Talk:Tamil culture

Merger proposal

I suggest that the short, new article Tamil Buddhism is merged here. The article seems to be more about Buddhism's influence on Tamil culture than any specific Buddhist movement, and would find a good new home here. Zakhalesh (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be fine if others come out with their own suggestion. Manimekalai, a Tamil Buddhist literary text and subsequent Silappatikaram have great effects on Tamils, so as the Tamil Buddhism among the ancient Tamils.Shivaass (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Other people will find this discussion in some time, I hope. I'd also like to clarify, I think Tamil Buddhism is an important subject but it would fit better in this article, especially since this article is pretty light on the religious parts of the Tamil culture. Sources for information would have to be found, though. Zakhalesh (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I like to suggest for other's consideration whether the Tamil Buddhism could be directed to Buddhism in Tamil Nadu.Shivaass (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's likely to happen, as regional influences of religions would have to be very important. How does Buddhism in Tamil Nadu really stand out from Buddhism in India? Also, you still haven't provided any source for Tamil Buddhism so we can't be sure about the factual accuracy of the article. Zakhalesh (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Tamil Buddhism or Buddhism amongst Tamils has its own sources, if one cares to go to a library and do some research. I would say that Wikipedia can support an independant article on this subject provided it is properly referenced. Kanatonian (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd support an independent article for Tamil Buddhism with full reliable citations per above. Lifebonzza (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I too support a separate article. The scope for such an article is much larger than that could be covered in summary style in the Tamil culture article. The impact of Buddism on Tamil was/is large and there is a fair amount of literature on the subject as Kanatonian has pointed out. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The influence of Tamil philosophy on the founding of various schools of the religion, including of course Zen Buddhism, only heightens the need for a full independent article exploring Tamil Buddhism.Lifebonzza (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just like Tamil Jains, so we let it be alone. Kautilyalundit (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tamil culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //tamil.berkeley.edu/html/chapter_1.html

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

tamill

The earliest Tamil writing is attested in inscriptions and potsherds from the 5th century bce. Three periods have been distinguished through analyses of grammatical and lexical changes: Old Tamil (from about 450 bce to 700 ce), Middle Tamil (700–1600), and Modern Tamil (from 1600). The Tamil writing system evolved from the Brahmi script. The shape of the letters changed enormously over time, eventually stabilizing when printing was introduced in the 16th century ce. The major addition to the alphabet was the incorporation of Grantha letters to write unassimilated Sanskrit words, although a few letters with irregular shapes were standardized during the modern period. A script known as Vatteluttu (“Round Script”) is also in common use.

Spoken Tamil has changed substantially over time, including changes in the phonological structure of words. This has created diglossia—a system in which there are distinct differences between colloquial forms of a language and those that are used in formal and written contexts. The major regional variation is between the form spoken in India and that spoken in Jaffna (Sri Lanka), capital of a former Tamil city-state, and its surrounds. Within Tamil Nadu there are phonological differences between the northern, western, and southern speech. Regional varieties of the language intersect with varieties that are based on social class or caste.

Like the other Dravidian languages, Tamil is characterized by a series of retroflex consonants (/ḍ/, /ṇ/, and /ṭ/) made by curling the tip of the tongue back to the roof of the mouth. Structurally, Tamil is a verb-final language that allows flexibility regarding the order of the subject and the object in a sentence. Adjectives and relative, adverbial, and infinitive clauses normally precede the term they modify, while inflections such as those for tense, number, person, and case are indicated with suffixes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logesharun (talk • contribs) 06:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tamil culture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 06:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk · contribs) 03:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Overall yes though there are areas where this can be improved: -Clarify the two categories of Tamil literature with punctuation Y -Fix intermittent spelling mistakes (the word hyms in 'Music') Y -Reword: "The first silent film in South India was produced in Tamil in 1916 and the first talkie was a multi-lingual film, Kalidas, which released on 31 October 1931, barely seven months after India's first talking picture Alam Ara." Y -'Places of worship' subsection lacks flow Has been merged to the appropriate sections as it did look like an odd list -Add comma: "During the Indian Independence Movement, many Tamil poets and writers sought to provoke national spirit notably Bharathiar and Bharathidasan." Y
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Overall decent with exceptions: -Intermittent use of honorifics (e.g., Lord Ganesha vs Ganesha) Y -Intermittent inconsistency with dating conventions (e.g., BCE vs. BC) Y -Minor inconsistencies with dating (3rd century CE vs third century CE) & capitalization (sangam vs Sangam era) Y -Italics for ethnic words are used inconsistently throughout the article (see MOS:FORITA) Y -Recommend using metric as primary unit of measure in 'Clothing' section Y
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	-Reference #2 does not appear to be reliable for citing scientific information. "While archelogical evidence points to hominids inhabiting the region nearly 400 millenia ago, it has been inhabited by modern humans continuously for more than 3,800 years.[2][3][4]"
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Agree
	2c. it contains no original research.	Agree
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	-Initial Earwig screen did not reveal any copyright violation, though I was unable to use the search engine feature due to an error.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Agree
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Agree
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Agree
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Agree
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Agree
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Agree
	7. Overall assessment.

I plan to review this article. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@LeónGonsalvesofGoa Appreciate you taking this up for review. I understand that this is your first GA review. While you might be mentored by an experienced reviewer, please do let me know in case you need anything or want to discuss. Cheers! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I will keep you informed should I have any questions. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@LeónGonsalvesofGoa Please let me know if you are still interested in going forward with the review. It has been nearly a week and there seems to be no progression or update. Thanks! 13:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Magentic Manifestations (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience as I complete my first review. Overall, the article looks good. Still learning the Manual of Style. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments from User:Rollinginhisgrave

Hi Magentic Manifestations, I can see a few of the factual errors and grammatical mistakes from the Dance forms of Tamil Nadu have spilled over into this article as well. Please make sure the claim the region has been occupied for "400 millennia" is corrected in whatever articles you've added it to.

LeónGonsalvesofGoa, my comments at the review page for Dance forms of Tamil Nadu may be helpful. If you are using the table, you can change the ? to a tick by changing |?| in the wikicode to a y, a n or a "hold". I'll also list some issues I can see just in the lede of this article while I'm here:

• Tamil culture denotes the diverse culture of the Tamil people. It includes the unique art and architecture, clothing, cuisine and practices that form a part of the lives of Tamils. WP:POSA. It is redundant to say Tamil culture is the culture of the Tamils, and to say it includes things like art, clothing etc. #1a requires prose is concise. Agree that it is redundant to elaborate what culture is and can be better framed. The first line is required as it describes that it is the culture of Tamil people (Tamil is synonymous and used for the people, language and location. So it is similar to saying that of Roman or British People rather than Roman empire or Great Britain respectively.

I understand. I'll leave this as my last comment unless León asks for clarification so I'm not taking over their review.

Redundancy can be avoided by starting with something like "The Tamil people..." i.e. The Tamil people have a diverse culture going back at least XXXX years (3800 years of culture is not supported by the source). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• one of the ancient languages What are the ancient languages? Agree that it is blunt and could be better worded.
• Emphasis on self respect and hospitality are notable features of Tamil culture. In the source, an individual is claiming that self-respect is unique to Tamil culture. It appears to be political. It should be attributed, or, honestly, excluded as without other sources it appears to be WP:FRINGE. If it were to be included, it would have to be included in the body as well as the lede, and the reference should be moved there following MOS:LEDE.Let me see if there are other sources backing this. But as per MOS:LEAD, while it "usually" repeats the content in the body, it is not absolutely necessary that the lead incorporates only the information. Although it is common for references to appear in the body and not repeated for the same statements in the lead, it can be mentioned and backed up by citations in the lead.

Thanks for noting this. I agree, but because this is their value system, having a fleeting note in the lede and no discussion in the body would likely mean the article is not broad enough. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I have removed this.Magentic Manifestations (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• Archaeological evidence points to the Tamilakam region being inhabited for more than 400 millennia and indicates a continuous history from more than 3,800 years ago.

→ Archeological evidence indicates the Tamilakam region has been inhabited for...

Continuous history doesn't make sense, as if it was inhabited for 400 millenia it would have a 400 millenia history.

It is impossible for it to have been inhabited for 400 millenia, given humans only left Africa later than that.

chequered history not part of GA review, but likely fails WP:COLLOQUIAL You have been raising this point again and again. The source clearly states that arch. evidence of occupation dates back to 400,000 years. It never mentions that human occupation happened for continuously 400 millenia. It was occupied by hominids earlier and there has been continuous history of human occupation for the past 3.8 millenia. What I will do is split this to two clearer sentences to avoid confusion.

The reason I keep bringing this up is because occupation implies by humans, and homo sapiens hadn't emerged 400 millenia ago.Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Have split and reworded it. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave Unless you disagree, I think the changes made by @Magentic Manifestations make sense. I've noted my concern about the sources above. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Minor grammar point: continued for two centuries before -> until Y
• and have developed diversely Awkward, needs rewording and change of tenses. Y
• Sangam era capitalise, RS call this the Sangam period.Y
• The later conquests Unclear what later conquests there are. Y
• the culture has become diverse It was claimed the culture was already diverse from its long history. Y
• forms a significant part of the life of the people in India This is not mentioned in the body, and needs a source. it should have been Tamil Nadu
• Tamil diaspora such as Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia, South Africa, Mauritius, Fiji, Middle East, Caribbean and the United States. Many are not mentioned in the body, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. All are mentioned in the history section. US is mentioned instead of Western World, will make it as is.

It just says the Tamil have emigrated there, it doesn't make the larger claim that it "forms a significant part of the life of the people in [these countries]". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reworded this as well.Magentic Manifestations (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave Thanks for the additional comments. My comments in blue. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave Thank you for weighing in. This is my first review, and I appreciate your advice. I still see places where ethnic words are italicised inconsistently. For instance, should the names of various dialects be italicised? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Content issues

• Epigraphical inscriptions found at Adichanallur use Tamil Brahmi, a rudimentary script dated to 5th century BCE. - No, this is a fringe claim mounted by Tamil Nationalists and the sort.
• Tamils venerate the language is central to the Tamil identity by personifying it in the form of Tamil̲taay - this is ungrammatical. Leaving that aside, this is a modern development, interpolated without context!
• the Tamil grammar consists of five parts, namely eḻuttu, sol, poruḷ, yāppu, aṇi - Like, what does this mean and what is the relevance? Why is a press-release among the three sources?
• the classical Tamil literature is remarkably different from contemporary literature in other Indian languages - WP:WEASEL
• The earliest epigraphic records found on rock edicts and hero stones date from around the 3rd century BCE - Weren't you saying a paragraph above, that there exists Epigraphical inscriptions [..] are dated to 5th century BCE? Atleast, be internally consistent.
• Early Tamil literature was composed in three successive poetic assemblies known as Tamil Sangams, the earliest of which was held on a now vanished continent to the south of India - WHAT are you saying? Why is The Three Ages of Atlantis: The Great Floods That Destroyed Civilization among the citations?

I can harp on but that will be a wastage of resources; summarily, almost EVERY SINGLE LINE is inaccurate. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam Thanks for pitching in, appreciate your comments on the same.

a. In the source, it is quoted as such and the source is a reliable news source.

b. Grammar addressed. Not sure what is the issue with the second sentence. Of course, that this came up in the later 19th century, but how is it not related to the language or context here? Chronologically, agreed that it can be moved to the later part of the paragraph.

c. The press release is a reference to Tolkappiyam mentioned in the statement. It is on the classification of grammar. Why is it irrelevant to language?

d. Agreed and updated

e. The statement has to actually differentiate the early literature from rock edits and the origin of the Tamil Brahmi script itself (from old pottery shards), will reword to weed out any discrepancies.

f. I do not understand your concern here, whether you have a problem with the content or the citation. The first sangam was lost to the sea. Mythological belief was that it was on a separate continent (an idea propagated in the middle ages!) and the citation states so. Simplifying the sentence.

While I will be happy to address specific issues, your claim of "EVERY SINGLE LINE is inaccurate" is overreaching, unwarranted and undue. Nobody is forcing you to do anything here, so as to "waste resources" and we are not against any timeline. Any review as a measure to improve the article as such and if there are any more constructive comments, I will be happy to address them. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

(a) That is not a valid defense against FRINGE. Harry Falk, whom I quote, is one of the authorities on early Indian epigraphy; to the best of my knowledge, Richard Salomon, another pioneer in the field, has similar views.

(b) It is related but lacks necessary context — you have cited Ramaswami (1997) but failed to summarize her incisive scholarship which emphasizes the political (and cultural) context that gave way to the deification.

(c) Having reasonable proficiency in English, Sanskrit, and Dutch, I cannot understand, in the slightest, about what the phrase "classification of grammar" is intended to convey and cannot think of any parallels whatsoever. Shulman's Tamil: A Biography (HUP; 2016) has nothing relevant, either. And if you cannot see why a Press Release is a poor choice of source, well ...

(d) Hmm.

(e) I cannot get into your mind and read your intentions; so, ... And I do not see why pottery shard inscriptions are any less epigraphic than rock edicts. More to the point, assuming that you are alluding to the Mangulam inscriptions, why not mention them by name? And, why are you citing random news articles than peer-reviewed scholarship?

(f) You cannot write in Wikivoice about the traditional Tamil belief about their literary history! Haven't you read WP:NPOV? For an example, I will compare your writeup with Shulman's Tamil: A Biography (HUP; 2016):

Early Tamil literature was composed in three successive poetic assemblies known as Tamil Sangams
— User:Magentic Manifestations

. “Sangam” refers to three mythic literary academies at which much of this early literary activity was supposedly located
— Shulman (p. 27)

Wikipedia has no deadline but GAR is not the venue for a full-blown article-rewrite unless mere copyediting issues are involved. As I show, much of the content in the page is wildly inaccurate and/or violating of core content policies like NPOV and FRINGE. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Flyby comment:

In 1578, the Portuguese published a Tamil book in old Tamil script named Thambiraan Vanakkam, thus making Tamil the first Indian language to be printed and published. - True but the book was first printed in Goa, the year before. Also, in the process, Tamil became the first language to appear in print in non-Roman characters. A. R. Venkatachalapathy has a nice book on the topic — The Province of the Book: Scholars, Scribes, and Scribblers in Colonial Tamilnadu. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, it is surprising to see nothing about Periyar! TrangaBellam (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam Thank you for your interest. While I am new and may not have as much background knowledge on this topic, I would like to learn by remaining involved in the process rather than staying on the sidelines. If a full-scale rewrite is necessary, as you suggest, I wonder if we could approach the article section by section? @Magentic Manifestations has addressed previous feedback, and I have no doubt that we can arrive at an improved version of the article. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I am afraid that an ongoing GA Review is not the place to rewrite an article. Once they rewrite it, they can submit for a fresh review. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@LeónGonsalvesofGoa, TrangaBellam, and Magentic Manifestations: it appears that this review concluded as unsuccessful but was not closed. If the reviewer does not mind, please close out the review; the article can be re-nominated as soon as it is ready for GAN again. I will administratively close the review in a few days if it has not already been done by then. Fritzmann (message me) 21:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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.