Talk:Dravidian peoples/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Australoids

There was a clear biased notion implemented by a POV warrior, who's name is Bodhidarma7. He insists on the Australoid nature of the Dravidians, a theory, that was long time back popular. The perception of the scholarship totally changed since then, and virtually all see them as a Caucasoid or a separated Dravidian group.--MThekkumthala (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I must second this characterization of the POV warrior. For certain, many austroloid sub-groups in India speak drividian languages, while others speak austroloid languages. This is not an unusual pattern, and it supports that dravidian speakers migrated to areas where austroloid speakers existed and as a result of some cultural influence, some austroloids adopted dravidian tongues. Turkic people in Anatloia are largely not racially turkish though they speak turkish, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayak52 (talk • contribs)

The majority of Dravidian ancestry is non-Caucasoid, which is why they are classified by modern anthropologists and geneticists as Australoid. Furthermore, there is also evidence of a genetic link between Dravidians and Australian Aborigines.

Your becoming tedious. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

check your sources. they are invalid for the wordings used.--MThekkumthala (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material is censorship, troll. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

you can't misreport sources, create extreme POV wordings and ignore edit summaries..all in all that's just sneaky vandalism --MThekkumthala (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

All of my sources clearly indicate that Dravidians are Australoids. Are you seriously claiming that Dravidians are white? LOL! The majority of their ancestry is not even related to any known ancestry, except maybe Australian Abos.

I suggest you stop wasting my time. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a single ref gives this clear Australoid picture. The 1st one talks about ethno history, the second about Australoid/Negroid tribals/Adivasi who happen to speak Dravidian languages. The Vedda tribe belong to the same group and it is well known, that they spoke a language unrelated to Dravidian. And your third source is down.. --MThekkumthala (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That's because you can't read, dunce. The sources are quoted in full at the bottom and they clearly indicate that Dravidians are Australoids. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.at/books?id=toDUP8bcauMC&pg=PA153&dq=caucasoid+dravidians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rYsIT4fJFsLtOaHsxc0K&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=caucasoid%20dravidians&f=false http://books.google.at/books?id=JODaAAAAMAAJ&q=caucasoid+dravidians&dq=caucasoid+dravidians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rYsIT4fJFsLtOaHsxc0K&redir_esc=y http://books.google.at/books?id=kt1Rp1eXRxoC&pg=PA27&dq=caucasoid+dravidians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rYsIT4fJFsLtOaHsxc0K&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=caucasoid%20dravidians&f=false http://books.google.at/books?id=ewE9AAAAMAAJ&q=caucasoid+dravidians&dq=caucasoid+dravidians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rYsIT4fJFsLtOaHsxc0K&redir_esc=y http://books.google.at/books?id=i7ayFbhJ9GcC&pg=PA26&dq=caucasoid+dravidians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rYsIT4fJFsLtOaHsxc0K&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=caucasoid%20dravidians&f=false

and many more --MThekkumthala (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

they are very clear in separating Dravidians and Australoids.--MThekkumthala (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about the latest and most comprehensive genetic research, as the section is entitled "genetic anthropology" and all of this unanimously identifies Dravidians as Australoid or Proto-Australoid. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I already informed you about Australoid tribes who speak Dravidian. I know you ignore this intentionally to get your vandal behaviourism through. Your sources are totally invalid to attribute the Dravidian people the Australoid race. --MThekkumthala (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And of course you can't simply ignore the sources I've provided for the identification of the Dravidian race. They are not from 19th century --MThekkumthala (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If the Australoid race is confined to southern India and the majority of these speak Dravidian languages, then what race are they? Chinese? African? French? This is becoming ridiculous. Historical views of Indian race have already been included, so its difficult to see what your driving at here. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course the tribes remain Australoid by race, even when they talk in Dravidian languages.What's the problem in all this? You can't bear the truth, that the Dravidians were an ancient Elite society. --MThekkumthala (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Who says that Australoids are mostly found in the South? as far as i know they are mostly in central and east India.--MThekkumthala (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a map, where you see the Australoids very nicely: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080425/images/25zzmix2big.jpg They mostly speak Austro-Asiatic languages, but also Dravidian and Indo-Aryan. --MThekkumthala (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And you wonder why I say you can't read? The Indian Genetic Variation Consortium (2005, 2008) clearly indicates that the population of southern, central and western India is majority Australoid. Elite society has nothing to do with it. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

They don't INDICATE that the south is majority Australoid. They say, the Australoids are majorily confined to the South, West Central.--MThekkumthala (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That's it.. i'm going to get help. --MThekkumthala (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and Caucasoids are mostly concentrated in the northern region of the country, which means that the majority of the population is Caucasoid, as the accompanying maps and separate genetic differences between the Indo-Aryan North and the Dravidian South also indicate. Are you really this stupid? Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

and what do they say about Dravidians? --MThekkumthala (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Most people who live in the south are Australoids and most of the languages spoken there are Dravidian. You make the connection. Southern Indians cluster genetically with Tamils, a well-known Dravidian-speaking Australoid group. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I give nothing on your personal opinion. That study is contradicting itself anyway. First they "Australoids" live in west south and central, but only draws the map with South and East?? totally nonsense invalid descrption alltogether. --MThekkumthala (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion, it's what the research indicates. The distribution of genetic differences between Indo-Aryans and Dravidians is similar to the racial distribution of Caucasoids and Australoids. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's also not forget that autosomal evidence indicates that south Indians and Tamils, an Australoid racial group and one of the largest ethnic groups in India, cluster with each other, away from Indo-Europeans. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

no, you indicate it for yourself. Dravidians are a different race. That is clearly written in my sources without any input of my own . and i let books speak about Tamils also. As said before your own opinion has no value --MThekkumthala (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I indicate nothing. My research indicates that Dravidians are a separate race. From one study:

Based on morpholinguistic classification of the Indian population (4): Caucasoid=Indo-European (Rajputs), Mongoloid=Tibeto-Burman (Gorkhas) and Australoid=Dravidian (South Indians) subtypes.

From the second study:

... Population groups inhabiting Tamil Nadu have the distinction of belonging to the Dravidian linguistic family and are predominantly of Australoid ethnicity ... In the study reported here, we attempt to verify the indigenous origin of the Dravidian linguistic group represented by the three endogamous Australoid groups from Tamil Nadu as a separate genetic pool and analyze the extent of diversity and gene flow among them using autosomal microsatellite markers ... The NJ dendrogram also suggests a strong association between the migrant Indian population in United Arab Emirates and Dravidian populations of India [including all 3 Tamil populations in Fig.3], which can be expected since a considerable number of the southern Indian Dravidians reside in the Emirates. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have already said twice, that there Dravidian speaking Australoids, who live in the South. That doesn't say anything about the people of Dravidian racial stock.--MThekkumthala (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can believe whatever you want. I'll just stick with the evidence, which indicates that ASI ancestry, found predominantly in Dravidians, is related to no other ancestry in the world. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

so you having no definite source for your claims for the Dravidian race, only wishful thinking that ANI equates Aryans, but ignore my sources completely.--MThekkumthala (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No, my claims are easily sourced, such as in this genetics paper: Since in the current ethnohistoric literature the terms Caucasoid and Proto-Australoid are commonly used to indicate Indo-Aryan and Dravidian ancestry, in this paper we will use the terminology of Caucasoid for Indo-Aryan and Proto-Australoid for Dravidian interchangeably.

Also, Reich et al. (2009) clearly indicates that ASI is found predominantly in Dravidians. As was explained before.

ANI ancestry is significantly higher in Indo-European than Dravidian speakers, suggesting that the ancestral ASI may have spoken a Dravidian language before mixing with the ANI.

Anyway, this conversation is over as I am finished repeating myself.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ethnohistory is as the term indicates history. There is a Cavalli Sforza genetical study, which clearly shows, that Dravidians mostly have Caucasoid affinities. This is a pictural representation: http://bp1.blogger.com/_h5L0bq0pIhY/R_ihGPYvP4I/AAAAAAAAA4U/zw72jacULrE/s1600-h/ce3.gif Now you have been exposed. haha jeaulous pakis..--MThekkumthala (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That was 1994, numbnuts. Let's see what more recent studies have to say:

According to Bamshad et. al. (2002): To test whether samples from India could be distinguished in an analysis of samples from all three continents, we added samples from Africa and reanalyzed the data. This time, the best estimate of K was 3, and the assignment to the correct population was >98% for samples from sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and Europe. The samples from southern India were assigned predominantly to the cluster of East Asians (84%), though some of them (16%) were assigned to the cluster containing Europeans.

According to Watkins et al. (2003): A two-dimensional principal components plot of the 31 populations (Fig. 4A) demonstrates clustering of the African, E. Asian, and European populations, with the Indian caste populations located between the E. Asian and European populations (as in the network in Fig. 3).

Indians are intermediate between east Asians and Europeans, with south Indians (Dravidians) being closely related to east Asians. Dravidians cluster genetically with traditionally Australoid populations such as Tamils, as has already been demonstrated. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No mentions of Tamils in those studies.. only tribes..vandal --MThekkumthala (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the contested portions on Australoids and Negritos

Its odd how once one editor is blocked for edit warring over the section on Australoid connections, another one appears with the same sort of edits.

The portions being restored by various editors from around the world and being removed by different South Indian editors (who either do not participate in the talk pages or start off by accusing others of POV pushing):

• "Indians are classified by modern anthropologists as belonging to one of four different morphological or ethno-racial subtypes, although these generally overlap because of admixture: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Negrito," citing a source which says "All the four major morphological types—Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Negrito are present in the Indian population"... That checks out and is in no way misrepresentation of sources. The source also meets the reliable source guidelines. Noone has explained how it is not supported.

• Additionally, this portion has been altered by Nayak52 to exclude the Negrito population from the mix by re-interpreting a line explaining their geographic location.

• "Dravidians are generally classified as members of the Proto-Australoid or Australoid race" citinga source which says "Since in the current ethnohistoric literature the terms Caucasoid and Proto-Australoid are commonly used to indicate Indo-Aryan and Dravidian ancestry, in this paper we will use the terminology of Caucasoid for Indo-Aryan and Proto-Australoid for Dravidian interchangeably"... Although the page requires an account with the Wiley Online Library, that is no reason to exclude the source. Noone has explained how it is not supported.
• "In one study, southern Indian Dravidians clustered genetically with Tamils, a socially endogamous, predominantly Dravidian-speaking Australoid group" citing a source which says "Population groups inhabiting Tamil Nadu have the distinction of belonging to the Dravidian linguistic family and are predominantly of Australoid ethnicity"... That does group them together. Noone has explained how it is not supported.
• "Because of admixture between Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Australoid racial groups, one cannot speak of a biologically separate "Dravidian race" distinct from non-Dravidians on the Indian subcontinent" citing a source which says "historical gene flow into India has contributed to a considerable obliteration of genetic histories of contemporary populations so that there is at present no clear congruence of genetic and geographical or sociocultural affinities." That matches the source. One South Indian editor (MThekkumthala) changed it to "Upper castes of North India have genetically more in common with Central Asian/West Eurasian populations than South Indian upper castes, who are more similar to East Asians," eliminating the Australoid portion or the connection to Dravidian peoples. That was misrepresentation of sources on his part, not the other editors reverting him.
• "The intermingling of ANI's and ASI's happened in the same period as the ANI's first appeared, 1,200-3,500 years ago, which roughly coincides with the Indo-Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent," citing

a source which (when the correct link is loaded) says "Our analyses suggest that major ANI-ASI mixture occurred in the ancestors of both northern and southern Indians 1,200-3,500 years ago, overlapping the time when Indo-European languages first began to be spoken in the subcontinent." MThekkumthala removed "In the same period as the ANI's first appeared," as if the ANIs were not Indo-Aryan (which you changed to Aryan). The original edit was more in line with the sources, MThekkumthala's curiously left out odd bits of information.

These points are sourced. Removal or alteration of them requires sourced explanations for why these sources are incorrect. Any removal or alteration without discussion will be seen as racial-political POV-pushing and nothing more.

Ian.thomson (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Explanation: The source states "The ‘‘Caucasoid’’ and ‘‘Mongoloid’’ populations are mainly concentrated in the north and northeastern parts of the country. The ‘‘Australoids’’ are mostly confined to the central, western and southern India, while the ‘‘Negritos’’ are restricted only to the Andaman Islands (CavalliSforza et al. 1994) (Fig. 1)."

• Explanation: This statement from a single paper refers to the paper's own use of this categorization. It does not substantiaite the categorization in any way other than in claiming that ethnohistoric literature also classifies it this way. This is dubious and unfounded, and does not substantiate that "Dravidians are generally classified" this way.

-Explanation: The source is a study of three caste communities in Tamil Nadu, it does not cover the state state as a whole. Also, the fact that austroloid racial communities are linguistically dravidian is not unusual, and the adoption of dravidian languages by some of the austroloid tribes may also be observed in Orissa and other parts of India. This does not amount to the larger Dravidian group having an Austroloid racial identification. It is a misleading statement. The fact that Dravidian and Austroloid languages are entirely distinct and no source connects the two is telling (If any such source exists, the POV pushers on this topic would surely have used it already.) The strongest (though unsubstantiated) linguisitc connection with Dravidian languages links them to the language of the Elamite people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayak52 (talk • contribs)

Please do not thread posts (or else it will look like I wrote that portion), and please sign your posts. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

General question

How can somebody classify a people with quotation marks. I'm refering to the source http://www.imtech.res.in/raghava/reprints/IGVdb.pdf. This is inappropriate for a serious classification. It was obviously intended to solve the problem of two similar and major, but different morphological types in India. There are more sources, which classify Dravidians as Caucasoids anyway. --MThekkumthala (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm expecting a reaction by Thomson --MThekkumthala (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

{{rfc|soc}} :This discussion is about, whether Dravidians are generally classified as Australoid or not. There have been historical accounts (19th century), where Dravidians were seen as Australoid, which changed during the time to Caucasoid, which has been supported by modern geneticist accounts. There are different users on wikipedia, who challenge the modern view and say, they are generally seen as Australoid, which has not been clearly supported by the sources they came with. In contrast, we have innummerable sources, who declare the Dravidians as either an own racial stock or Caucasoid, while some trible people, who speak Dravidian today, are indeed Australoids by ancestry. Please see also previous discussions. --MThekkumthala (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Mthekkumthala, you can't just add an RfC tag and say "see previous discussions." You need to explain specifically what the question is that you're asking other editors to consider. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Mthekkumthala, I'm sorry I actually have a life beyond this site and cannot serve you at your every summon and call, O great rishi! I'm going to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts about this mess. The information you're presenting is often counter to all the sources I've seen (including sources I've seen before this started), and you've rarely presented any reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

I just declined a request for full protection, in part because the editor requesting full protection had just made a major edit to the article, and that smacked of trying to intentionally protect xyr version. But at this point, I feel more like blocking than protecting, so you all better cut it out. Have a discussion here, get consensus, and if you can't do it yourselves, use dispute resolution. If you need help knowing where to go for more input, I will be happy to help. If you just want to edit war to the version you're sure is correct, well, I have buttons for that. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Then protect the wrong version, this what admins will do to avoid biasing towards the lateset version. The idea is to calm down the situation not to protect one version versus the other. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you obviously can't read for someone with a mickey mouse degree in rhetoric. My improvements were merely grammatical ("major edit"?!), apart from that, I merely restored an older version of the passage which had been up for months, before it was deleted for no good reason by Mthekkumathala and a number of other trolls, for obvious racial and political reasons.

You shouldn't wade into what you do not understand. And for your info, this edit war is entirely the fault of Mthekkumathala and co., who refuse to use a talk page to work out differences. --Bodhidharma7 (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Genetic anthropology section needs updating

This paper and its findings are directly related to the section: Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 89, Issue 6, 731-744, 9 December 2011

Combining our results with other available genome-wide data, we show that Indian populations are characterized by two major ancestry components, one of which is spread at comparable frequency and haplotype diversity in populations of South and West Asia and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50% of the ancestry in Indian populations. Haplotype diversity associated with these South Asian ancestry components is significantly higher than that of the components dominating the West Eurasian ancestry palette. Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP."

Ofcourse we dont have to put the large conclusion except the main gist, like: A later 2011 study by Metspalu et al. On South Asian population have found both the ancestral components to be older and incompatible with the purported Indo-aryan invasion 3500 YBP.

References

Nirjhara (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

General note on "Genetic anthropology"

There are lots of sentences, which claim "racial mixing" has happened in India. No such claim is made in any of the cited sources. Instead they talk about ancient genetic mixture, with consideration of newer mixtures, which they try to put in racial categories in an amateurish style. I have read a 2011 gbook, where a modern African "specialist" claims, that original Dravidians were of the Negroid (yes the true African type) stock with "Asian influence". What made my day was, when I read one of the genes papers cited here, that claims, that overall Dravidian speaker show very strong affinities, indicating a separate Dravidian race. This chapter mixes professional genetics with amateurish racialism. There should be separate sections for them, else it will remain a mixed bag of mental cases and real professionals, which is very disrespectful to those scientists.--Ancienzus (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to believe that you may be completely correct. In general, I find thing half or more "genetic analyses" are nothing other than racist crap. They're based on small studies with dubious research methodology. Having said that, we need to know exactly what is wrong with the specific papers you are removing. If you could explain here why they are wrong, and what sources you have that show that, we can remove them. Alternatively, if any given source does not meet WP:RS, we could remove it. For instance, if the sources are only front-line scientific analyses, then they're primary sources, and should probably be removed. Could you discuss here what exactly is wrong with each part? Again, please understand, I think I probably agree with your actual position, but I also believe that Wikipedia works best when we do things based on our policies, not based on our own opinions. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Dravidian people on the basis of language ? Why ? Dravidian people should be classified on the basis of the region. Thats is Dravida kingdom or region, people belonging to those regions.

Mahabharata links the origin of Dravidas with sage Vasistha. Viswamitra, a king in the Ikshwaku clan, attacked the cow of Vasistha. Then many armies emerged for the protection of that cow and they attacked the armies of Viswamitra. Cow symbolizes land, in ancient Indian scriptures. Thus this war was fought with the tribes allied with Vasista for their own land. Other tribes that were mentioned along with the Dravidas in this incident were Sakas, Yavanas, Savaras, Kanchis, Paundras and Kiratas, Yavanas and Sinhalas, and the barbarous tribes of Khasas, Chivukas, Pulindas, Chinas and Hunas with Keralas, and numerous other Mlechchhas. (1,177)

From the list it seems that it is a compiled list of tribes formerly unknown to the Vedic Kingdoms.

From bharat varsha, In the south, are the Dravidas, the Keralas, the Prachyas, the Mushikas, and the Vanavashikas; the Karanatakas, the Mahishakas, the Vikalpas, and also the Mushakas; the Jhillikas, the Kuntalas...(6,9) Dravidas are the great warriors — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeeHuan1023 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Who links these Dravida with the Dravidian people? See WP:RS for the sorts of sources we need. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bad theory

Why is the article spreading wrong information as theory that has no basis other than 19th century misinformations?

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-09-25/india/28107253_1_incidence-of-genetic-diseases-indians-tribes

“ The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. ”

“ there is a genetic relationship between all Indians and more importantly, the hitherto believed ``fact that Aryans and Dravidians signify the ancestry of north and south Indians might after all, be a myth.

``This paper rewrites history... there is no north-south divide

”

There is explicite denial of this 19th century ignorant divide that must have come out of ignorant people from some tribal lands.

sindhi dravidians

I just want to ask some questions that history reveals that the dravidian culture was originated from moen jo daro the great Indus valley civilization..... so why there is no classification about that..... secondly history reveals that due to the Aryans attack on indus valley's northern boundries currently punjab province of pakistan as well as punjab of india, dehli and some regions of bengal, the dravidian were pushed toward south in the the great Sindh, current province of pakistan, and the southern parts of the great Indus valley now called india.... history also reveals that because of aryan attack the dravidian language of moen jo darro was divided into 16 differnt languages among which are Sindhi, ooddki, Tamil and others.... some of dravidian languages are still spoken among the tribes of great Sindh named as jat, jogi, sami, oodd and bhel, each along with their own accent.... these tribes date back to the period of moen jo darro....

all I want to say that why the indians are sealing the history of others... they are neglecting the fact that all of us the dravidian are from the Great Sindh (Indus valley)... so its my requet to review this article so as the reader may know the real history... thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.52.154.146 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)