Talk:Dravidian peoples

Former good article nomineeDravidian peoples was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed


Add other South Indian kingdoms architecture to dravidian architecture.

Like Vijayanagaras. Venuvg04 (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

@Fylindfotberserk:, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Doug Weller: Can you please review these recent changes: [1]. Thought of restoring User:Fylindfotberserk's version [2] as on 5 April 2024. Checking with others to be doubly sure. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rasnaboy: Yeah, I see a lot of unnecessary and WP:OR stuff. It is not a "ethnicity" (supra- or otherwise). It is a collection of ethno-linguistic groups that are tehmselves diverse. You can restore this version and start from there if necessary. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Fylindfotberserk:. Done. Rasnaboy (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad someone else did it, I'm wiped out. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same user now appears to engage in edit warring at Tamil Brahmins ([3], [4], [5]) and Iyer ([6], [7], [8]). I've already reverted their edits twice and warned them on their talk page, but they have vowed to continue with their removal of sourced contents. May require admin intervention. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A small mistake in the article

There is a small mistake around in the dravidian peoples#Dravidian identification where John Marshall the United States founding father is mistaken for John Marshall for the archaeologist. Please replace the link with the statesman with the John Marshall (archaeologist). Rewolrats (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. - Arjayay (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naming mistake

In the language section, Kodava language is mistakenly called as Coorg. Please fix this. Me1892 2 (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dravidians are not the indigenous people of the Subcontinent

@Joshua Jonathan: Dravidians are not the indigenous people of the subcontinent the AASI (the Ancient Ancestral South Indians) people were please stop with this Dravidian Supremacist propaganda. They descent from Zagros + AASI mixing. The indigenous people of the Subcontinent were the AASI people.

Why are you removing all my edits,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_languages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_peoples

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation

I haven't even started editing and it was removed just to make it seem as if Dravidian's are the indigenous people of the Subcontinent. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Read what the article states (emphasis mine):

They are regarded as indigenous to the Indian subcontinent,[1][2][3] but may have deeper pre-Neolithic roots from Western Asia, specifically from the Iranian plateau.[4][5][6][7][8] Their origins are often viewed as being connected with the Indus Valley Civilisation,[9][8][10] hence people and language spread east and southwards after the demise of the Indus Valley Civilisation in the early second millennium BCE,[11][12] some propose not long before the arrival of Indo-Aryan speakers,[13] with whom they intensively interacted.[14]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Avari_p132 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Masica, Colin P. (1989). The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge University Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-521-29944-2.
  3. ^ Kopstein, Jeffrey; Lichbach, Mark Irving (2005) [First published 2000]. Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a Changing Global Order (2nd ed.). Cambridge University. p. 345. ISBN 978-0-521-84316-4.
  4. ^ Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi & Piazza 1994, pp. 221–222.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference kumar20042 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Kivisild 1999, p. 1333.
  7. ^ Parpola 2015, p. 17.
  8. ^ a b Samuel 2008, p. 54 note 15.
  9. ^ Tudu 2008, p. 400
  10. ^ Parpola 2015.
  11. ^ Narasimhan et al. 2018, p. 15.
  12. ^ Marris, Emma (3 March 2014). "200-Year Drought Doomed Indus Valley Civilization". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14800. S2CID 131063035 – via Scientific American.
  13. ^ Razab Khan, The Dravidianization of India
  14. ^ Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju (8 July 2015). "Dravidian languages". Encyclopædia Britannica.
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the article states that they were regarded as indigenous but that doesn't mean they are native they where their before the Indo Aryans came that's why I edited it as although regarded as indigenous to the Indian subcontinent. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: There is a difference between Zagros + AASI= ASI and which all people have this ancestry and just AASI they where just present in the Subcontinent before the Indo-Aryans came. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Although regarded" is meaningless, and grammatically incorrect. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"They are, although regarded as indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, but may have deeper pre-Neolithic roots from Western Asia, specifically from the Iranian plateau."
It is correct grammatically and they are not the indigenous AASI people. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: I have argued this on the talk page the Dravidian's are not the AASI people any person will know this but still people want to think they are some how indigenous. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is grammatically incorrect. And there is no need to 'correct' the sentence; it says that the Dravidians are regarded as indigenous, but etc. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There can be a better way of saying it; this is just like saying "they are in the sense" or "perhaps are" the indigenous AASI people, though they have West Eurasian roots from West Asia.
Which the Indigenous people of the Subcontinent didn't. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: Is their a alternative to this Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Josua Jonathan: Yes, there was reason to correct that sentence, I think. "They are regarded as" (which IMHO is a weasel expression) indicates a consensus. I try a variant I hope is acceptable to all. JoergenB (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Indigenous to the Indian subcontinent" means they originated in the Indian subcontinent." Which is complety in line with what Wr tries to argue: "Zagros + AASI= ASI" happened at the Indian subcontinent, not somewhere else. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All people have this ancestry in the subcontinent but the indigenous people never had Zagros ancestry. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the indigenous people of the subcontinent never had Zagros ancestry it is a absolute fact accept it or not or be delusional. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dravidian_peoples