This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This was a real misleading by the user Vikram singh. This is so nasty article to break India. And it is another cheat by North Indians by giving the name STAN Instead of Nadu.
Dravida Nadu, Dravida Desham etc are correct. But I never give importance to this article and it have to delete from Wikipedia. Other wise it will make problems in south India. The Back bone of India is South India.
We are Indians. South Indians are real Indians. we reached to South India from river Indus. Thus there is no South India. Only India. Great India. Selavaraj 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Accoring to Wikipedia policies, an article may be marked for deletion only if it is either blatent vandalism, nonsense, advertisement or copyright violation. This article does not meet any of these criteria. If you have problems with the name and want to call it Dravida Nadu then raise this in the article talk page and let the community decide.
This article documents a true event in the history of Tamil Nadu. Your arguments that it will somehow influence Indian unity is bogus and is not a concern of Wikipedia. - Parthi talk/ contribs 09:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Request you to pl. change the article's name to DravidaNadu. The current article is written in a half-backed manner perhaps with an agenda. It is akin to writing that NSCN fights for a (NagaNadu/Naga-Istan/NagaRashtra/or any other word I fancy) instead of 'NagaLim' which is correct.I wonder why a die-hard anti-hindi rebel would suggest an 'ISTAN' first place .
There are no references to this 'newly invented' name from any reliable source to cite. On the contrary, 'DravidaNadu' is used extensively in the writings of EVR and Anna.
Even by wiki's policy, this creative naming amounts to Nonsense.
Shame on Wikipedia that some people can hijack these articles and not allow any change to it. I would expect atleast the moderators to be knowledgeable of the topics they seek to control.
Sure the article has the right to exist, but with proper, correct name. Free Wikipedia from stuffing malinfo.
thanks.
The following statements are being reverted over:
Statement (1) is common knowledge, though I agree the involvement of Caldwell etc. needs to be cited. So the statement should stay. (2) is also true, I don't think there's any proven genetic differences, so we should keep it. (3) is trivial and irrelevant so that can be deleted. Please discuss if you disagree. Lotlil 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Lotlil and to add, I also think that this article needs to be merged and redirected to either E. V. Ramasami Naicker or Tamil Nadu politics or some such thing. Dravidistan was a short lived dementia of a deluded few and is certainly not important enough to merit its own article per WP:UNDUE. P.C.Alexander also writes it off as a non-starter. Sarvagnya 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Gnanapiti: Please refrain from name calling and personal attacks, as it is self damaging in the end. If you are unhappy with certain edits, explain so in a civil matter. Furthermore, please read up on Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you. Wiki Raja 05:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to be a less researched and more biased variant of Tamil Nationalism. I propose that it's contents be merged with the former. Kingsley Joseph ( talk) 08:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently the lead states it was a state proposed for "non-Brahmins" and provides two offline references. can anyone please paste here what exactly the reference says?. Because, in the early 40s, the JP/DK was forced to clarify that they won't exclude brahmins from Dravida nadu and after 1949 DMK did not state anything about caste based exclusion.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 14:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Periyar with Jinnah and Ambedkar.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
It is very silly to refer to people by the "cult" names given by devotional bhakthas. A case in point is E.V.Ramasamy naicker. It is ridiculous to keep referring to him as Periyar , when others have different opinions about him. So, if the name Periyar is used instead of E.V.Ramasamy , then Siriyar is equally good since that is the view of ordinary, rational, non-Bhaktha people. Refer to any individual by their ordinary name , and not by by adulatory titles. It will only invite other non-adulatory nick names — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.76.99 ( talk) 10:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
PAKHIGHWAY:
Wikipedia is not a place to spread your anti-India rhetoric. utcursch | talk 15:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This was a real misleading by the user Vikram singh. This is so nasty article to break India. And it is another cheat by North Indians by giving the name STAN Instead of Nadu.
Dravida Nadu, Dravida Desham etc are correct. But I never give importance to this article and it have to delete from Wikipedia. Other wise it will make problems in south India. The Back bone of India is South India.
We are Indians. South Indians are real Indians. we reached to South India from river Indus. Thus there is no South India. Only India. Great India. Selavaraj 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Accoring to Wikipedia policies, an article may be marked for deletion only if it is either blatent vandalism, nonsense, advertisement or copyright violation. This article does not meet any of these criteria. If you have problems with the name and want to call it Dravida Nadu then raise this in the article talk page and let the community decide.
This article documents a true event in the history of Tamil Nadu. Your arguments that it will somehow influence Indian unity is bogus and is not a concern of Wikipedia. - Parthi talk/ contribs 09:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Request you to pl. change the article's name to DravidaNadu. The current article is written in a half-backed manner perhaps with an agenda. It is akin to writing that NSCN fights for a (NagaNadu/Naga-Istan/NagaRashtra/or any other word I fancy) instead of 'NagaLim' which is correct.I wonder why a die-hard anti-hindi rebel would suggest an 'ISTAN' first place .
There are no references to this 'newly invented' name from any reliable source to cite. On the contrary, 'DravidaNadu' is used extensively in the writings of EVR and Anna.
Even by wiki's policy, this creative naming amounts to Nonsense.
Shame on Wikipedia that some people can hijack these articles and not allow any change to it. I would expect atleast the moderators to be knowledgeable of the topics they seek to control.
Sure the article has the right to exist, but with proper, correct name. Free Wikipedia from stuffing malinfo.
thanks.
The following statements are being reverted over:
Statement (1) is common knowledge, though I agree the involvement of Caldwell etc. needs to be cited. So the statement should stay. (2) is also true, I don't think there's any proven genetic differences, so we should keep it. (3) is trivial and irrelevant so that can be deleted. Please discuss if you disagree. Lotlil 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Lotlil and to add, I also think that this article needs to be merged and redirected to either E. V. Ramasami Naicker or Tamil Nadu politics or some such thing. Dravidistan was a short lived dementia of a deluded few and is certainly not important enough to merit its own article per WP:UNDUE. P.C.Alexander also writes it off as a non-starter. Sarvagnya 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Gnanapiti: Please refrain from name calling and personal attacks, as it is self damaging in the end. If you are unhappy with certain edits, explain so in a civil matter. Furthermore, please read up on Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you. Wiki Raja 05:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to be a less researched and more biased variant of Tamil Nationalism. I propose that it's contents be merged with the former. Kingsley Joseph ( talk) 08:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently the lead states it was a state proposed for "non-Brahmins" and provides two offline references. can anyone please paste here what exactly the reference says?. Because, in the early 40s, the JP/DK was forced to clarify that they won't exclude brahmins from Dravida nadu and after 1949 DMK did not state anything about caste based exclusion.-- Sodabottle ( talk) 14:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Periyar with Jinnah and Ambedkar.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
It is very silly to refer to people by the "cult" names given by devotional bhakthas. A case in point is E.V.Ramasamy naicker. It is ridiculous to keep referring to him as Periyar , when others have different opinions about him. So, if the name Periyar is used instead of E.V.Ramasamy , then Siriyar is equally good since that is the view of ordinary, rational, non-Bhaktha people. Refer to any individual by their ordinary name , and not by by adulatory titles. It will only invite other non-adulatory nick names — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.76.99 ( talk) 10:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
PAKHIGHWAY:
Wikipedia is not a place to spread your anti-India rhetoric. utcursch | talk 15:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)