tamil.His mother was TELUGU widow with Child ANNA who married a Tamil man.Anna doesn't deserve a place inthe disply pic.Please replace with KAAMARASAR.I think that APJ.ABdul Kalam has got an ARAB ancestry.

M.S. Subalakshmi was a ARYAN woman but a Tamil speaker.She refused to sing Tamil invocation song of the TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT.She deserves a place in HALL OF INDIANS and not HALL OF TAMILS.Paarppanar/Brahmins are ARYANS and not DRAVIDANS.Same applies to Vishwanatahn Anand and Ramanujam

I doubt the intentions of not having a clear and close up photo of M.I.A though there are hell lot of M.I.A's gorgeous photos in net (arun1paladinArun1paladin (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Someone please fix this code:

File:TamilFolkArtistseFuneral.jpg

Folk artists performing at a funeral Video clip (file info) — Watch in browser (media help)

It doesn't show the video properly. Thanks, --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone had changed the filename to point to a nonexistent file. Thanks for spotting it. -- Arvind (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be the article semi-protected? Seems to be alot of problems evolved in the past few weeks, especially the picture issue. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

what is with a funeral video being touted as a "folk" song? there are plenty of other suitable, neutral folk forms in tamil nadu. it is like saying that a popular western music form is lamenting hymns... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.170.175 (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Atheist Movement

If religion is to be mentioned in the introduction, then a statement about atheism or atheism movement in the Tamil society should be also noted. Particularly in Tamil society, where atheism played an important role in the Dravida and Rationalist philosophy. At least two chief ministers of Tamilnadu are from this root. If Janis can be mentioned (another small minority) in the introduction, surely atheism can be noted as well. Ex: A notable portion of the Tamil population adheres to strict rationalist and atheist irreligious framework. --Natkeeran (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure religion belongs in the lead. I'd be in favour of removing it altogether. A sentence along the lines you've suggested should definitely be inserted into the section on "religion", though. -- Arvind (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Religion need not be in the lead. But, if mentioed then a note about Atheism should be there as well. --Natkeeran (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do go ahead and change the article. My preference is to remove religion from the introduction, and to add a sentence on atheism / rationalism in the "Religion" section, but either option is fine by me. -- Arvind (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hindus, Christians and Muslims account for 99.5% of the population. There is no need to have a 2nd and 3rd sentence in the introduction talking about the religious persuasions of 0.5% of the population. This should go into the section on religion and should also be kept out of the top right religion panel. Conciseness and materiality need to be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.96.91 (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What are the sources for the data. Did it take into account the Tamil populate across the world. This article has religious bias. --70.50.143.205 (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Atheism, humanism, agnosticism and so forth aren't religions so shouldn't be listed as such. Mention them by all means if you have sources, but don't put them in lists of religions etc. --ascorbic (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

can change heading to == worldviews == or == beliefs ==. Atheism is not a religion, but nevertheless, it is a religious stance (the rejection of higher beings)Jasy jatere (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a whole different kettle of fish. You'd then need to add stuff about all kinds of beliefs unrelated to religion. You might as well add communism or ecologism! I'd suggest leaving the section as Religion, and if you can find sources to cite about the numbers of atheists etc, then add them, but not in the context of a list of religions. Likewise, leave it off the infobox. --ascorbic (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

that is a non-sequitur. Inclusion of philosophical worldview does not entail inclusion of political worldview. Religion_in_X articles furthemore often have a section on secularism/atheism/agnosticism, but rarely sections on communism or ecologism. I am not familiar with this aspect of Tamil culture, so I have no stakes in the factual accuracy of the claims, I just wanted to point out the logical possibility. Jasy jatere (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I equally have no stake or particular interest in the accuracy of the claims. The point I was making was that you were suggesting arbitrarily widening the scope of the section to include those "world views" when there are as yet no sources to indicate how important or relevant they are. --ascorbic (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a reference, which I hope is good enough to put this issue to rest. -- Arvind (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Arvind. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A pleasure. That article has a lot of fairly interesting information about "folk Hinduism" amongst Tamils, a good bit of which was news to me. -- Arvind (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandimalaiyasamy and Vandimalaichiamman in lying posture

Was that about the religion that exists among the rural folks post syncretisation? I've had some exposure to ongoing subsumption of this into "mainstream Hinduism". For example, the gods in the picture used to be characteristically idolised in a flat posture. These days, when such temples are renovated, they're being made into erect stone-made idols sculpted per Agama instructions. Typically, this change is accompanied by installing a Vinayagar idol and Navagraha idols. Citing their presence, animal sacrifices are also stopped much to the chagrin of non-veg eaters looking forward to the amman kodai. :-) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 16:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is from before Sanskritisation of popular Hinduism really got underway in rural Tamil Nadu, actually. If you still use your Yahoo address, I'll send it on to you next week. Fascinating about the agamisation of village gods. There used to be a couple of standing stones not too far from my mother's village, which I suspect were originally nadukkals. When the neighbouring Siva temple was being renovated, these stones were basically "co-opted" into the temple's Agamic rites as sivalingams. -- Arvind (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of overseas tamils from singapore,malaysia or reunion

Hi,I am an overseas tamilian from singapore.Thank you for the inclusion of mia in the list of famous people.I just feel that the inclusion of a famous tamil from parts of malaysia,singapore or reunion would be nice to give the artice a broader outlook.Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumaran59 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Brahmins

Brahmins are not Tamils right. The Iyers and Iyengars are only Tamil-speakers. Why then is M.S. Subbulakshmi mentioned on this page? Enlighten me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.41.221 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Tamils as a full functioning ethnicity in India are composed of all varnas. The Brahmins are Tamil, and this is only disputed by Dravidian nationalist lunatics. Even in Sri Lanka (where arguably Tamil culture is purer than Tamil Nadu), Brahmins are part and parcel of the Tamil race.Pectore^talk 05:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes this comment particularly ironic is that MS herself was from a vellala family (as were many leading female musicians of her generation). She may have married a Brahmin, but she wasn't one herself. So our anonymous friend's comment should tell you something about just how much those who go about spouting casteist rubbish actually know. -- Arvind (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's quite funny, Arvind. I did not know that either, but its evident ignorant people certainly lack attention to detail and a sense of irony, among other things.Pectore^talk 00:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Arvind, I didn't know that. So much for stereotyping. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 02:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

50 years from one may question why A R Rahman is a Tamil but he too was born in a Vellala family would lost on their mind as well:)))Taprobanus (talk)

Brahmins are not Tamils.Tamils went to Malaysia 2 centuries ago.Now many of them speak English at home.They speak Malay too.But does that make them Malays?Brahmins may speak Tamil at home.But the language they respect the most is sanskrit.Moreover their version of hinduism is very different from the versions of Tamils.They try to project their sanskrit verions,veda,gita as the solre version of hinduism (arun1paladin117.193.193.217 (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

We cannot remove any person from any community from the infobox just because you have some grudge against the community. Find more strong reasons to support your stand. Else, your demand will be brushed aside as just another instance of xenophobia and anti-Brahmin propaganda.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 14:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, every so often this has to come up. -SpacemanSpiff 08:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Why should SpacemanSpiff "sigh" over what to Brahmins like us who happen to speak Tamil language is a non-issue? If the article is going to include S Ramanujam, V Anand, MS Subbulakshmi, then it must also take pains to point out the distinct status of Tamil brahmins. Otherwise the article should be renamed " DMK Dravidian definition of Tamils". Every time I try to make the emendation, it is reversed by mono-tracks like SpacemanSpiff and his ilk, who think they and they alone know what it means to be Tamil. By the way, no Sivaji Ganesan, no Subramania Bharati, no Ilayaraja, no Kannadasan (REPEAT: NO Kannadasan!!!) Instead there is Rehman and MIA. And these amateurs claim to represent Tamil identity - what a set of shallow hypocrites! - Crescat100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crescat100 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Every sub-group of every other sub-group considers itself "distinct". So how distinct are they really that they need to be specially mentioned in the lead of this article? Get real! And about your complaint about who should and should not be included in the image gallery, everyone would like to include people they admire. That is just not done on Wikipedia. A well established practice on ethnicity related articles is to include people whom global audience can easily relate to. A.R Rehman may not be more important than Ilayaraja to most Tamils, but globaly he is more well know. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, my emendations have been erased by the spineless, weak-kneed contributors to this so-called "Tamil" forum. So I will say again - thank you for being so "real" D'Souza, and ignoring the Tamil speaking brahmins who are ethnically different from Dravidians though they speak Tamil (Tamil incidentally is a linguistic and NOT an ethnic term) - thanks also to all the spineless contributors here who manage to keep it so "real" by omitting Kamban, Ilango Adigal, Bharatidasan, Mahendravarman, Narasimhavarman, and Sekkilar in favor of Rehman and MIA - you are so hip Dravidaputras, even when you so weakly edit me out! - Crescat100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.198.184 (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Tamils in Australia/ New Zealand

Recently this sentence was added to the lede of the article:

Tamils were a seafaring people, sailing from South Asia to as wide as New Zealand, evidenced by the Tamil bell

with citations:

• Nancy Swarbrick. 'Sri Lankans', Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 4-Mar-09.
• Lowie, Robert H. (1934). American Anthropologist. Berkeley: University of California. p. 322

The first source does make a more hedged version of the claim, but it is very brief. I am not clear whther the second source refrs to a book or a journal and haven't ben able to locate it. I have searched JSTOR cursorily for articles on Tamil + Australia and Tamil + New Zealand, and haven't found anything yet. Without additional and more detailed sources, I think this claim is undue in the article, and certainly in the lede. So I have removed it for now. Can other editors knowledgeable in the area comment whether this is something worth adding and discussing in the article, and help with sources ? Abecedare (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I found the AA citation. It refers to Robert H. Lowie, Some Moot Problems in Social Organization, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1934), pp. 321-330 The article is a commentary of 2 papers (published by Loeb and Olson respectively) a year earlier, and this is all that the article has to say about Tamils

Intercourse between India and Indonesia is a matter of documentary record. Dr Loeb meritoriously adds to the evidence by registering Tamil kinship terms in Sumatra and Mentawei and even in Fiji. This recalls the Tamil bell found in New Zealand in the early days of European settlement. What, however, does all this prove? Connection, assuredly, if philologists accept the linguistic proof. But not what Dr Loeb imagines, viz., that cross-cousin marriage, etc., must also have come from the same source as the terms.

That does not help us since it says nothing about Tamil people sailing to or even trading with New Zealand. We'll need to look further for relevant sources. Abecedare (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's forget New Zealand for now. Most sources agree, that the Tamil people had contact with many parts in the world, including for instance the Romans. I remember that a Pandyan king sent an ambassador to Julius Caesar and there has been also a connection with the old Greece many millenia ago. But the fact, that Tamils were one of the greatest sea farer nationalities of Asia besides the Chinese and Arabs should have its space in the article, maybe in a dedicated section, if not in the lede. I will try to provide all kind of sources for this purpose.--Misssss (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Tamil bell is irrelevant to this - the sources say it's around 500 years old, which makes it much younger than the imperial period. As far as seafaring during the imperial period goes, the article, in the History section, already mentions the Pandiyan embassies to Rome, the trading links with classical Rome and later with East and South-east Asia, the conflict with Srivijaya and the Chola navy. I think that's a fairly substantial discussion of our maritime connections, but obviously, if you think points have been missed out that's something that needs addressing. -- Arvind (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Pallavas are tamilians

No one has so far been able to prove the origin of pallavas. There is a high possibility that pallavas are tamilians. The pallavas were just sanskritized since they served as vassals of mauryas ( maurya empire extended till present day andhra ). The pallavas had a standing army of 150, 000 and it would have been hard to create such a huge army if they were not tamilians. saying the pallavas as not tamilians is an attempt by people to hide the glorious past of the tamilians as well as south indians. It is a well know fact that south indians are a great warrior race. Pallavs would be either the thevars, nadars, maravars, vanniyars, konars or nairs. The descendants of the pallavsa are still living in tamilnadu and every one speaks tamil in tamilnadu. I kindly request to mention that pallavas were tamilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.69.52 (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Image

The picture has too many brahamins in it with Ramanujam, Viswantha Anand, MS Subulakshmi. As per the achivements Viswanatha Anand or MS subulakshmi cannot be considered a reat human achievement compared to Mayalsami Annadurai achievement as Chandrayan project director or Dhanraj Pillay achivement in representing the country for Hockey as captain.

Sigh! rather than allocating space by caste, the pics have been chosen for various fields and popularity. scientific contributions are represented by ramanujam and kalam(who imo are > dr annadurai) and v. anand (again who is a better rep for TN sports than pillay) for sports. By your count, the picture has too many muslims in it also. There are 3 music related people in the 9 pictures. we could do with one more literature figure instead (a writer perhaps. Bharathi?). --Sodabottle (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically speaking, this is always going to be difficult to fit in the infobox, nine images is a bit much already. I think we probably need to have a few images on rotation. No one from Category:Tamil Nobel laureates (don't know why Venkatraman Ramakrishnan isn't included in that) is under-represented, literature is sorely under-represented, not just Tamil writers like Bharati and Bharatidasan but also English writers including the likes of R. K. Narayan etc. As for sportspersons, Anand is the best representative followed by Muralitharan. -SpacemanSpiff 01:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, IMO the images should include majorly (not solely) Tamils who contributed to mankind as such and not just people who contributed to Tamils or Tamil languages alone. No offence meant here. But if this is an article for non-Tamils to read on Tamils, then what more is better than making sure the pictures grab attention. May be we can have prominent figures but with a bit of Tamilistic (like that’s a word!) touch in it. For example on aram (eg. philosopher like Thiruvalluvar), and on porul (Shiv Nadar/Kalanithi Maran) [I can’t think of anything related to inbam - but great minds here can surely think of one]. Then move on to Iyal (Science-Kalam/Ramanujam), Isai (Illayaraja/Rahman) and Naadakam (Kamal Hassan may be). Something in this line might help. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is why I preferred a non-iconic common people image. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Mosque image

Why has the image of Ervadi mosque has got URDU/ARABIC trst and not Tamild or English texts on it?What has Urdu or Arabic got to do with is article about Tamils in English —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.198.88 (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no urdu/arabic script in the ervadi image. what are you talking about?--Sodabottle (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

performing arts

this section has many problems. I endeavor to enlist them just as well I could.

0. the funeral 'folk' art video is misleading to say the least. probably the reader would think death is where the tamil folk art is . if that indeed the case, provide citations. please remove it or add media from more "common" folks forms with citations..

1. why bring the carnatic/hindustani music into tamil music article? that carnatic music has talas or ragams has no place in tamil music article _unless_ you establish that tamil music also has these or similar notions and one could _possibly_ have been derived from other. so, please include only those statements that compare carnatic/hindustani _against_ tamil music, not statements comparing them between.

2. there are good many of uncited claims. I am trying to flag them. please try findings citations or remove them.

3. constant reverts without explicit/proper citations.

will add as I read further..

117.254.170.175 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

For point no 1, nowhere it is claimed tamil folk art is exclusively funeral art. It is more a case of image/media availability. If you have properly licenced videos/photos of karakattam/oyil kummi/poikal kudhirai please upload them, we can replace this video. Until then, any image/video is better than no video/image. (Oppari and thappattam are popular tamil folk forms, why deny their place?)--Sodabottle (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, am _not_ denying anything. It is just that why stress a particular form of music when you have things that are more popular? I "believe" Gana songs are more popular but I wouldn'd add a video because I do not have a data to substantiate it. Unless you have data/citation to show that Oppari is indeed one of the most popular forms of folk music, it is better to leave the video out. Please corroborate your "POV" / "OR". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.154.29 (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Why Murali and not M.I.A

M.I.A represents the real Eelam Tamils and their political cause but why has her photo been replace with Muthaiyah Muralitharan ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.214.155 (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

M.I.A is seen as the face of Tamils from Eelam[Sinhala: Sri Lanka].She is both a figure both in politics and entertainment.Muralitharan can hardly speak Tamil and he doesn't represent the Tamils in Sri Lanka but the government of SL [[[Special:Contributions/117.193.202.179|117.193.202.179]] (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)arun1paladin]