Talk:Tamil Muslim

Orphaned references in Tamil Muslim

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

Reference named "population":

• From Tamil people: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka, Population by Ethnicity according to District (PDF), statistics.gov.lk, retrieved 3 May 2007
• From Minorities in Greece: "(875 KB) 2001 Census" (PDF). National Statistical Service of Greece (ΕΣΥΕ) (in Greek). www.statistics.gr. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-09-29. Retrieved 2007-10-30.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic origins of Sri Lankan Moors

First of all Islam is not an ethnic group.Muslims are classified on the basis of the language they speak, it is not that Muslims in China or Alaska have any thing to do with being descendants of Arabs in order to follow Islam.Though Indonesians have a predominant Muslim community, they are called as Indonesians by the traditions and culture they follow, same goes for those in Malaysiya who are called Malays by the language they speak.Muslims in Myanmar are called as Rohingyas or Cholias based on their East Indian or Tamil origins.

Why is it that those Muslims in Sri Lanka who follow Islam and speak Tamil or Arwi(which is simply a dialect) cannot be classified as Tamil Muslims?

The term 'Tamil Muslim' is an abstract term but more or less refers to those who are Muslims having Tamil lineage and traditions.The Sri Lankan Moors, like you said do not feature in your government statistics as Tamils, but the motive behind that agenda was highly suspected by the world community in the pre-war times.

The reason why they do not feature as Tamils is because thay are not Tamil. The Vast majority of them are Arab descendants. They have no Tamil lineage, except for the Indian Moors who are grouped with the Sri Lankan Moors. I'm not sure where you are claiming that motive from.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The Sri Lankan Moors' traditions are composite and are entirely different from the Muslims of Arabian peninsula whom you relate them to with.Their culture and practices are closest only to those of the broader Muslim community living in Tamil Nadu, Kerala etc.

Their cuisine and food habits, architecture(mosques), funeral rites all are only identifiable with Tamil Muslims, rather than any other Muslim community in the globe.

It cannot be a meer co-incidence that the Muslims of Tamil Nadu in India and Sri Lanka share the same lingua franca,cuisine and more cultural habits. The only logical conclusion is that the first few Muslims in Sri Lanka indeed must have landed from Tamil Nadu for which we do have records as any Tamil Muslim family from Kayalpatnam-kilakarai belt would be able to testify. For ages, Muslim ancestors from Tamil Nadu have been trading along the coast of Sri Lanka right across the Batticaloa regions. along the coast of Sri Lanka right across the Batticaloa regions.

Do you have any evidence for this, or is this your original research??--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The Moors in Sri Lanka neither possess any Arab tradition nor there exists any Sinhalese Islam culture to be brashly generalized as an assimilated community.Sri Lankan moors have their Koran written in Tamil, are mainly educated in Tamil, prayers are recited across in Tamil, and over 80% of them reside in the historically Tamil inhibited North and East more than any other part of Sri Lanka.

The reason is Sri Lankan Moors have lived mostly around Tamils in Sri Lanka and have therefore assimilated with while losing some of there own traditions. That is what assimilation is. Muslims in France speak French, Tamils in France speak French, they have all assimilated, that is what assimilation is, however that does not make them Tamil.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Also there appears to be no apparent difference or feature to identify between those Arabian Muslims or Indian origin Muslims as some fellow-editors opposed to the argument mention.If so please present us with studies which suggests that the majority of the Moors follow a culture more Arabic than Tamilized.Till then, the older version can stay as it had been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppercholride (talk • contribs) 09:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you claiming that all Muslims in Sri Lanka speak Tamil and are therefore Tamil or just the Sri Lankan Moors?--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

* The term Moor itself is an abstract term used to more or less refer all Muslims of the island, and since the majority of the moors are culturally and linguistically connected to the Tamil Muslims elsewhere more than their Arabian counterparts who your version cites them to be their ancestors.Muslims in Malaysia who also have ancestry from Arab trade in the pre-Islamic history of the country are known as Malays based on the language and culture they follow today, same way the Moors(or to be more precise the majority of the Moors) are identifiable as among the Tamil Muslim community rather than Arabic or Turkish and hence Tamil Muslim. --CuCl2 13:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not true! The term Moor Only refers to Sri Lankan Moors. There are many other and different groups of Muslims in Sri Lanka:

• Sri Lankan Malays
• Sri Lanka Kaffirs
• Pakistanis in Sri Lanka
• Maldivians in Sri Lanka etc.

I think we should get that clear.

Who says Sri Lankan Moors are culturally and linguistically connected to the Tamil Muslims elsewhere more than their Arabian counterparts? Can you show me some evidence?

The only group of people that fits what you are saying are the Indian Moors. Which are Indians from the Tamil regions in India who are Muslim and settled in Sri Lanka. see Indians in Sri Lanka and this. You have to realize that there are two different groups called the Moors.

Do you understand?--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

* The majority of the Sri Lankan Moors are Tamil-speaking irrespective of their highly disputed ethnic origins.I think we are in agreement upon that.

* Now as I said before, Islam is no ethnic group.It is a religion.Followers of Islam are Muslims rather a separate ethnic group. Indian Moors have no connection here, moreover I doubt the validity of such a term.In the article Quote Tamil Muslims are identifiable by a common language and religion. Otherwise, they belong to multiple ethnicities such as Dravidian, Aryan, Oriental, Malay, Semitic, Turkish, Arabic, Moorish, et al.

* Sri Lankan Moors use Tamil/Arwi as their primary language, and follow all the customs unique to only Tamil Muslims in India and Malaysia.

* Quote"Who says Sri Lankan Moors are culturally and linguistically connected to the Tamil Muslims elsewhere more than their Arabian counterparts? Can you show me some evidence?"Who says Sri Lankan moors are NOT connected to Tamil Muslims elsewhere?Especially when their language,Koranic text, prayer calls, cuisine and funeral rites are almost the same.

* Tamil again is a language, and those who speak Tamil as their native language are all Tamil People. Only in Sri Lanka, are Moors viewed as a separate distinct group from Tamils even though they speak the same language as Tamils.That is no ground to dispute/hijack the argument here.

* If you are opposed to SL Moors being classified as Tamil Muslims, what else linguistic community would you classify them belonging to.Malay, Arabic or Maldivian? Explain this, we'll talk further.--CuCl2 14:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Tamil is an ethnicity, a race of people, and the language is derived from the race, not the other way around. Japanese people speak Japanese, French people speak French, English people speak English, Tamil people speak Tamil and Arab people speak Arabic. It is the race that defines the language. If I am American and I speak Tamil that does not make me Tamil, it makes me an American that speaks Tamil. If I am a Japanese person born and raised in France and I only speak French that does not make me French, that makes me a Japanese person who speaks French. If I am an Arab, who is also a Muslim, born and raised and living in Sri Lanka and I speak Tamil instead of Arabic, that does not make me Tamil. That makes an Arab who is born in Sri Lanka and speaks Tamil. The Language one speaks does not change ones ethnicity or race.--Blackknight12 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Muslim immigrants to Sweden are considered as Swedish. American is a nationality and not a race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.K.Dan (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Debating on this is nowhere going to be connected with the real argument we are having but still let me clarify;A language does not necessarily mean an ethnicity.French and English evolved after the age of Buddha.So what would you call the fathers of the French-speakers and English-speakers then?Why do Sri Lankan Moors use Tamil as their primary language and used Arwi like TN Muslims if they were completely Arabic or Malays.Ethnicity is a study of genes.Dravidian or Aryan are a race, Tamil and Sinhalese are those who speak that language as their mother tongue and Muslims or Angelicans are those who worship a particular faith. Muslims in Arabia do not consider Muslims in Sri Lanka as the members of their own race. The English do not consider your Burger community as one of theirs if race as you claim evolved from a language.The whole of Europe has civilizations of almost the same race but all of them do not speak the same language or share a common culture.And American is a nationality, not a race.What happens if a Buddhist-Sinhalese converts to a Muslim?What would you call him?This is some thing for me to hear.Anyway, as I mentioned earlier this is irrelevant to our discussion.Tamil Muslims are identifiable by a common language and religion irrespective of their ethnicity.--CuCl2 15:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Your over complicating things, but with your last sentence I think we can get somewhere. If a Sinhalese Buddhist converts to Islam that person becomes a Sinhalese who is a follower of Islam, or a Sinhalese Muslim. Only the religion has changed there which does not apply here.

As you claimed "Tamil Muslims are identifiable by a common language and religion irrespective of their ethnicity", however the article clearly states in its opening sentence - Tamil Muslims (Tamil: தமிழ் இஸ்லாமியர்கள், tamiḻ islamiyarkaḷ ?) are Tamil people with Islam as their religion. Sri Lankan Moors are not Tamil by ethnicity, which you have said is irrelevant. For you information your should probably also see this.--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity/Race is a highly corrosive term in modern days.Both sides may have sources

to project but none of them are verifiable or answerable cause racial evolution is a thing of continuous past/present and future(One race mixes with another and all that). I was just asking what would you call a Sinhalese convert to Islam when the term Moor in your country has no proper definition and vaguely represents all Muslims of your island.As it stands the term Sinhalese Muslim you used here as the convert must be called defines an Islam practicing person who speaks Sinhalese.Same way the Muslims who practice Islam and speak Tamil should be equated to Tamil Muslim as well never mind ethnic constraints.Because if you were to look at Tamil or Sinhalese as an ethnic community rather a language, then you must classify the Moors on a further basis like Vedda Muslim(supposing the person had a Vedda origin) or Muslim Burgher or Malay Muslims etc which you can see is highly awkward and improbable.In the Sri Lankan Moor wiki, it is stated that Arab traders settled in, married local Tamil women and their descendants are what they are today.So it is disputed that SL Moors are exclusively Arabic in ancestry, which is what I said irrelevant here.

Making myself clear and understandable, the Tamil in the Tamil Muslim refers to the Tamil language here and not Tamil ethnicity.This is clearly mentioned in the article.Please do not formulate upon this using ethnic and racial theories like the Sri Lankan Moor wiki, which is the least concerned here.This article deals with Tamil-speaking Muslim community and not a Muslim based Tamil community.Your sure welcome to present your opinions if a page such as Muslim Tamil was created and defined your Moor community with it.If one thing that would help, is you presenting the actual no. of Tamil speakers(and Sinhalese speaking too) in the Moor community, the figure 1.6 to 2 million is purely on a geographic context(i.e Muslims in the North-East areas). Only the Tamil speaking Muslim community figures is required here and the rest(like those in the central highlands) can be eliminated.You can sure help in providing with a reliable source as such and then perhaps we can remove the factual misconceptions that surround this type of article.--CuCl2 17:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Blacknight12 asked me to comment here, as I have performed administrative interventions on a number of articles related to Sri Lanaka. I have no opinion whatsoever about the underlying debate. However, I see a major problem in the above discussion. Copperchloride, Blacknight has repeatedly asked you for reliable sources; your only response to this has been to give more argumentation, and, at one point, to obfuscate the question by saying there are multiple sources on both sides. As a new user, perhaps you are unaware of how Wikpedia works, but we do not determine the content of pages by arguing about the underlying "facts" of subjects. Rather, all we do is determine what reliable sources have said, summarize those sources with needed context, and present that information in our articles. When the information in the sources is in conflict, we present all sides with appropriate weight. We do not attempt to determine which side is correct. So, to continue this dialogue, you need to provide reliable sources that support your claims. Should you be unwilling or unable to do so, your positions and arguments have no merit here. In the meantime, both of you should stop edit warring on this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Qwryxian, Firstly I'd like to clarify that this is an article that bears no relation to Sri Lanka.And Within the scope of the article^, it is very clearly stated that Tamil Muslims are identifiable by a common language and religion. Otherwise, they belong to multiple ethnicities such as Dravidian, Aryan, Oriental, Malay, Semitic, Turkish, Arabic, Moorish, et al.

Now such Muslim communities exist in different parts of the world, such as Malaysia, Burma, Hong Kong, Singapore etc.Now, The majority of the Sri Lankan Moors in Sri Lanka use Tamil as their primary language, but their exact numbers are not known due to SL Government regarding both the Tamil-speakers and Sinhalese-speakers as a same community.So at least of 1.6 million Tamil-speaking Muslims live in Sri Lanka on the basis of where they currently live(North&East), and it is Blackknight12 who have to provide a source to state otherwise since at the moment there remains no census carried out and nobody, not just me can provide a Reliable Source.User Blackknight12 very well knows that, and thats why I'am asking him to provide a counter-source if he finds my argument so much flawed.

Now my argument done, I'd like to convey why this whole thing took so long.The term Tamil Muslim here is basically referring to a Tamil-speaking Islam following community and Sri Lankan Moors or at least most of them use Tamil as their primary language as mentioned in the article itself.So I suppose we have no problems with having that population being a part of the broader Tamil speaking Muslim community.The dispute is that User Blackknight12 interprets the word Tamil in Tamil Muslim as an ethnic group against as a language(Tamil language) we are referring to here.The origins of the SL Muslims are highly vague, though many believe they are only composed of those who come from Arabian descendants, but the truth is the term refers to almost all the Muslim population in that country, including local converts, South Indian migration, post 19th century immigration etc.This is the only valid reference that exists in the article's webpage^. Though this describes(not on any concrete grounds) of the different types of Muslim immigration to the island, nowhere does it gives the exact number of each type of Immigrants today.This is something acknowledged by Blackknight12 in his talk page very early where we agreed upon Muslims have become highly assimilated in Sri Lanka and hence it is easier to identify them by language and traditions rather than the ancestry and ethnicity.Even then it is stated in that source that The Sri Lankan Moors make up 93 percent of the Muslim population and 7 percent of the total population of the country (1,046,926 people in 1981). They trace their ancestry to Arab traders who moved to southern India and Sri Lanka some time between the eighth and fifteenth centuries, adopted the Tamil language that was the common language of Indian Ocean trade, and settled permanently in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan Moors lived primarily in coastal trading and agricultural communities, preserving their Islamic cultural heritage while adopting many southern Asian customs. More importantly it is clearly given that The language of the Sri Lankan Moors is Tamil, or a type of "Arabic Tamil" that contains a large number of Arabic words. fully qualifying them to fit into the Tamil Muslim category as Arwi or the Arabic Tamil was originated in Tamil Nadu and is currently common to Muslims in both South India and Sri Lanka.Further it is stated that the Arabic Traders settled into South India/Sri lanka married local Tamil women and their descendants are more or less the constituents of the Sri lankan Moor population.Hence User Blackknight12 by no means, can remove this even on ethnic grounds unless he can prove that they have exclusively Arab lineage and then he should add them to Arabs/Arab Muslims first before asking me to remove their reference here.Again I'd like to comment Blackknight12's position on this article is highly vague and there are hardly much reliable sources to count on, it was not like he presented with any.I have not engaged in edit warring, just reverted back to the existing version which Blackknight12 had modified without solid circumstance or source to go with(safe to say it was his personal opinion and I've shared mine in this talk).It was he who intends to modify, and he is the one who must convince us all that he's making a constructive edit.-CuCl2 05:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The solution to unsourced claims is simple: remove them. If you're left with a 2 line article, that's better than a bunch of unsourced speculation. Then, you can work together to rebuild a functional, verified article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

So I hope we have come to a solution here.This article is poorly written, I know.Very meager and basic about a very significant community.I will try to contribute some other time to expand and improve many ill-conceived sections.But the argument was to have the Tamil-speaking Muslims in Sri Lanka to be added here and the whole rift was about just that.Glad that its over.One must expand the article focusing on the Muslim culture in Tamil Nadu first by referring to the following articles:

• The Arwi Language
• Ervadi
• Nagore
• Karaikal
• Goripalayam Durgah
• Sulthan Alauddin Badusha
• Sulthan Shamsuddin Badusha
• Munshi Abdullah(Malaysia)
• Thiruppanandal etc

all of who/which had a significant influence over the Tamil Muslim culture that evolved in the subcontinent that are shared by their counterparts in Sri Lanka, Malaysia etc. Coming back to the dispute(hoping that its over), It would be only helpful if someone can give an accurate info on how many Muslims in Sri Lanka irrespective of their ethnicity speak Tamil.--CuCl2 09:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

What is this?I thought we had come to an agreement about Tamil-speaking Sri Lankan Moors can be added here.So why place the tag right next to the Sri Lankan flag?Are you saying NOW that the Sri lankan Moors are not Tamil speakers?

Moors today use Tamil as their primary language with influence from Arabic.

Reverting your edit again.I have added the citation tag to the 1.8 million people which is the disputed figure.There are Tamil-speaking Muslims in Sri Lanka, so do not place the tag within the infobox please.And please exactly specify for what purpose you are placing a tag like that and what citation your asking in wiki.--CuCl2 09:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that you now understand that articles here on wikipedia need ist content to be properly cited and factual without any bias, otherwise it will be deleted, or dont you? I didnt agree to anything, you have not provided any reliable sources of information or statistics and you are just assuming that the 1.6 - 2 million or that the average Sri Lankan Moor speaks Tamil natively. You your self had admitted there was a lack of information on the number yet you still keep false information there, that is why I have tagged it, which shall be deleted soon if a reliable citation is not added. I am again telling you this article is about "Tamil people with Islam as their religion" and again telling you Sri Lankan Moors are not Tamil people just because the speak the language!--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because ONLY YOU view it as Tamil people with Islam as their religion, it does not make it a basis to judge it the same.It is the 4th time Im bringing it to your reference that the term as mentioned in the article is used for Muslims who speak Tamil irrespective of their ethnicity.Either you find a source that specifies the number of Tamil speaking Muslims in your country or prove that they all speak Arabic or Sinhalese.That is the only ground on which you can ask for citation or remove that content.

The lack of number does not conceal that the majority of the Moors are Tamil-speaking.Hence they are added here like the Muslims in Tamil Nadu and Malaysia.1.6-2 million is an assumption alright because there is no source to prove it, but at the same time you have no source to disprove it either and hence your just fooling around if you are going to keep asking for citation every time in the infobox when its very apparent that the majority of the Moors are Tamil-speakers.

LASTLY this article again is NOT about "Tamil people with Islam as their religion" as it CLEARLY MENTIONS the term irrespective of ethnicity.Its not as if you haven't seen it nor I have not mentioned it many times earlier.One more revert from you using this claim, I'll take this issue to the WP:ANI to sort it out.--CuCl2 10:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

First, a quick apology on my thinking this was about Sri Lanka; I always forget that Tamil has a meaning for both India and Sri Lanka. CuCl2, I have a question: If the article is not about "Tamil people with Islam as their religion"...why is that what the first sentence of the article says? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Eminent personalities

I have removed the entire "Eminent personalities" section, as it directly violates WP:BLP and WP:NLIST. In order to include a living person on any list, we must have verification in the form of a reliable source that 1) the person is important enough to be discussed in prose in the article and 2) the person is a member of this group (i.e., here, that the person is a Tamil Muslim. For cases in which ethnicity and/or religion are involved, the restrictions are even stronger, in that we must have a verifiable source that the person self-identifies as a member of that group. Usually that means that lists of this type should be restricted only to people who have their own Wikipedia articles (to meet requirement #1), and whose articles have a reliable source that verifies the self-identification. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced sections

Much of this article is unsourced. I have removed some of it (stuff like the list of places is unencyclopedic even if sourced), and tagged much of the rest of it. Should sources not be provided in a reasonable amount of time, it should all be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like you to look into Sri Lankan Moors article which has been poorly written almost entirely on somebody's personal bias.If anybody does a bit of time-spent research and remove what is bluff, perhaps it would lead to less confusions in articles like this which is though completely unrelated to ethnicity, but Users tend to hijack/impose it here, citing that poorly written and referenced article.--CuCl2 05:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Moors

In my opinion this article is all about Tamil people who accept Islam as their religion starting from 635AD.As Islam preaches brotherhood between all Muslims,intermarriages between Tamil Muslims and other Muslims from North India and Middle East are somewhat common and all those immigrants were later assimilated into the larger Tamil Muslims of Tamilakam in which for some time includes the Sri Lankan Moors as they were the result of assimilation of Dravidian and Arab people.In fact Sri Lankan Moors adopted some Tamil customs such as wearing kurai,tying Thali,helding alatti ceremony,kudi system and etc.All these bear evidences of the close intercourses that occur between the Tamil Muslims of Tamilakam and Sri Lankan Moors as well as between local Tamil women.Other than that i would like to stress that the migration of Moors to Sri Lanka is not only directly from middle east but also from Tamil Nadu and Kerala in which the local muslim population also migrated to Sri Lanka and fuses with the Moor community.This can be seen in physical appearance of Moors who looks more like Tamils than Arab.Despite all this in Sri lanka, the Moors are listed as separate entity who descend from the arabs for various reasons and it seems that there is a separate Sri Lankan Moor article in wikipedia for that.I think this wiki article which is about Tamil Muslims should only contain the infos regarding the Muslims of Tamilakam and their decendants around the world.Sri Lankan Moors who were classified as Arabian by GOSL statistics do not fit here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan Meifen (talk • contribs)

Your opinion isn't the deciding factor here. If you look at the very first sentence of this article, it is about "Muslims of Tamil descent". What you're talking about is relevant info, but you can't redefine the article to be something that it isn't. More relevantly, if reliable sources use the term "Tamil Muslim" to mean "Muslims of Tamil descent", then that is what our article should be about. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you want to stress here,are you mentioning that there are no Tamil Muslims of Tamil descent or you just plainly pointing that Muslims of Tamilakam were result of admixture of several trading races?It is not clear. For example let take some country in Southeast Asia such as Indonesia or Malaysia. Those countries also since classical time attracts various kind of trader since ancient times. This lead to significant of the native people to mingle with, first Hindu people from South India forming Mongolo-Dravida stock, Chinese then with the Muslims(Arabian,Tamils,Gujarati). The Muslims with Arab and any other ancestry were later assimilated into the larger Islamic Malay race which they constitute now. There are Malays with mixed pakistani or Arabic descend but this do not conclude that Malays descends form those people,it is just their common religion lead to intercourse between those people and later assimilation in the larger islamic Malay race and this is the very same case with Tamil Muslim. Physical appeareance of the majority Tamil Muslims also resemble their Hindu or Christian counterpart while they are also Tamil Muslim who appears to be comparable with North Indian which explains the earlier assimilation process into the Tamil community. All these materials that i posted is not my own imagination as i got those views from some readings--Tan Meifen (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No, all I'm trying to say is that this article is about people who are of Tamil descent who are also Muslim. That is the topic of this article. You cannot unilaterally change that. I'm not saying anything about descent, or physical characteristics. I'm saying that you are attempting to restrict the topic of this article down to something that it was never intended to be. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tamil Muslim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070715202538/http://www.thehindubusinessline.com:80/canvas/2005/05/28/stories/2005052800130300.htm to http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/canvas/2005/05/28/stories/2005052800130300.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tamil Muslim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721154417/http://wam.co.in/wam-presentation/WAM%20Presentation%20Feb%202008.pdf to http://wam.co.in/wam-presentation/WAM%20Presentation%20Feb%202008.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tamil Muslim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002144937/http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2003/01/05/fea24.html to http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2003/01/05/fea24.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110216043703/http://www.indianmuslimobserver.com/2011/01/thousands-of-muslims-converge-at.html to http://www.indianmuslimobserver.com/2011/01/thousands-of-muslims-converge-at.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Reinstatement of poor content

Despite what the anon claimed with this edit, my recent removals were by no means entirely because sources did not support the claims. The anon has given a rationale that does not cover the issues and has incorrectly claimed I was vandalising. - Sitush (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

And an anon has again reinstated the dreadful content that was removed around 5 January. Please read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:BLP and WP:MOS. That's just for starters. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

As other IPs pointed out, the sources in the article are well cited. Visit Connemara Public Library to get hard copy. You removed 42% of the bytes claiming they are "poor content". That's a sign of a jealous vandal (not positive contribution). Live and let live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.17.184 (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Jealous of what? And please read WP:NOTVANDAL. You have yet again reinstated the poor content and clearly do not understand our policies and guidelines. We cannot write anything we wish on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted again. Please read those policies and guidelines to which I referred above. Perhaps it would help if we rebuilt the article one section at a time, discussing here to get consensus first? - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edits don't seem in good faith. You deliberately introduce nonsensical claims like Arwi is a separate language. You removed references & tagged them asking for citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.80.205 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If anything is nonsensical then fix it but do not reinstate 12k of poor content just to fix one statement. - Sitush (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop removing cited content. Poor quality is your POV.182.65.168.64 (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Turning your argument on its head, good quality is your POV. The difference is, I've been here a long time and have gained a certain amount of respect for recognising what is or is not "good". You, seemingly, have not.

As I said above, I'm quite happy to discuss how to improve this article but I feel it would be better done on a section-by-section basis rather than by a mass reinstatement of often very poor content. This edit war is not one you are going to win because you are breaching numerous policies and guidelines, including such minor things as WP:INDICSCRIPT and much more major things such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. You may have noticed that it is not just me who has been reverting your attempts to reinstate the poor material. - Sitush (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You have not actually read any of the books cited in the article. Poor quality is your POV. 122.178.59.165 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

How do you know I haven't? You are displaying all the signs of being an arrogant warrior, not a collaborative contributor. The article will end up being protected in some form or another and then you will have lost your chance. Better to co-operate now than throw the baby out with the bathwater. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warrior Sitush

User Sitush arrived on this article 19 weeks ago and began slashing & burning whole paragraphs (11 times so far) along with citations blindly under the pretext of lack of refernces. He also added outlandish POV & outright lies (like Arwi is a language,...) He also dumbed down the grammar quality of the page (replacing words like miscegenation with "mix of races").

He is not Muslim. He is not even Tamil. He has no causa proxima to this community.

Who is going to leash this Quick Gun Murugan ?122.178.59.165 (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Having no "causa proxima" is actually a good qualification for contributing. Far better than having one often is. Aside from misrepresenting what I've done, you're reinstating all the old problems. I've already explained in the preceding section how we could work towards improving this article but you are clearly not interested. I am going to seek article protection. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420123847/http://www.1421.tv/pages/evidence/content.asp?EvidenceID=462 to http://www.1421.tv/pages/evidence/content.asp?EvidenceID=462
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100215215455/http://www.hanafionline.com/2007/10/branding-study-of-booming-mamak-food.html to http://www.hanafionline.com/2007/10/branding-study-of-booming-mamak-food.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323125225/http://www.ift-chennai.org/publication.htm to http://www.ift-chennai.org/publication.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Vocabulary

"nabi", glossed as "messenger of god", is listed as a loan from Malay. This is the Arabic word for "prophet". I cant say for sure that it didn't enter Tamil via Malay, but given the extensive direct contact between Arab traders and Tamil Nadu, it seems more likely that it is a direct loan from Arabic.Bill (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Nabi is a Malay loan word like other phrases like lungi, peribapu, chicha,.... It's however possible that the root is Arabic. Unlike Urdu speakers, Tamil Muslims did not have direct contact with the Arab World until last quarter of 20th century. Hence, the confusion.122.178.59.165 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the entire Vocabulary section because it was unsourced anyway. - Sitush (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)