Jump to content

Talk:Dravidian parties

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeDravidian parties was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 21, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 27, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that since 1967 the state of Tamil Nadu in India has been ruled by Dravidian parties?


Good article nomination

[edit]

Why not submit this for good article nomination ?Taprobanus (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good thought, but we may have to do a bit more for a GA. Dravidian parties are not just unique of its kind but congealed out of indigenous ideologies (with a few borrowed concepts). Expanding on the ideology section and propaganda and media aspects, which contributed a great deal for Dravidian politics will surely make it a great nominee for GA. Thats my opinion! I have been working on those points for a while now, but that has caused a heck of a lot to read between work. More ideas and suggestions are welcome. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International impact

[edit]

Shouldn't the "International impact" section at least mention the significant role played by the Dravidian parties in the Sri Lankan problem? They've certainly had a bigger impact there than in Malaysia. -- Arvind (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I have added that. Well spotted. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

I realised that a few of the citations have been removed. I believe that those were done on good faith. I am reverting them to hear back why they were removed, in light that the statements were not controvertial. In the mean time I will try to find alternate sources for the statements. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 09:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

geocities is not WP:RS. I didnt think this was so difficult to figure especially after I'd left edit summaries to that effect. And controversial or not, you cant use non-RS like blogs and geocities to cite. It is against WP:RS and also circumvents WP:EL. I hope you will revert your reversion now. Sarvagnya 15:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tamil tribune is an online magazine on Tamil-related issues. With all due respect, you can see that the reference is used only on Tamil politics related issues and not in the sections on Nationwide impact nor on overseas. WP:RS does state that such sources are premitted when they are used as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves. Geocities is not a blogspot, but just a webhosting domain. I personally don't see why this should be a breach of WP:EL, when url cross-referencing is always appreciated in a scholarly society. Nevertheless, if you feel that linking to the article does make wiki a soap, then please free to remove the links. I appreciate your concern. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
in articles about themselves - clearly means "in articles about themselves. To break it up for you, if you were to write an article about Tamil Tribune itself, you can cite from their site (ie., Tamil Tribune). You cannot cite from Tamil Tribune on any article which != Tamil Tribune. Dravidian parties != Tamil Tribune. I dont know how else to explain this to you and if you think fit, you can take your doubts/queries to WP:RSN. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah take it to WP:RSN and see whether Tamil tribune passes the test of WP:VERIFYTaprobanus (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed to Taprobanus view. I am resting my case that a Tamil magazine can be used to cite on issues with Tamil people. I can assure that I will abide on what WP:RSN would recommend for this case in specific. The issue is clear, that if the article talks about people other than Tamils we may not be able to use Tamil tribune (for eg., Tamil tribune has an article on Kaveri issue which we can not use as WP:RS, BUT can be used to state TN's claim). Please feel free to take it to WP:RSN which is indeed good so that this will help wiki in the longer run. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 23:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In an atempt to AGF I have given alternate citations where ever I can for now, void the Annadurai's speech (which I have removed under goodfaith). Having said that, I would still want to include Tamil Tribune for Tamil related articles. Moreover adding {{cn}} on a simple statement that DMK and AIADMK have never allied with each other is a bit disturbing since anyone who knows about TN would find this as a WP:CK. It would be really nice if this is avoided in the future. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw.. i did not add a {cn}} for that statement. It is you who had cited that sentence and cited it to Tamil tribune and I simply did a "find and replace" of all tamil tribune refs with {cn}} tags. just so you know, I havent even read the article except in glances. I've found that reviewing articles upside down can help get a great deal fixed in very little time and I do it quite often. also, tamil tribune is a self published source and anybody can publish anything. it doesnt make it authoritative or RS. Having been around here for as long as you've been, I'm surprised you're having trouble grasping WP:RS. Cheers! Sarvagnya 00:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) People who come to read these articles don't necessarily have knowledge about Tamil Nadu. Therefore, adding {{cn}} is appropriate. Remember, this is a wiki for everyone, not just people from a particular region. As for Tamil magazine, I do not think it is a reliable source. It is a self-published source and from a lookthrough, there's no indication that the authors of the magazine's articles are authoritative on any TN-related matters. It seems that the people writing for this magazine are ordinary folks who aren't experts on the matter. Per WP:SPS, self-published sources are largely unacceptable, since anyone can claim to be an expert on a topic. The exception: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." These aren't being produced by an established expert. Why do you need to resort to referencing from small self-published magazines, with articles written by nonexperts, instead of getting material published in books or peer-reviewed journals? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 00:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:VERIFY, the test is, Tamil Tribune,
  • Is it an Academic source ?
  • Does it have third party scrutiny ?
  • Is it a respected mainstream publication - (We should have other sources who call it as such)
  • It is not a wiki ?
  • Is it a Questionable source ? -(We should find other sources which claim as such)
  • Is it self published by an expert ? -(Authors should be acknowledged experts in their fields)Taprobanus (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I promised earlier, I will abide by the consensus here that Tamil Tribune not to be used in this article. Thanks chaps! Now moving ahead I would like to point to Nishkid that when talking about {{cn}} tags added, I was certainly talking about edits of a particular editor in specific (seriously Sarvagnya this is not a personal attack, but an opinion) that he should have added the tag where it is needed. The tag is for sentences which really need citations, but not to replace removed citations. Dear Sarvagnya! I added the citation tags at the end of the sentences to make it look as neat as possible. For an wikipedian as prolific as you, I would have expected you to correct my mistakes but not to have perpetuated it with another one. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 17:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you neglected to read my previous reply before you posted this. Well, if you thought that the sentence was so CK that it didnt need a citation, you yourself could very well have left it uncited and it would have stayed clear of my "find and replace" radar. anyway, the more important thing is that this is a source you wouldnt want to use not just on this article.. but on any article for that matterc. and you dont have to thank the consensus "here" for that.. but the community-wide consensus that has gone into framing WP:RS, precisely to keep screed of this sort out of wikipedia. Cheers! Sarvagnya 23:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine mate, I have already stated that I thought of using it only in this article. May be I should have phrased it better. Moving on now... do we agree that DMK and AIADMK have never allied with each other as a WP:CK? It is my opinion that it makes good sense to specify it in the lead as well as where we can find it fit. What do you think? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 07:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should move on :)) Taprobanus (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amen ;) Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 19:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts you should still post it in WP:RSN but make sure all deatils are clearTaprobanus (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

Per recent suggestions about the Good article review process, and to better support {{ArticleHistory}}, I have moved all commentary concerning this article's review to a dedicated Good article review subpage. I welcome any and all comments on this review, but please, place them on the subpage. Thank you. Gosgood (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second GA Review

[edit]

Per my remarks above, the commentary that used to be here may now be found on the subpage dedicated to the Good Article review. Gosgood (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
Yes, it would be nice to get critical feedback. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
Yes again, but not to general public. I write research papers for specialised personnels, which obviously takes for granted that the reader has limited knowledge of the subject area. This may not be very relevant here, but people like me are too used to ENDNOTE and it gets too hard with the inline citation templates. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?
Not that am aware of! Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ready to work on this article .

[edit]

dear admin : i wish to work with you / anyone who wishes to improve this article . kindly do inform if im useful in any way ...regards:--91.77.184.175 (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC):--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring this article

[edit]

I have a feeling that we may have to restructure this article. After the GA review I think that the overall topic should start with a bit of explaining the so called North South divide as seen by leaders of the Dravidian parties, then proceed on to the rise of Justice Party (India) and the Self-respect movement of Periyar. This I reckon will give a sound base to talk further into the major events of rise the modern days (post independence) Dravidian parties. The history is very much complicates since as the Dravidian parties get stronger and stronger, the borders of the Madras Presidency keeps going down which needs to be mentioned in the article too.

Then comes the task that I'm finding too hard. The ideologies!! The Ideologies keeps evoloving as the parties fragment and with the historical happenings. The North-South divide as per the Dravidian party leaders is the basis of the ideologies of Dravidian identity and the so called Tamilism. So now this would leave the ideologies sections either fragmented into two or the whole ideologies section to preceed the history of the parties. I prefer the former, but suggestions on this are very much welcome.

The third concern is about the list of parties and the navigation box. I am wondering if it would be a good idea to change the navigation box as to stay in the corner of the article rather than as a footer and thereby the list can be avoided. Probably the navigation box can also hold the party flags and symbols, so we can get rid of them from the article too. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section on pseudohistory and controversies

[edit]

What happened all the Kumari Kandam is a cradle of civilization, and the abuse of Hindu figures. It is relevant and notable enough for this article. Trips (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be part of Dravidian movement aka Self-respect movement. Yes, Dravidian parties are an outcome of Dravidian movement, but this article is on Dravidian parties and not about the movement. Id est, this article is on the polical parties considered as Dravidian parties. Whereas the antiquated theory of Kumari Kandam which was very much propagated by Devaneya Pavanar was felicitated even under the Congress ruled government in Tamil Nadu. So, Kumari Kandam, although a played a major role in Dravidian movement, it wasn't propagated by Dravidian parties. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dravidian parties

[edit]

Hi all. I'm starting this discussion here on which political parties can be classified as Dravidian parties and which can't. Further to a discussion here I am removing PMK from this article. The question of DMDK is still left open. Comments on this would be very helpful. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 10:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing PMK is right, as far as DMDK I think it should be removed as they haven't really shown anything on the Dravidian philosophy, but they do have it in the name...–SpacemanSpiff 06:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
only the descendents of DK can be Dravidian parties. I would assume that is how the term came into existence. I would therefore argue both PMK and DMDK are not Dravidian paarties. i will look to see if i can find some references. --CarTick 14:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue doesn't seem to be as clear as that. Since Vijayakanth himself had said that DMDK is "typical, Dravidian, for-the-Tamils" [1]. He had also given his own interpretation of Dravida Nadu which seems to be inclusive of both Dravidian politics and Indian nationalism [2]. Hindi opposition which had been one unifying stance of all Dravidian parties (DMK with its agitations and MGR with his refusal of Padmashree since it was in Hindi) seems to be not the case with Vijaykanth [3]. The confusion crops in when he says that he wants his party to be an alternative to Dravidian parties. I guess our whole conclusion would be based on how we interpret the last article. Does he mean to say that he is an alternate to the main stream Dravidian parties or just all Dravidian parties? The former would leave room that he calls his party Dravidian too. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I do not understand what the term "Dravidian parties" actually means, does it refer to parties which follow the Dravidian ideology or simply parties whose names include the word "Dravidar". If the latter was the case, then DMDK would very well qualify as a "Dravidian party"; but I am not sure if the party has any ideology of its own apart from capitalizing on the cult status of Vijayakanth-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 06:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given these bits and pieces, I'd say leave the DMDK out of here for now and let's consider adding it in if and when scholarly sources (with a reputation within this particular topic) consider the DMDK to be a Dravidian party. –SpacemanSpiff 20:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean something like this? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 12:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, those are the kind of sources that don't know the meaning of these things, the news articles from ToI, HT and even IE or Hindu just use the name and confuse things. –SpacemanSpiff 17:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK guys. I have removed DMDK. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Axis powers

[edit]

The article says in the "Flags" section:

Black and Red are the usual colours used, a feature which traces its origin to Periyar's visit to Axis countries, especially Soviet Russia.

This is kinda weird: to the best of my knowledge, Soviet Russia was opposed to the Axis powers and red and black are associated with Nazi Germany, not Russia.

Am i missing something? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been "and" instead of "especially". Statment had been amended. This citation (page 399) in the end of the sentence that follows backs the current statement. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 09:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:J. Jayalalithaa (old).jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:J. Jayalalithaa (old).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cmmgrjanaki.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Cmmgrjanaki.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:AnnaMKMGR.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:AnnaMKMGR.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dravidian parties. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dravidian parties. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dravidian parties. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dravidian parties genealogy

[edit]

I'm bringing this topic here since some Anglo-American editors seem to think that the Template:DP-genealogy is obstructive. Do any Indian/Tamil editors share this opinion? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dravidian_parties&oldid=1229731776"