This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Influence of the Indus Valley civilization on Ancient Tamil Nadu redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from Influence of the Indus Valley civilization on Ancient Tamil Nadu appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 May 2008 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pardon my French, but most of this article is plain wrong or at least highly biased. As the Indus Valley civilization ist concerned, quite everything is highly unsure and hypothetical. You simply cannot say "there are close linguistic similarities between the Indus Valley civilization and Ancient Tamil Nadu", as long as the language of the Indus Civilization is completely unknown. The Dravidian hypothesis may be plausible, but it's far from having been proven. Same problem with the rest of the article: Theses, which may well be true, but may as well be not, are depicted as facts. Besides, even if we take the Dravidian hypothesis for granted, a common origin of the Tamils and the Indus people doesn't say anything about "influence of the Indus Valley civilization on Ancient Tamil Nadu". Sorry to say that, but this article on the main page does not exactly throw a good light on Wikipedia. -- 88.66.54.70 ( talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged this article for speedy deletion since it qualifies as a hoax, unverifiable, unencyclopaediac, original research and blatant misinformation. It does not even merit a separate article and should probably go under the Indus Valley Civilization page. 65.49.2.98 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
Ravichandar84, this is nonsense. Just slapping a few weblinks on a randomly titled page doesn't constitute "enough citations to establish the genuineness and notability of this article". What this article is trying to do is tout the possibility that IVC = Proto-Dravidian culture. This is already the mainstream assumption, and the only reason this is "controversial" is Hindu right-wing chauvinism ( Hindutva's Indigenous Aryans).
this boils down to
this isn't a remarkable observation, since nobody is suggesting Neolithic Indians spoke Indo-Aryan in the first place. -- dab (𒁳) 12:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't call "nonsense" the proposition that there was "influence of the Indus Valley civilization on Ancient Tamil Nadu", I called nonsense your argumentation of how this article is valid. This is like creating an article called Vital importance of the liver referenced to "sources" like [1], [2], [3] because these happen to be the first google hits on the topic. By calling such an article nonsense isn't disputing that the liver is, in fact, a vital organ. If the celt is so important, discuss it in proper context. Here is a suggestion: Bronze Age India currently redirects to Periodization of the Indus Valley Civilization. If you are interested in discussing Prehistoric India during the Bronze Age, including the relation of North and South India, build a proper standalone Bronze Age India article paralleling Bronze Age Europe and Bronze Age China. dab --14:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
strike that, I note there never was a proper Bronze Age in South India. Instead, you want to discuss the epigraphic stuff at Indus script, and perhaps build a standalone Neolithic Tamil Nadu article for the 2500 to 1000 BC period. -- dab (𒁳) 14:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)