Talk:Tamils: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:58, 26 February 2021 editMetta79 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,974 edits →Indrapala source query ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:19, 26 February 2021 edit undoMetta79 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,974 edits →Indrapala source query Next edit →
Line 471:		Line 471:

	Da Silva is not a historian but a diplomat, and is an unreliable, heavily biased source. He even makes a crazy claim that the Koneswaram Kovil, which we have huge evidence for in inscriptions and literature, was actually a Buddhist temple. Really his words can not be taken seriously. Certainly not above Indrapala.] (]) 19:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)		Da Silva is not a historian but a diplomat, and is an unreliable, heavily biased source. He even makes a crazy claim that the Koneswaram Kovil, which we have huge evidence for in inscriptions and literature, was actually a Buddhist temple. Really his words can not be taken seriously. Certainly not above Indrapala.] (]) 19:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

			I've re-read Bandu De Silva 'roasting', Its frankly embarrassing. He is denying the clear overwhelming evidence of a early iron age Dravidian substratum in Sri Lanka, which recent unbiased Sinhalese scholars such as Sudharshan Seneviratne have uncovered. A good summary of those findings can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBV9xNQDA8w

			Indrapala merely reiterated these findings in his new book. Unfortunately, Sri Lankan Archaeology and History departments are heavily biased, so all evidence of prior Dravidian habitation on the island is being erased from the history books.] (]) 20:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:19, 26 February 2021

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tamils article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Tamils is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 24, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 25, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
January 7, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
December 29, 2015	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India: Tamil Nadu / Classical Tamil High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Classical Tamil workgroup (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article.
	This article was last assessed in February 2019.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ethnic groups High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sri Lanka High‑importance

	Sri Lanka portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Hinduism Mid‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Tamils: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Priority 1 (top)

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Proper picture of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar

Someone must add his picture which is according to guidelines . He is a Nobel laureate .— Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicEmperor (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Moving

@RGloucester: Next time you move an article, don't forget to also move corresponding talk page archives. I had to do it for you. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Featured Article Review

As was noted here almost five years ago, the article isn't up to Featured Article standards and should therefore be taken to a review. The article has in fact deteriorated since then with a variety of problems including the following:

Poor quality sourcing has crept in, including from hobbyist mirrors, unreliable sources, hobbyist websites, outdated sources etc
Synthesis of sources to stretch the meaning
Random usage of images with no context
Inconsistent quality of writing
Undue weight to certain aspects, thereby affecting comprehensiveness

I will be compiling a more detailed list on the sourcing etc for the FAR. —SpacemanSpiff 10:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Haven't checked in detail to see how far short it is of FA, but even a quick spot-check shows issues of the type you list, and more. For example, in the Jallikattu section:

the first para is poorly written and unsourced POV OR that someone most probably just wrote up from what they have heard without consulting any sources;
the second and third para are cut-n-paste copyvio from this (cited) newspaper article; and
the fourth paragraph is disjointed with the rest of the section and it's unclear what parts are sourced/important.

And, none of the sources (2 newspaper articles; 1 collection of newspaper columns) are of the quality one would like to see in a featured article. Also, does this topic even need a section of its own, or would a couple of sentences/para be more due? There are also MOS problems with the section, but those are not even worth listing till the other issues are settled.

An FAR seems warranted. Hopefully though, the article can be saved from being delisted, or at least improved in the process. Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A Request

Dear active editors of the Tamil People page. Please remove Ellalan as a prominent Tamil at your discretion in light of the following.. While I can not speak for all SL Tamils.. I can say that at this point in time in history having Ellalan as a prominent Tamil harms the interest of the SL Tamils in SL.. Sinhalese Chauvinists often cite Ellalan to claim the foreignness of SL Tamils in SL thus at this point in time, as per the reconciliation in SL, it is of my opinion that Ellalan be replaced with someone more suitable. Thank you for your considerations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NesJan (talk • contribs) 22:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I have done and added Velupillai Prabhakaran .There have been request since 2005 per 2005 here and 2009 here.Prabhakaran whether one likes him or not is the best known Tamil Leader worldwide and has fought for over 30 years for Tamil causes .Surya Thalivar (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If you admire Prabhakaran so much go and find a free iamge.--obi2canibe 11:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tamils. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tamils. 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:

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

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100513190952/http://www.censusindia.gov.in:80/2011-common/censusdataonline.html to http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-common/censusdataonline.html
Attempted to fix sourcing for tamil.berkeley.edu/html/chapter_1.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130903165502/http://www.archaeology.lk:80/http://www.archaeology.lk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Dinithi-Volume-1-Issue-4.pdf to http://www.archaeology.lk/http:/www.archaeology.lk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Dinithi-Volume-1-Issue-4.pdf

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

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Mix of BCE and BC

There's supposed to be just one in use. Which was first used in this article? 2.102.184.22 (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Are Tamils a stateless nation or only Sri Lankan Tamils?

Indian tamils are not stateless, it has to be the most absurd thing i have ever come across, it's very biased propaganda. Tamil Nadu is where majority of Tamils live and we don't identify anything other than Indian and Tamil. Tamil is one of many official languages of India and also has classical language status. 117.192.218.44 (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Tamil is not only an official language but a national language in Sri Lanka, that is not a good argument and does not explain why Tamils are no stateless nation. Tamils in Tamil Nadu supports a Tamil state in Sri Lanka. Tamil organizations, parties and the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu demand an International Investigation of Sri Lankan war crimes and a UN referendum among Sri Lankan Tamils on the formation of Tamil Eelam.

Tamils as a whole are a stateless nation. Tamil claim to be a nation but there is no sovereign Tamil state, That's why Tamils are a stateless nation ( a nation without a sovereign state). Indian Tamils dont need to ask for a separate state to be a stateless nation. If Tamils consider themselves a nation and somewhere in the world exists a movement for a Tamil state, then Tamils as whole are a stateless nation. To claim that Sri Lankan Tamils are stateless nation and India Tamils not, makes no sense, because both are the same ethnic group and so also the same nation.Vatasura 15:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Difference between stateless people and stateless nation

Tamils are not a stateless people, because most Tamils are citizens of Sri Lanka, India or other countries. Tamils are a stateless nation, because as a nation, they don't have a sovereign state.Vatasura 16:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither do majority of ethnic groups in India, yet we don't go around claiming we are "stateless nation", which is absurd. This concept of stateless nation only applies to Sri Lankan Tamils who are demanding Tamil Eelam NOT Indian Tamils. Some political movements in Tamil Nadu may support Eelam nation but that does not mean we want to leave India. There is difference between Indian Tamils and Sri lankan-Tamils when it comes to politics, we are fully absorbed into Indian identity and society and have always been. Same can't be said about Sri Lankan-Tamils and Sinhalese in modern times.

When you say that all Tamils are stateless nation you clearly have ulterior motivation, you want to imply that Tamils in India, Malaysia and Singapore are demanding separate Tamil nation, which is just wrong. You seem to have hard time differentiating between "support" and "demand" for Eelam nation. 117.192.218.39 (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

State and Nation in South Asia By Swarna Rajagopalan - Covers basic aspects of how Indian Tamils and Sri Lankan Tamils view the idea of stateless nation. Only Sri Lankan Tamils see themselves as stateless nation in almost all sources i have found. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=q7Yz5aGeoTsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA82#v=onepage&q=Tamils&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.218.39 (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

We have not even finished our discussion and you're already imposing your POV on Tamil people. Probably you have a ulterior motive to divide Tamils and to deny the Tamil nationalism.The entire Tamil population belongs to a nation and this Tamil nation has no sovereign state, which makes Tamils to the largest stateless nation in the world.

Tamil organizations, parties and the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu demand an International Investigation of Sri Lankan war crimes and a UN referendum among Sri Lankan Tamils on the formation of Tamil Eelam.

Why do you support something that you do not demand? Yes Tamils in India, Malaysia and Singapore demanding openly a separate Tamil Eelam (a tamil state) in Sri Lanka.

Not only Sri Lankan Tamils deal with an independent Tamil state. Tamil secession movement even existed in India in the past. Indian government had added a legislation that outlawed anyone wanting independence from India and so the Tamil secession movement in India got weaker. You can not deny this because it's history.

A famous quote by Tamil poet Kannadasan about the Tamils as stateless nation.

“

There is no state without Tamils, there is no state for the Tamils.

”

“

தமிழன் இல்லாத நாடு இல்லை ,தமிழனுக்கு ஒரு நாடு இல்லை.

”

I think you dont understand the meaning of this.Vatasura 18:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Only person who is imposing anything here is YOU with your "77 million tamils being stateless nation" are you insane? It's obviously propaganda! You'll be laughed at your face if you asked anyone from Tamil Nadu about wanting separate nation for Indian Tamils or to join Eelam.

Again, just because some Indian parties have solidarity with Sri Lankan Tamils for Eelam state does NOT mean Indian Tamils want to secede from Indian union, even you know that.

I too can quote Indian nationalist Tamils left and right but you already know that Indian Tamils and Sri Lankan Tamils are politically different today, just because we show solidarity with Eelam Tamils does not mean we want to secede from India. 117.192.210.109 (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

So far, only you have a problem with Tamils being stateless nation, but I will not call you insane, because I also appreciated your opinions. Personal attacks and accusations without evidence should anyway be avoided. I can only take responsibility for what I say and not what you think. You ignore completely the fact that Tamils are a Nation without a sovereign state. You dont try to understand the concept of stateless nation and repeatedly writing about Indian Tamils and secede from India. You are literally making a mountain out of a molehill. Tamils are a Nation without a sovereign state = stateless Nation, so simple. What Tamils in India feel for Tamils in Sri Lanka is called "cross-straits nationalism". Just because some Indian parties have solidarity with Sri Lankan Tamils, seriously? What about the students who protested in 2013 or people like K. Muthukumar who committed suicide in Tamil nadu.Vatasura 05:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vatasura, I don't know what the debate is about, but I don't see any statements being made by you with support from reliable sources. So, please take the objections from the IP seriously and respond to them before thinking of adding content to the article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that a stateless nation can be deemed to exist when, as Vatasura states, an ethnic group does not constitute a majority population in any country of the world. A separate demand for such statehood may/may not persist, but it does not change the status of such a population. In the case of Tamils, there have been both political and armed movements for such a cause in Tamil Eelam. Recognition of demand from one section and absence of it from another section of the population, I believe, is immaterial, to the cause. Eelam Tamils and Indian Tamils are no two different ethnic groups, so while the demand for statehood may not exist in India, and only in Sri Lanka, doesn't change the fact that Tamils both in India and Sri Lanka are a stateless nation. Also, take into consideration the intense Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu and the historic struggle by political parties to establish a Dravidian homeland independent of the Indian Union.

Some scholarly sources: 1. 2. 3. 4.

--CuCl₂ 21:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry. This is also full of WP:OR. For Misplaced Pages to say that the Tamils worldwide constitute a "stateless nation," we need a reliable source (or several such) that says exactly that. Otherwise, we would be inventing it out of our own brains. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Indian Tamils, Sri Lankan Tamils, Malaysian Tamils, British Tamils, Canadian Tamils, Singaporean Tamils, all are aware that they are Tamils and there is no Tamil state. An important point is, that Tamils in India call themselves Indian Tamils and not Tamil speaking Indians. Tamils were Tamils even before there was states like India and Sri Lanka. The Indian government feared an independent Tamil state for Tamils in Sri Lanka would lead to the same for the Tamils in Tamil Nadu. Why would it lead to the same for the Tamils in Tamil Nadu, if Indian Tamils dont want to leave India? Does India not trust Indian Tamils? Howsoever, I think, Copperchloride understood what makes a stateless nation. He is right, it does not matter, if India Tamils want a separate state or not, because it don't change the fact that Tamils are a stateless nation.

Kautilya3, I dont know what source you expect, but you are asking only sources from me. I see almost no source by IP, for his claim that Tamils are no stateless nation. Which opposition of IP was not respond by me? Vatasura 21:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

References

"Official Languages Policy". languagesdept.gov.lk.
"Jayalalithaa calls for a referendum on separate Eelam". indiatimes.com.
"T.N. Assembly demands referendum on Eelam". thehindu.com.
"Tamil Nadu Assembly Calls for Probe Into Sri Lanka's Alleged War Crimes". ndtv.com.
Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z, James Minahan, 1843-1850 p.
Dynamics of Tamil Nadu Politics in Sri Lankan Ethnicity, Ganapathy Palanithurai, K. Mohanasundaram, 96p.
"An Introduction to Statelessness". unhcr.org. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World A-Z (2002), James Minahan, 1848p.
"Jayalalithaa calls for a referendum on separate Eelam". indiatimes.com.
"T.N. Assembly demands referendum on Eelam". thehindu.com.
"Tamil Nadu Assembly Calls for Probe Into Sri Lanka's Alleged War Crimes". ndtv.com.
"Tamil Nadu opinion poll calls for independent Eelam". tamilguardian.com.
"Penang conference demands IC to investigate genocide". iceelamtamils.com.
"Malaysian Tamils protest Lankan 'genocide'". thedailystar.net.
Social Protest and Its Impact on Tamil Nadu: With Reference to Self Respect Movement, from 1920's to 1940's, B. S. Chandrababu, 166p.
"The 'Liberators' Of Tamil Nadu". tehelka.com.
The Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace: Workshop on the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace, Dhaka, People People's Republic of Bangladesh, November 23-25, 1985, 127p.
"We Tamils party S. P. Adithanar". WordPress.
Historical Dictionary of the Tamils (2007), p. 319.
Democracy, Liberalism, and War: Rethinking the Democratic Peace Debate (2001, Tarak Barkawi, Mark Laffey, 63p.
"Sri Lankan Tamils issue: Students protest continues". thehindu.com.
"Students demand Tamil Eelam, intensify agitation". thehindu.com.
The Tamil Genocide by Sri Lanka: The Global Failure to Protect Tamil Rights Under International Law, Francis Boyle, capitel self determination.

Muvendar, A general point, citing the content of other Misplaced Pages articles is really only helpful for policy issues or very general content issues. Unreferenced content on one Misplaced Pages article cannot be used to justify content discussion points made on another article. The Stateless Nation article you have cited seems particularly low grade, and has already been tagged for additional references. Also, the intro text you quote, "A stateless nation is an ethnic group, religious group, linguistic group or other cohesive group which is not the majority population in any nation state. The term implies that the group "should have" such a state, and thus expresses irredentism" as well as being unreferenced appears very pov and selective to me and I have just now tagged it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Stateless nation again

The lead currently says: Tamil people with a population of about 77 million living around the world are one of the largest and oldest of the existing ethno-linguistic cultural groups of people in the modern world to exist without a state of their own. The phrase "without state of their own" points to the page stateless nation. This claim has been contested above as being the most "absurd thing." User Vatasura, who seems to favour this wording, needs to produce reliable sources and quotes from them that establish that the "Tamil people" regard themselves as "stateless nation." Failing that, this claim will be deleted. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

“

The Tamils are the proud owners of a rich treasury of literature. Though they are an ancient race, still they dont have a country of their own. In India they occupy a state called Tamil Nadu, which has no sovereign status.

”

Scenes From Tamil Classics by Sellathamby Sriskandarajah, 5 p.

“

The Eelam movement which has been a regional South Indian phenomenon from the beginning, is becoming an international movement as well. Tamils constitute a linguistic group with a rich and proud cultural heritage and a relatively large, western educated, wealthy diaspora. But, as the World Confederation of Tamils puts it, There is no state without a Tamil, but there is no state for the Tamils. Tamil Nadu though it is the "country of Tamils" is a regional state in India and not a nation state. There is understandable resentment that while smaller ethnic group, like the Sinhalese, seen to have states, Tamils are a nation without a state or a "trans state nation".

”

The Separatist Conflict in Sri Lanka: Terrorism, Ethnicity, Political Economy by Asoka Bandarage, 20-21 p.

Can you show me on the map where you see a Tamil state? Vatasura 04:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Kautilya3. As per the definition of Stateless nation A stateless nation is an ethnic group, religious group, linguistic group or other cohesive group which is not the majority population in any nation state. So, How the tamils which are millions in numbers don't have a state of their own? FYKI, Tamil Nadu was separately created for Tamils in India! Tamil Nadu itself means The Land of Tamils or Tamil Country. Even It's official language is Tamil. Over 60 Million lives in the Indian State Tamil Nadu. This concept of stateless nation only applies to Sri Lankan Tamils and not to Indian Tamils. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 08:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vatasura: Here I'll show you a tamil state (Click-here) MBlaze Lightning -talk! 08:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vatasura: Thanks for focusing on sources finally. However, I don't see the sources establishing the claim made in the lead.

The Sriskandarajah book is a self-published work and does not count as a reliable source. The work is literary work, not political, and we have no idea of the author's credentials for making political assessments. He further looks like a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee. How can any one expect him to speak for Indian Tamils?
The Bandarage book is indeed an excellent source published by Routledge. But the book is primarily about Sri Lankan Tamils and it makes few claims about the 77 million Tamils. The Eeelam movement (for Sri Lankan Tamils) is supported by South Indian Tamils, but there is no separatist movement for South Indian Tamils themselves or a claim that they have become a stateless nation. The World Confederation of Tamils is not saying that all 77 million Tamils should become a nation-state. It is only asking for a state somewhere for Tamils, which would be satisfied if there is a Tamil Eeelam state for Sri Lankan Tamils. So, once again, I don't see a statement making a claim about 77 million Tamils forming a stateless nation.

Note that I have already accepted at the WP:DRN that the Sri Lankan Tamils form a `stateless nation' according to reliable sources. But this is not the same as saying that all Tamils of the world form a `stateless nation'. Having said that, I like the Bandarage source and I would be happy to write a section summarising the arguments made here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Describing Tamils as stateless isn't as "absurd" as editors claim. Here in Misplaced Pages we go by what WP:RS say and Vatasura has provided one, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z by James Minahan, which categorises all Tamils, not just those in Sri Lanka, as stateless. This source is used in dozens of Misplaced Pages articles. Editors are deliberately misusing the term "state" and that fact that that there is a "state" called Tamil Nadu, to deny the fact that Tamils are a stateless nation. State has several meanings. Tamil Nadu is a type of constituent state but in the context of stateless nation state means sovereign state.--obi2canibe 11:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Can you give a page number or a quote that establishes that all Tamils form a stateless nation? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Try reading from page 1843.--obi2canibe 12:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have read it. It doesn't say anything relevant to the topic. What is the point you are making? - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

So, the inclusion of 71 million Tamils in a book called Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations isn't relevant to the topic? Now whose being absurd.--obi2canibe 12:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. What you are doing is called WP:SYNTHESIS and it is prohibited. `Stateless nation' is a sufficiently intricate concept that we can't make inferences like that. Any statement on Misplaced Pages in contentious areas needs explicit support from a published reliable source. If the claim is in fact true, it should be possible to find a reliable source that makes exactly the same claim, given how many hundreds of sources seem to exist on stateless nations. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Obi2canibe and User:Vatasura, this article is not exclusively about Sri Lankan Tamils. There are many Tamils mostly in Tamil Nadu along with Rest of India. Tamil Diaspora exists in Singapore, Malaysia also. Using stateless nation at the lead is purely not following NPOV. Greek Legend (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Greek Legend - that's the whole point of this, and the previous, discussion. A WP:RS has been provided to show that all Tamils, irrespective of where they live, can be categorised as a stateless nation. Just because you disagree with the statement does not make it WP:NPOV. Kautilya3, citing Minahan isn't WP:SYNTHESIS - it is one of the main sources of the Stateless nation article. And please point me to the hundreds of reliable sources that exist on stateless nations. Both of you, please be reassured that stating Tamils are a stateless nation in a Misplaced Pages article isn't going to lead to the destruction of mighty Bharat.--obi2canibe 20:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Here they are , some 55,000 of them. If none of them says that Tamils are a stateless nation, then Misplaced Pages should not say it either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

None? Let's have a look. The first item is "Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z" by James Minahan - wait a minute...haven't I heard that mentioned already?--obi2canibe 21:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, mentioned and dismissed. You are making no progress. Find a statement that supports the claim made in the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Who talk about Sri Lankan Tamils? But, as the World Confederation of Tamils puts it, There is no state without a Tamil, but there is no state for the Tamils. Tamil Nadu though it is the "country of Tamils" is a regional state in India and not a nation state. There is understandable resentment that while smaller ethnic group, like the Sinhalese, seen to have states, Tamils are a nation without a state or a "trans state nation". The World Tamil Conference clearly speaks about all Tamils. Sinhalese were mentioned as a smaller ethnic group which means they speak of all Tamils and not only about Eelam Tamils who are smaller than Sinhalese. Additionally Tamil Nadu has been mentioned as a non sovereign State. @Vatasura: Here I'll show you a tamil state (Click-here), MBlaze Lightning are you claim that Tamil Nadu is not a part of India? But what really absurd is, that some people claim that Tamils are not a stateless nation but a subgroup of Tamils are a stateless nation. Vatasura (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether you think it is absurd or not, there are plenty of reliable sources that say it. Here are they are again (copied from WP:DRN discussion):

Put simply, the worlds stateless nations — Kosovan Albanians, Kurds from Turkey and Iraq, Tamils from Sri Lanka, Chechens from Russia, Ibos and Ogoni from Nigeria, and hundreds of other tribes and ethnic groups...
A stateless nation exists whenever or wherever an imagined political culture that functions in ways that permit a people to conceive of themselves as a nation finds itself lacking its own sovereign, independent state.... Modern examples abound: the Palestinians in Israel and Occupied Territories as well as Gaza; ... the Tamils in Sri Lanka; the Chechens in Chechnya; ...
In order to escape persecution from the Sri Lankan government, which has suspended the Tamil population's rights as citizens, a large number of Tamils have fled the island... These far-flung Tamils, together with their compatriots in Sri Lanka, constitute the stateless nation of Tamil Eelam, which is reflected in these scattered groups' presence on the World Wide Web.
Tamils in Sri Lanka have no state and are seeking to create their own sovereign state of Eelam based on their right of self-determination. They are a stateless nation oppressed by alien Sinhalese colonialism and domination.

In contrast, you haven't produced a single authoritative source that says that Tamils form a stateless nation. The `trans state nation' view is purportedly of tamilnation.org (now tamilnation.co). But whom does this web site represent?

We should really focus on the sources and read the sources instead of engaging in WP:FORUMy debates. That won't get us anywhere. We have had enough WP:OR on this topic. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

A authoritative source has been produced, Minahan, but you have dismissed it because it goes against your WP:POV. The sources you have provided above show that Sri Lankan Tamils stateless nation, but that does not prove that other Tamils aren't a stateless nation. Can you provide a WP:RS to show that other Tamils, particularly Indian Tamils, aren't a stateless nation?

A quote from Minahan (page 1849) - "Nationalist sentiment...often focuses on the unity of all Tamil territories in South Asia in a Greater Eelam". What does this mean to a Hindi nationalist?--obi2canibe 19:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ha! You have excised all the inconvenient portions of the passage to push your point. The full passage reads:

Nationalist sentiment, particularly strong in Sri Lanka, around Madras on the Indian mainland, and among the Tamil diaspora, often focus on the unity of all Tamil territories in South Asia in a Greater Eelam. The majority of the population of Tamil Nadu supports demands for greater autonomy within India, while supporting the Eelam Tamils of Sri Lanka, but only a minority seek complete separation from India.

This is a far cry from all the 77 million Tamils of the world imagining themselves to be a `stateless nation'! There is still no RS for the claim made in the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Sriskandarajah, Sellathamby (4 January 2010), Scenes From Tamil Classics, AuthorHouse, p. x, ISBN 978-1-4670-0362-9
^ Bandarage, Asoka (19 November 2008), The Separatist Conflict in Sri Lanka: Terrorism, Ethnicity, Political Economy, Routledge, pp. 20–, ISBN 978-1-135-97085-7
Mark Fisch (1996). Criminology, 1997/1998. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. ISBN 978-0-697-35421-1.
Edward Weisband; Courtney I P Thomas (17 November 2015). Political Culture and the Making of Modern Nation-States. Routledge. pp. 78–. ISBN 978-1-317-25410-2.
Enteen, Jillana B. (16 December 2009), Virtual English: Queer Internets and Digital Creolization, Routledge, pp. 79–, ISBN 978-1-135-86872-7
N. Seevaratnam; World Federation of Tamils (1989). The Tamil national question and the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord. Konark Publishers.

New sources

If you believe your sources support your claim, then these sources support my claim.

Other stateless Nation include Karen, Gypsies (Roma or Romani), Karelians, Tartars, Tuvans, Chechens, Sami, Uygurs (pronouced Vigers), Tibetans, and Tamils. (AP Human Geography)

Thus, the necessity arises to spur up comparative research on specific nationalisms as embodied in various nation-states (India, Romania, Nigeria, Bolivia, the USA etc) and pursued by stateless nations/national movenment (eg the Catalans, the Kurds, the Zulus, the Tamils, the Mayans). (unknown author, 2004)

The Tamils were amongst many in the world that had no "state" to represent them internationally (Udalgama, de Silva, 2014)

There are many "stateless Nations": Groups of people with a common sense of identity who do not have a state to represent them on the world stage. The Kurds, the Tamils, the Tibetans, the Basques and the Chechens are some examples of this phenomenon (Haynes et al, 2013)

All Tamils are part of the Tamil nation. This nation has no state and that means they are a stateless nation, this is the bitter truth.

WP:DRN: Closed as failed. The latest statement by one editor(Kautilya3 ) indicates an unwillingness to resolve the wording of the lede collaboratively: 'What exists in the lead is WP:OR not supported by RS. It is also not discussed in the article body, as it should be. Once this DRN case closes, I intend to delete it.' The purpose of dispute resolution should be to discuss what should be in the article, not to simply state what we plan to edit in the article. The other editor (Vatasura), if not satisfied, is advised that a Request for Comments may be a way to resolve this issue. obi2canibe is right, you claim mostly everything against your statement as WP:OR.Vatasura 02:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just because some people think its divide India, we can not allow them to divide Tamils. Stateless nation has directly nothing to do with separatism. Stateless nation is a political term for nation without a state. Even Romani people are stateless nation, they have neither a homeland or a movement, but they are a nation without state.Vatasura 03:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. I will look at them. By the way, I am continuing to do here exactly what I think the DRN case should have done, viz., to examine the sources. It failed because it didn't do it. I am not going to debate what `stateless nation' means because the scholars say that they don't have a definition. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vatasura: Sorry for the delay. It took me a while to study the sources. Now that I have, here is my response. First of all, we need to distinguish between sources that have actually studied the Tamils and those that mention Tamils in the passing. The latter may or may not have studied the issues. Or, they may simply be repeating what they think is consensus among the communities or academics. So we really need to focus on the sources that have studied the Tamil issue in depth.

The Udalgama and de Silva article from which you quoted a sentence says this:

The violent war waged against the state by the LTTE is seen as a classic case study in "separatism." With the increased emphasis on "one state for one nation," the LTTE became a prime force to create a separate state for the Tamil population acorss the world. The Tamils were one ethnic group amongst many in the world that had no "state" to represent them internationally. The Tamils are a dispersed population, in diaspora around the world, with no legitimate homeland. The LTTE propagated this ideology throughout their efforts to win over their own state by separating the North and East of Sri Lanka under a flag called "Elam." Such rationalization for violence defined LTTE as a separatist group. They believed that integrating with the dominant group would compromise their identity. Hence, the separatist ideology found justification for the existence of LTTE was actually based on identity politics.

Note that this entire paragraph is about the ideology propagated by the LTTE. The sentence you quoted is also part of this ideology. It is not a statement of the authors. This article title, "Group violence against the state," is merely documenting the LTTE violence against the Sri Lankan state. It has nothing to say about the Indian Tamils.

The Princeton Review book is an exam prep book, not a text book or a scholarly source. It mentions Tamils in passing. However, note that its definition of a stateless nation is entirely counter to yours:

Stateless nations: Although many culture groups are politically represented or are part of larger political entities, there are some stateless nations, where a culture group is not included or allowed share in the state political process.

So it is not enough, according to this prep book, that a national group is without a state. It must be excluded somehow from "the state political process." Good luck trying to show this for the Indian Tamils!

The Jeffrey Haynes book is another example of a passing mention of Tamils. There is no substance here, at least as far as stateless nations are concerned. I might also note the deliberate Eurocentricism of this book. The UK, USA and France are apparently the prime examples of states where national identity is the same as political identity. India and Nigeria aren't. And, all the stateless nations exist over there, Tamils, Tibetans and so on. The Puerto Ricans, the Hawaiians, the Qubecois, the Welsh and the Scots etc. are not stateless nations. We are the civilized people with national identities, they are the ones with stateless nations. Phew!
The Middle East & South Asia Folklore Bulletin, whatever it is, I can't get hold of it. As far as I can tell, it is grey literature put together by a University department, which shut down when the funding ran out. I can't tell who wrote the words you quoted, whether it was a research paper or a review article, or whether any of this was peer-reviewed and published. I can't make any sense of the sentence you quoted: "specific nationalisms" of India etc. which were then "pursued" by stateless nations like Tamils etc? It is not a reliable source.

I know you feel that I am shooting down everything you come up with using some excuse or the other. But the point of fact is that there are no Indian Tamils who regard themselves as a "stateless nation." What you are trying to prove is blatantly false. You are merely trying publish the slogans fed to you by LTTE, without actually making any effort to understand what is going on. If I do see actual evidence that there is statelessness among the Indian Tamils, I will be quite happy to write about it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this dispute can not be solved without neutral assistance. We can not always run in circles as source, rejected, source rejected. I have now followed the advice of Robert McClenon and started a RFC. No matter what the result is, I accept it and hope the same from you. Vatasura 17:45, 01 April 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Princeton Review (21 October 2014), Cracking the AP Human Geography Exam, 2015 Edition, Random House Children's Books, p. 51, ISBN 978-0-8041-2535-2)
The Middle East & South Asia Folklore Bulletin, Division of Comparative Studies in the Humanities, Ohio State University, 2004, p. 51
^ Udalagama, Tharindi; de Silva, Premakumara (2014), "Group Violence Against the State: The Hindsight Story of the Thirty-Year War in Sri Lanka", in James Hawdon; John Ryan; Marc Lucht (eds.), The Causes and Consequences of Group Violence: From Bullies to Terrorists, Lexington Books, p. 92, ISBN 978-0-7391-8897-2
^ Haynes, Jeffrey; Hough, Peter; Malik, Shahin (2013), World Politics: International Relations and Globalisation in the 21st Century, Routledge, pp. 402–403, ISBN 978-1-317-86297-0 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Chouinard, Stéphanie (2016), "Stateless nations", in Karl Cordell; Stefan Wolff (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Ethnic Conflict, Routledge, pp. 54–66, ISBN 9781317518921

RfC: Tamils as a Stateless nation

The consensus is that "without a state of their own" should be removed the lead of the article Tamils.
Cunard (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some users think Tamils as a whole are a stateless nation and favor the keep of "without a state of their own" in lead.
Some users think only Sri Lankan Tamils are a stateless nation and favor the remove of "without a state of their own" in lead.

Should "without a state of their own" keep or remove from lead of article Tamils? Vatasura 17:45, 01 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep - See the discussions above "Are Tamils a stateless nation or only Sri Lankan Tamils?" and "Stateless nation again".Vatasura 17:45, 01 April 2016 (UTC)
Remove - The idea of a national state is founded in outmoded nationalist and racist ideas. If it causes controversy, just delete it. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Remove though not for any of the reasons invoked above by OpenFuture who brings ideology ("the idea...is...outmoded...and racist") into the discussion. Misplaced Pages does not shy away from controversy, either; controversial subjects simply "require far greater care to achieve a neutral point of view." Irrespective of irrelevant argumentation, we should indeed delete the phrase to exist without a state of their own (from the sentence " are one of the largest and oldest of the existing ethno-linguistic cultural groups of people in the modern world to exist without a state of their own") because, as explicitly noted in the whole of current, prevalent Anthropology and Sociology, nation and nation-state have never been and still are not synonymous. The fact that a tribe, a race, a nation, etc, exists without possessing a state of its own does not impart any additional information of value since the fact is already there, in the relevant entry. Information about the struggle of Tamils for independence should, of course, be included (per the notability rule) but the phrase in question is a blatant violation of the foundational obligation for a neutral stance. -The Gnome (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Remove - To summarise the extensive discussion that has taken place above, I don't see any evidence that the Indian Tamils, the vast majority of the world's Tamils, have claimed either "nationhood" or "statelessness." They are by and large comfortable in the multinational state that is India. According to James Minahan, The majority of the population of Tamil Nadu supports demands for greater autonomy within India, while supporting the Eelam Tamils of Sri Lanka, but only a minority seek complete separation from India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS to show that the majority of a group must be seeking independence in order to be classified as a stateless nation? Do you have WP:RS to show that the majority of Scots, Québécois, Welsh, Catalans, Kurds, Chechens, Basques, Ibos, Ogoni etc are seek independence?--obi2canibe 12:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS to show that if any number of people from an ethnic group, no matter how small their number, are seeking independence then the ethnic group must be classified as a stateless nation? -The Gnome (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No, but a WP:RS has been provided which classifies all Tamils as a stateless nation.--obi2canibe 13:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A number of other sources, also reliable, denote Tamils as a nation without using the word "stateless." For more, see Dravidian peoples. Does one reliable source suffice for a characterisation in Misplaced Pages, moreover of a whole nation? I wonder. -The Gnome (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep - Tamils have been included in the Stateless nation article since the table was inserted in September 2012. This is because one of the main sources for that article, Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z by James Minahan, includes all Tamils irrespective where they live. Misplaced Pages isn't here to judge what is right or wrong or push a particular WP:POV. It is here merely to replicate what WP:RS state. Minahan is a WP:RS. Those who oppose classifying all Tamils as a stateless nation haven't tried to remove Tamils from Stateless nation but have chosen to attack Tamils. This itself shows WP:POV on their part. They are also trying to place an unsourced high barrier, namely that the "vast majority" of a group must have claimed nationhood or statelessness to be classified as a stateless nation, in order to prevent Tamils being classified as a stateless nation. If that high barrier were applied to the all groups listed in Stateless nation most would have to be removed from that article as there is no evidence that the "vast majority" claim nationhood/statelessness. Even high profile groups such as Scots and Québécois would have to be removed as they have rejected independence several times in a democratic vote.--obi2canibe 11:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Researcher James Minahan's criteria for inclusion of an ethnic group in the category of stateless nations are that "individuals within the group identify themselves as a separate nation, have adopted at least some trappings of a state (especially a flag), and have formed a nationalist or political organization." These are one person's criteria and, accepting that his work qualifies as a reliable source, his work could be quoted. But why these criteria are to be mandatory for the whole of Misplaced Pages is not readily apparent. You may perhaps want to elaborate. -The Gnome (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that at all, quite the opposite. As The Routledge Handbook of Ethnic Conflict says, "there is no decisive definition of a stateless nation. For each criterion regarding shared culture, language, religion, or territory that could be brought forward as part of a definition, an exception may be found". Those opposed to classifying all Tamils as a stateless nation are trying to use a rigid definition to exclude Tamils. Tamils may have a constituent state, their language may be official and the majority may not support independence but that does not mean that they aren't a stateless nation. They may be an exception. What we have is a WP:RS which classifies all Tamils as a stateless nation.--obi2canibe 13:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Being a Tamil yourself, your stance is somewhat understandable. However, this is Misplaced Pages and NOT some battleground of national aspirations - and the existence of one single source stating something does not mean at all that the respective definitions in the encyclopaedia must follow suit. I asked you before and I ask you again: Does one reliable source suffice for a characterisation in Misplaced Pages, moreover of a whole nation? Me, I do not think so. -The Gnome (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Remove This is one of the reasons I put this up for Featured article review, the source is clearly not a reliable source, anything published doesn't become reliable. Quite frankly, the whole article is of sub par quality compared to a few years ago. —SpacemanSpiff 17:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Remove per Kautilya3's argument. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Remove per argumentation by The Gnome and Kautilya3. One can very well argue that the people involved have a state of their own. India. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Remove: One author's mixed primary and tertiary work applying an idiosyncratic definition isn't enough for us to go on. Most Tamils are in India, and consider themselves Indian citizens, not "stateless". That's a term with a very particular definition, being misapplied by the author in question. By Minahan's definition, every single random nationalist movement, no matter how minority and impractical, is a "stateless nation" the moment some of them start waving a flag they made up one day. See WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE; it's not encyclopedic to include every possible label anyone ever comes up with, and labeling random groups of people "stateless nations", a doubly confused and ambiguous term, by criteria that don't actually make sense, is a great example of material we don't need to include. Furthermore, "nation" has multiple meanings, and "ethno-regional group" is a off-beat, archaic, and confusing one that we should avoid except in the rare cases that RS consistently use it (e.g. for several Native American nations, recognized as such by treaty with their major former antagonist nation-state; and Wales and Scotland but not Cornwall and Northern Ireland, since the former also have an established legal relationship, as nations within a larger entity, as the result of former military struggles (and not that it's Wales and Scotland, not the Welsh and the Scottish as ethnic groups, that are recognized as British nations). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 16:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Remove per argumentation by The Gnome and SMcCandlish. Borsoka (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep and Reword to make their situation clear. Regardless of the nationalist feelings in the Sinhalese-Tamil (+ Indian-Tamil) relations, it is obvious that Tamils are a stateless nation. They have no sovereign state of their own. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Remove The Indian-Tamils reside in a multi-national state and thus cannot be referred to as a stateless nation. It can be argued that the Sinhalese-Tamils are also not a stateless nation, bu rather reside in a state under apartheid-type conditions. A group qualifies as a stateless nation only if their members are regularly expelled from any state they reside in. Tale.Spin (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you deny that Tamils are a nation? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep Tamils do not constitute a majority or recognized as the major ethnic nation in any country, hence, the notion of 'stateless'ness is quite applicable. A nation with a state has its own independent government, judiciary and several cultural institutions for the interests of the ethnic group, and the Tamils have none of that. --CuCl₂ 19:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Comment - The RfC is confusing. The question in the RfC title and the question you have posed in text are the opposites of each other. I suggest you change the RfC title to a neutral statement such as "Tamils as a Stateless nation." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

References

James Minahan (2002), Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 1849, ISBN 978-0-313-32384-3

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Tamils. 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/20131028175927/http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html to http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124105732/http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2005/01/30/fea28.html to http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2005/01/30/fea28.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617043012/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-4-98530-Strangers-to-their-roots-and-those-around-them to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-4-98530-Strangers-to-their-roots-and-those-around-them
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904034700/http://www.harappa.com/arrow/stone_celt_indus_signs.html to http://www.harappa.com/arrow/stone_celt_indus_signs.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5983_1657214%2C00430014.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201061259/http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b66_263.pdf to http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b66_263.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.archaeology.lk/http%3A/www.archaeology.lk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Dinithi-Volume-1-Issue-4.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/ra-magazine/winter2006/features/heven-sent%2C47%2CRAMA.html

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

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) 20:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tamils. 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:

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

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) 18:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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) 22:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Kalarippayattu.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I noticed that the pronunciation given at the beginning of this article is . While I have heard this pronunciation plenty of times before, I've also heard the pronunciation quite a lot. It's definitely an English-language pronunciation and not just the pronunciation in the Tamil language: the latter has a sound and what's closer to an sound in lieu of a and an in the latter, respectively (among other differences).

the Oxford English Dictionary not only includes as correct, but does not include as a possible pronunciation. So, at the very least one reliable source (and a very authoritative one at that) supports as correct pronunciation. It doesn't explicitly say is incorrect, and I'm not saying we should remove that pronunciation. But I do think there is sufficient reason to include as a pronunciation as well. I also would like to make this change on other similar articles, e.g. Tamil Language (which actually has some other things wrong with its pronunciation guide, although this is probably not the right discussion page to outline them).

I doubt that the above is particularly controversial, but I'm also curious about whether or not this is a regional difference. Virtually every person I've heard say has been from the UK or the US, and I virtually always hear Tamils and other Indians say (or occasionally ) when speaking in English. If it is a regional difference, it could also be indicated in the article that the former is the US/UK and the latter is Indian English. But that much is just speculation, so I was wondering if anyone with more knowledge on the subject could shed some light on this so I can find some sources that might talk about the distinction? I haven't found anything about it but I only did a somewhat cursory internet search.

Thanks! Emptybathtub (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Stateless nation

The book "Encyclopedia of stateless nations" is quite explicit: for inclusion, a group must "share one important characteristic: They self-identity as a distinct people with enough cohesion to seek some sort of greater self-government". Tamils are included. So, according to the author, Tamils are a stateless nation.

Someone without an axe to grind should take a look at the previous discussions on this topic. They reek of nationalism and bias. Tewdar (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, people seem to be having severe problems with the concept of a "state", in the usual geopolitical sense of a sovereign nation-state. Tewdar (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Another (reliable, scholarly) book describing Tamils as a "stateless nation":

The Kurdish Question and Turkey: An Example of a Trans-state Ethnic Conflict By Kemal Kirişci, Kemal Kiri s ci, Gareth M. Winrow

(pg. 3) Tewdar (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Or a "nation without a state", anyway... Tewdar (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So I added it as a source. So, now there are two reliable sources. Tewdar (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So now there are FOUR reliable sources describing Tamils as a stateless nation, one of them talking about the Tamils of Sri Lanka", the others with NO such qualification.

You might not AGREE with this assessment, but it is obvious that several political scientists and others class Tamils as a stateless nation. It takes some real special pleading to conclude otherwise. Tewdar (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

And I have removed them all. Minahan is not reliable, per discussions at WP:RSN, and two others were passing mentions. The other of your four was not viewable to me but no matter - we have had umpteen discussions and an RfC about this issue and your boldness appears to run counter to past consensus. Worse, you have completely ignored WP:LEAD. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The past "consensus" was just bullying, mainly by people who had no clue about even basic concepts like "what is a state"

I agree that the disputed statement appears to violate WP:LEAD without further elaboration in the article.

Here's another reference you may like to look at:

Transnational Ethnic Dimensions of Third-Party Interventions in Civil Wars M Austvoll - annual meeting of the American Political Science association, 2006

The "theory" that Tamils are indeed a stateless nation seems to be generally accepted amongst political scientists. Certainly, it should at an absolute minimum, be mentioned in the article.

Tewdar (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

BTW Minahan's book is cited by many on Google Scholar, and was apparently reviewed by Fukuyama, though I haven't read the review. Have you? Tewdar (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it (and I am pretty new to this issue), a part of the difficulty is the semantics surrounding use of the word Tamils. Context is likely to be very important in evaluating sources. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to read Google Scholar. I do need to consider the consensus of the community, who presumably have done their due diligence. Consensus can change and you are welcome to attempt such but the book in question was, I think, demonstrated to be full of errors and the author to have no specific expertise. Check for his name in the RSN archives. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't quite know what you mean. Some sources simply describe the Tamils of Sri Lanka as a "stateless nation", as thry are obviously more visible. Others, including scholarly sources, Minahan aside, explicitly and unapologetically describle all Tamils as comprising a stateless nation.

This doesn't seem very controversial, at least outside of south Asia. Tewdar (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, if Misplaced Pages doesn't consider Minahan reliable, then fine. But there are lots and lots of sources, admittedly not specializing in this issue, who describe Tamil people as a stateless nation.

Again,the previous debates on this subject have been of a very poor standard, essentially of the "I don't think they are a stateless nation, so there" variety. Tewdar (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

And please, read "Transnational Ethnic Dimensions of Third-Party Interventions in Civil Wars" (M Austvoll) (page 11) - surely the American Political Science Association is a good enough source for the "community"? Tewdar (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

We do not accept passing mentions. Please consider WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

IVC

@Sitush: nor do they "largely descend" from the IVC, if I recall correctly; 75% southern hunter-gatherers, 25% IVC. Those post-Harappan folks were as intrusive to the south as the Indo-Aryans were intrusive to the north. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this related to my recent removal of the Science Direct source? - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Science Daily, but yes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, Tamils are not largely descend from the IVC. Kanatonian (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I am also slightly concerned about another passage, for which the citations will need to be rescued from the history. We say

Dravidian influence on early Vedic religion is evident; many of these features are already present in the oldest known Indo-Aryan language, the language of the Rigveda (c. 1500 BCE), which also includes over a dozen words borrowed from Dravidian. This represents an early religious and cultural fusion or synthesis between ancient Dravidians and Indo-Aryans, which became more evident over time with sacred iconography, flora and fauna that went on to influence Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism

but are we conflating the Tamil ethnolinguistic group and the Dravidians here? I am weak on this but have the feeling that the two are not synonymous, although there is a relationship between them. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Indrapala source query

We cite K. Indrapala's Evolution of an Ethnic Identity. Da Silva absolutely roasted that work in a long review, and even Indrapala admitted he had completely changed his mind in the years since he originally studied the subject for his PhD. The intervening period saw the rise of Tamil nationalism & Da Silva suggests this accounts for Indrapala's change of heart.

JSTOR 43855217 is the review. I am not for now suggesting we don't use it as a source but it does look like we may need to take care. I have seen a couple of other, lesser reviews that are pretty dismissive, too. - Sitush (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Da Silva is not a historian but a diplomat, and is an unreliable, heavily biased source. He even makes a crazy claim that the Koneswaram Kovil, which we have huge evidence for in inscriptions and literature, was actually a Buddhist temple. Really his words can not be taken seriously. Certainly not above Indrapala.Metta79 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've re-read Bandu De Silva 'roasting', Its frankly embarrassing. He is denying the clear overwhelming evidence of a early iron age Dravidian substratum in Sri Lanka, which recent unbiased Sinhalese scholars such as Sudharshan Seneviratne have uncovered. A good summary of those findings can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBV9xNQDA8w

Indrapala merely reiterated these findings in his new book. Unfortunately, Sri Lankan Archaeology and History departments are heavily biased, so all evidence of prior Dravidian habitation on the island is being erased from the history books.Metta79 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Categories: