Talk:Tamils

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)

I have no idea about de Silva's expertise but his paper is recent and published in a reliable, peer-reviewed academic journal & so cannot reasonably be ignored. Nor can we ignore Indrapala's change of heart, if indeed it is a change of heart. We don't usually get to pick and choose in these circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Sri Lankan branch of RAS is no longer reliable and has poor peer review. It is run by Sinhalese anti-Tamil racists (I am not going to mince my words). Unfortunately, it brings disrepute to the RAS brand.Metta79 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

In that case, it may need to be discussed at WP:RSN. Do you have any actual evidence of this, & I mean from independent sources. Academics should have picked up on it. (Please can you try to get your indents right? This is the 3rd time I have had to fix them here and it is a pain on mobile.) - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Well when the last two presidents of the organisation (a married couple) make incendiary statements like this, to expect neutrality from them is laughable:

https://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=28217

http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/Royal-Asiatic-Society-Sri-Lanka-needs-women-and-diversity-153808.html

“They [Mr. and Mrs. Goonatilake] were not interested in making the [RASSL] journal academic. Their political interests were put into the journal. Most of the writers were chosen from their inner circle,” Professor Paranavithana tells me. I ask him about his forced exit from the RASSL allegedly over his treacherous willingness to commemorate Portuguese imperialism in SL in the early 16th century."  

“They argued that the Portuguese have done wrong things, so they shouldn’t be commemorated. Meanwhile, I got the permission from the council and went to Paris to speak in that conference [to commemorate the 500-year anniversary of Portuguese advent in Sri Lanka]. It was organized by the Gulbenkian Foundation. While I was away, Susantha started writing that I am a traitor, I am participating in these people’s conferences, etc. He circulated letters.”  

Most of the journals from south asia are substandard unfortunately and in many cases overtly politicised. Metta79 (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have fixed your indents again. You haven't really addressed the problem, as neither tamilnet nor Darshanie Ratnawalli are independent of the Tamil community. I don't know who was on the journal's peer review board at the time of the de Silva paper being approved but I see absolutely no problem with a husband and wife having common involvement - the Bayleys might be another example of such. Note: I am not saying you are wrong, merely that there are a lot of aspersions cast in this troubled area & it would be good to have independent support for your statement that the RASSL journal should not be considered reliable from some unspecified date. Sitush (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Darshanie Ratnawalli is a SINHALESE. Metta79 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed your indents yet again. You haven't got them right once here.

Ratnawalli is right in the middle of the Tamil/Sinhalese situation - it really needs someone from outside of it - the same applies with academic credibility disputes that involve, say, Jewish Zionists and those Jews who are opposed to it. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Minahan redux

[1] - a 2012 source. "TTo our knowledge, there is no scientific review of Minahan's work which evaluates the reliability and validity of the information Minahan presents in his articles. Although Francis Fukuyama (1996) published a very short review of Minahan's early edition of his encyclopedia, it does not give much information about the reliability of the book. Many scholars writing on nationalism started referring to this encyclopedia as a primary source, yet these studies do not provide an evaluation of the work as well...We do not claim the comprehensiveness of the database we compiled. On the contrary we realize that there are many factual errors and inconsistencies in Minahan's encyclopedia. Furthermore based on our reliability analysis, we were not able to validate the information regarding some of these "stateless nations". Of course absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, yet for our purposes we did not add the stateless nations we could not validate into our analysis. However we believe that this encyclopedia can be utilized for a macro-analysis which attempts to understand the differences among diverse nationalist movements from all over the world." Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Tissamaharama Tamil Brahmi inscription

Presently scholars identify this as a Brahmi inscription and not a Tamil Brahmi Inscription. Read the article Tissamaharama inscription No. 53. Sources:
(1) Falk, H. (2014). Owners’ Graffiti on Pottery from Tissamaharama. Zeitschrift für Archäologie Aussereuropäischer Kulturen. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag. pp.45-94
(2) Dias, M. (2021). The South Indian ascendancy depicted in the Tamil inscriptions in Sri Lanka from the 3rd century BCE to 12th century ACE. Ancient Ceylon. No.27. pp.43-58. -- L Manju (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No not all presently scholars identify this as brahmi inscription. Some identify this as Tamil Brahmi inscription. You first read the article you mentioned, out of 5 scholars, 3 identify it as Tamil brahmi. So your statement is not correct that presently scholars identify this as brahmi not Tamil brahmi. Ranithraj (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)