Past discussions
Archive 1

Hi, I moved [talk:Freedom skies/30 December, 2005 - 4 September, 2006] to User talk:Freedom skies/30 December, 2005 - 4 September, 2006 as talk archives are suppose to be in your user space, not article space.--Andeh 19:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Andeh 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been asked to look in at the Indian martial arts articles. I'm not going to comment at all on the content of the articles, my expertise lies on another part of the Asian continent, but I am going to ask that the spirit of WP:NPA be observed. You can say what you want about another Theditor's arguments, but please don't make derogatory comments about their person. Saying they are sick or nuts, etc. is never acceptable. Continuing to do so may expose you to administrative sanctions. If someone makes the same sort of comments about you on the talk page, they will get the same advice. Best Regards, --Fire Star 火星 03:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just doing my duty.nids(♂) 14:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that Indrancroos is 'the guy who went "India did not exist before 1947,"' right?

The same guy who delivered, in your words, "a half baked monstrosity of a lecture on Indian history".
JFD 07:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff,[1] Indrancroos changes "Martial arts of the Indian Sub-continent are very diverse and as old as the culture and civilization of the country" to "Martial arts of the Indian Sub-continent are very diverse and have origins from various different ethnic groups of former countries and kingdoms prior to the formation of India by the British".

Here[2] Indrancroos removes a reference to "ancient India".

That guy on an unsigned IP (68.108.208.158) once changed "undivided India" to "the Sub-Continent of India"[3] and Indrancroos has repeatedly changed "Indian martial arts" to "martial arts of the Indian subcontinent.[4][5][6]

Look, I've given you no reason to trust or believe me so if you want to give your e-mail address to a total stranger, don't let me stand in your way.
JFD 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess JFD is trying to discourage you to get in touch with me via e-mail, since he fears some kind of academical threat. Just to clear some things up, I was not the guy who went "India did not exist until 1947". I would never post something as blunt, offensive, and ignorant as that. However, yes, I have changed a few things around as a correction. It is not to offend anyone, but like Kenneth Tennyson and his devoted sidekick JFD (the Green Hornet and Kato), I too have some historical points of views. I understand that you have been accused of being a pan-Indian nationalist, while I have been accused of being a Tamil nationalist. As far as Indian martial arts are concerned, martial arts from both your culture and mine are in the Indian martial arts section. Therefore, it effects both of us.

It seems like through this wiki-conflict, it has thrown us together into one pot. If I am here to put you or your culture down, or to discredit India, why in the first place would I have stuck up for you. I had not intentions in mind when I did that. It just ticked me off when Kenneth sent you that messed up message. Just like, for example, a few years ago, when a Punjabi store owner was beaten up in a hate crime. I was outraged...

I see you have a vast knowledge in the fighting styles of Northern Inda, while I have the same for Southern India. Likewise, you are very knowledgeable about ancient Bharat and its 16 Mahajanapada Republics, while I have the same for ancient Tamilakkam. Since this page on Indian Martial Arts effects us both, maybe together we can combine both our knowledge to present a remarkable page. Yes, I do understand our passions which may sometimes clash. However, if we could set aside some of that and work together in a "give-take" mentality we can make things work.

At the same time, we will present our contributions which may be opposite of what JFD-Kenny think, but at the same time their views shall be presented as well to give a fair and balanced view on Indian Martial Arts.

Do you agree with me on this? If so, it would be nice if we could communicate via e-mail. I have more ideas to share with you. I believe we can make this work. As far as JFD is concerned, I do not know what his intentions are. Maybe he feels a little threatened of the possiblity of you and me teaming up on this project? or maybe I am wrong... Indrancroos 20:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Indrancroos 04:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom skies strikes me as perfectly capable of setting up an e-mail account for communication with yourself and other Wikipedians entirely separate from those he may use for other personal and professional communications.

I understand that you have been accused of being a pan-Indian nationalist, while I have been accused of being a Tamil nationalist. As far as Indian martial arts are concerned, martial arts from both your culture and mine are in the Indian martial arts section. Therefore, it effects both of us.

If you want articles devoted exclusively to Tamil martial arts, see Varma ati and Southern Kalaripayattu.

I see you have a vast knowledge in the fighting styles of Northern Inda, while I have the same for Southern India.

Which is why when you start opining about the martial arts of China, Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia, your knowledgability drops off precipitously.

At the same time, we will present our contributions which may be opposite of what JFD-Kenny think, but at the same time their views shall be presented as well to give a fair and balanced view on Indian Martial Arts.

Thank you, Indrancroos. You can tell which contributions on the Kalarippayattu and Pehlwani entries are mine because they're the ones that cite books. By academics. Published by scholarly presses.

As far as JFD is concerned, I do not know what his intentions are. Maybe he feels a little threatened of the possiblity of you and me teaming up on this project?

No, just amused at the irony.
JFD 03:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom skies: if you feel unconfortable in giving out your e-mail, then can I have your phone number? Indrancroos: "I'll rather be happy than right, anytime." 17:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it is up to the three of you, excluding me to reach an agreement on the IMA article?Indrancroos: "I'll rather be happy than right, anytime." 00:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B.S. If you're going to mention about Dravidian Martial arts, then I am going to have my say on it. By the way, don't you tell me to live with it like the way you speak with others. I have never argued against what you have to say. Instead, I guess sticking up for you was a mistake...Indrancroos: "I'll rather be happy than right, anytime." 04:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of contending against you like the other two, I have suggested working with you. With my two bits, I thought that it would be nice to use the original name for Ancient India, which was Bharat. A brief description of Bharat consisting of 16 Mahajanapadas or Republics stretching to as far north as part of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Northern India, and down south ending at Maharastra state. Also, for the Dravidian martial arts to also use the old name of the time called Tamilakkam denoting modern day Southern India. Also, a brief explanation of the Cholas, Cheras, Pandyas and Pallavas of Tamilakkam. hmmm... Veerapandiya Kottaboman, a Pandyan king who fought against East India Company, between 1798 and 1801. The Silambam weapons combat was used by him and his army in Tamil Nadu... I have some good info, books, etc. That was why I wanted to get in touch with you, so we could game plan on this. And heck, just because I wanted to get in touch with you via e-mail, I get accused by others of trying to stalk you??? What tha heck??? Anyways, I really like the way the intro page looks and thought that I could spice it up a tad bit, that's all... by the way, about the phone number thang, I was just being a little sarcastic. It's amazing how people can go off the deep end on things. Also, I bet you that I am going to receive something from JFD in regards of the topic on going off the deep end of things... Indrancroos 07:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Restoring ancient India, a country which included the ancient south under Ashoka the great)

To Freedom skies: Did it ever occur to you that the link you had for Ashoka did not include Tamil Nadu and Kerala????Indrancroos 06:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asoka's Empire did not include Kerala, Tamilnadu, and Sri Lanka. Did you know that you have just CONTRADICTED yourself? Here is the contradiction in your arguement:

(Contradiction)

1. it was stated that "Restoring ancient India, a country which included the ancient south under Ashoka the great".
2. a link was added to Ashoka in the sentence.
3. on the page of Ashoka, it showed the map of his empire which did not inlcude Southern India
  (primarily Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Sri Lanka).

Here are some links to other wikipedia and websites on Asoka. Please take a look at the maps closely.

(Web Sites)

1. Ashoka
2. Maurya Empire
3. The Mauryan Empire [[7]]
4. Span of the Mauryan Empire [[8]]
5. Map of Mauryan Empire [[9]]

Still not satisfied? Please let me recommend you to take a look at these books in your University and take a look at the maps, and perhaps read the books itself. Here is a list of them which will prove you wrong.

(Books)

1. Mookerji, Radhakumud (1967). Asoka. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
2. Gokhale, Balkrishna Govind (1966). Asoka Maurya. New York: Twayne Publishers.
3. Smith, Vincent Arthur (1964). Asoka, the Buddhist emperor of India. Delhi: S. Chand. 
4. Thapar, Romila Aśoka and the decline of the Mauryas (1997): with a new afterword, bibliography, and index. 
   Delhi ; New York : Oxford University Press.
5. Nilakanta Sastri, K. A. (1967). Age of the Nandas and Mauryas. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

By the way these were books written by both Northern and Southern Indians and one European. This is about as fair and balanced it is going to get. As quoted on the Indian martial arts page, I shall use this to describe the sources I have used above as "diverse in nature and have origins of different times from various different ethnic groups", which all prove one point Asoka's Empire did not include Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Sri Lanka. I would dare say the reason for this was because of the Dravidian martial arts and fighting tactics, including a strong infantry, cavalry, and a poweful Navy.

You need to get your facts straight if you are going to try to get your point across.

Indrancroos 06:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Mauryan empire did not extend to Southern part of india (keralaputras, etc) is not going to justify the inclusion of seperate tamilakam story in this article.-Bharatveer 11:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you all don't get it. Historically, India did not include Tamilakkam nor the Eastern states. I am not saying that they should separate today? What are you all tripping about, this is plain history. You all are so afraid of everything, including little crickets, that you guys are willing to change and modify history itself just to make yourselves look big. I have two words for this type of mentality. INFERIORITY COMPLEX. You guys condemnd the Britsh for ruling you all, and yet you take their empire and accomplishments and claim it as yours. You guys even went to the extent to change the Indian history in the California school books. India is the only country that does such nonsensical things. No wonder people do not take India seriously.

In American history, we do not change our history books to make ourselves look ancient. We recognize that central and southern U.S. was part of colonial France, while the Southwest was part of Mexico at one time...

Just, because Bush took the sanctions off of your country and started making a use of you all for cheap labor in call centers does not make your country a World Power. It makes you guys the World Super Market...Indrancroos 19:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Freedom Skies: Your fabricated maps [[10]] won't get your POV across. Anyone can modify a map with software, and anyone can upload trash on wikipedia, especially Indian Nationalists promoting Indo-Aryan facsism... By the way this map that you posted [[11]] only shows the different parts of Tamilakkam the Cholas, Cheras, Pandyas, Nagas, and Iyakkars ruled, just like your 16 kingdoms of Bharat... By the way, did it ever occur to you that the Ashoka the Little was alive for only 40 years when his empire ruled these different lands of the Indian sub-continent?Indrancroos 19:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff [12] you have reverted to an earlier version without an explanation. You have not replied to messages on the article talk page, and have not acknowledged the reasons given for modifications which have been accepted by other involved editors. I am giving you some time to explain yourself again - in the light of the arguments already raised - before I return the article to it's improved version. Hornplease 04:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Mauryan India unfied the Tamil country to north India, mentioning two states out of it does'st cut it. India has been unified before the british, try living with it.)

To Freedom skies: I do not know what your problem with me is. Perhaps, because I am a Tamil posting historical facts which contradicts your false superioriorty claims. By the way, is that all you can think of to say is "Try living with it"? How pathetic. Anyways, that map you posted states that it was "Made by Uploader" [[13]]. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel and modify history. How pathetic it is for one to actually create an exageratted map and post it on a scholarly site. I think you are still confused my friend. During the time of ancient Tamilakkam, the names of the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu did not exist. There were 13 Nadus where the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras ruled. The Cheras ruled in present day Kerala. That is where the name Kerala came from. Also, in the region, "Malayalam had not formed into a separate dialect at this period, and only one lnaugage, Tamil, was spoken from the Eastern to the Western Sea" (Pillai 10).

Pillai, V. Kanakasabhai (1997)  The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services

What on earth do you mean by "mentioning two states out of it doesn't cut it". You make it seem like this is some kind of competition. Do you think this is a game? I do not think this is a game. We have people like you trying to misrepresent our history and culture, and we have someone else on this site claiming that we do not exist. This is some serious stuff you guys are propogating against us... I'll rather be happy that right anytime... 22:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sup Freedom, I'm Tamil as well, but Tamil was not even a language until about the second millennium. Also Indrancroos has been citing his personal blog as a source.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show any sources that Tamil was not even a language until the second millienium. I will tell you what brand of Tamil you are, you are a modern-day confused Brahmin. They have a tendency to discredit Tamil and to uplift Sanskrit. Why, because they lost power in Tamil Nadu during the early 1900s. By the way, can you tell me when the Tolkapiyam was written? This is one of the earliest forms of Tamil grammar and literature. Let me quote:

"In the earliest Tamil Grammar extant, which was composed by a Brahmin named Tholkappiyan, in the first or second century B.C."

Source: Pillai, V. Kanakasabhai (1997)The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago New Delhi; Madras: Asian Educational  Services p. 116

I do not use blogs as sources, but only to upload documents from legitimate sources. I have a good question for you. If the Tamils did not introduce Hinduism, Buddhism, and other customs into Southeast Asia, then who did? Freedom fries? Hey, guess what! Did you know that it was the Tamils who not only introduced Tamil, but also introduced your Dorai's language of Sanskrit into Southeast Asia too... The reason why "Indian" history is so shadowy is because there are a lot of Nationalistic Ding Dongs modifying their own history just to look big. Why? Because of a diagnosis of inferiority complex...

Here are a few charts on the similarities of Tamil and Malay words. By the way, these were scanned from an actual book. and the only way to get this onto wikipedia is to upload it to Geo-Cities. Enjoy... [14][15][16]

Here is the source of the material:

Arokiaswamy Phd., Celine W.M. (2000) Tamil Influences in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. Manila: Mary Martin  p. 52-57.

Brahmins in the past have contributed to Tamil, however, they are now in the trend of discrediting Tamil. Parrots can say they are Tamils too. So, what does that mean that you are a Tamil? When the "Northern Indians" run out of ideas to discredit Tamil, they always have the so called modern-day confused Brahmin Tamils to do their dirty work for them. Just like amongst the Afro-Americans, there are those that they consider sell-outs amongst their people "Token Blacks", you are no different. Yes you are a Tamil, a "Token Tamil". There are three types of people in every culture. They are the good, the bad, and the ugly... I assume that you are not a bad guy, nor are you good...

Indrancroos 06:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm on a wikibreak I'll be short and to the point.

1)Indica was not invented by the British, it's a Latin name coined by Megasthenes, an ambassador of Seleucus I of Syria to the court of Sandrocottus (Chandragupta Maurya) of India, in Pataliputra.

2)Kingdoms in ancient civilizations have existed, in China, Mesopotamia and India. Does'nt mean that they, irrespective of the autonomy, consider themselves to be outside of the central culture.

3)The map was not uploaded by me, it has been there for sometime. It has been put up by User:senthilkumaras, if you have any problems, take it up with him.

4) Ancient reigons falling under the geographical boundaries of India, which have been a part of India as early as the time of Ashoka, will be mentioned as parts of India and not seperately.

And discrediting Tamils ?? Don't read too much into those novels and those rants of old men and revolutionaries. Have you ever been to north India ?? I have and they consider the south to be the real reason behind the economic upsurge. Your ideas of anti-Tamil paranoia are microscopic in extent, live with it.Freedom skies 07:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::1)Indica was not invented by the British, it's a Latin name coined by Megasthenes, an ambassador of 
      Seleucus I of Syria to the court of Sandrocottus (Chandragupta Maurya) of India, in Pataliputra.

I did not say that Indica was invented by the British. I said that the British gave the name India to the sub-continent they conquered. I have also stated that they derived the name from the Greeks who called the Norther area of their control Indica.

::2)Kingdoms in ancient civilizations have existed, in China, Mesopotamia and India. Does'nt mean that 
      They, irrespective of the autonomy, consider themselves to be outside of the central culture.

True. Just like Bharatavarsha and Tamilakkam, but not India.

::4)Ancient reigons falling under the geographical boundaries of India, which have been a part of India 
       as early as the time of Ashoka, will be mentioned as parts of India and not seperately.

True and False. Ancient regions fell under the geographical boundaries of India, created by the British. False, because Ashoka was only alive for 40+ years. After that, the rest of the territories he conquered got reverted back to their dominions, just like I am about to revert what you posted the Indian Martial Arts page.

Can you explain this?

1. Mizo Hills were formally declared as part of the British-India by a proclamation in 1895.[[17]]
2. The State of Nagaland was formally inaugurated on December 1st, 1963, as the 16th State of the Indian Union.[[18]]
3. The 'Tripura' is a small state within the union of India. It was an independent country till the merger with independent  India 
   in 1949 A.D.[[19]]
4. Manipur was not a Part of India. It was forcibly annexed by India. In 21 September 1949 the king of Manipur was forced to sign 
   the Marger Agreement.[[20]]
5. Pondicherry becomes part of India in 1963. [[21]]

Your quote on areas of India being parts of India and not separately is a Nationalistic POV. By the way, Ashoka is the only story you guys can think of... Get real...

::And discrediting Tamils ?? Don't read too much into those novels and those rants of old men and revolutionaries. 
    Have you  ever been to north India ?? I have and they consider the south to be the real reason behind the 
    economic upsurge. Your   ideas of anti-Tamil paranoia are microscopic in extent, live with it.

I do not know which novels and rants of old men and revolutionaries you are talking about. If you are refering to the historical texts from both Northern and Southern Indians of today then I will have to say you are wrong. If you are talking about our ancient Tamil literature such as Silappadikaram, Manimekalai, and Purunanuru amongst others, you are wrong. I think you are refering to the Mahabharatha, and the Ramayana. Those are real fairy tales. Are you talking about those? Can you build a flying chariot? In regards to your comment to the south being a real reason behind the economic upsurge, that has absolutely NOTHING to what we are discussing. But, since you brought it up, let me state that the south is being plundered for its gold in the Kolar Gold Fields of Tamil Nadu that helped build the Golden Temple in Punjab. textiles, and computer software labor, etc. Anyways, I couldn't care a less about the economy over there. As for me going to North India, I never have, but would like to. Only to see the historical sites and arts, but not people like you... It is truly pathetic that you guys actually think that you are a World Super Power. I would have to disagree since India is nothing more than a Third World Super Market for cheap labor...

P.S.: Can't you think of anything else better to say than live with it? That is getting pretty old, and is sounding very F.O.B.ish.

Indrancroos 18:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of rant and not enough content. India was unified before the British and will be mentioned as such. It's a fact, try living with it. Freedom skies 18:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilakam most probably is a crystal-ball theory. Its almost eerie how Indrancroos seems to be the only person who believes it exists. Indian has rarely had unified kingdoms, the south was home to Chera Chola and Pandya.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get your hopes high... You have not seen eerie yet... Indrancroos 04:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of rant and not enough content. India was unified before the British and will be mentioned as such. It's a fact, try living with it.

To Freedom skies: How can I live with a so called fact which is not true? Especially when you have not shown any sources to back what you say? Do you think you are god? Is your word the ultimate word for people to believe without proof? I have given well a lot of content with valid sources. You are living in a fantasy world. Your problem is that you yourself cannot except history. Was India called India before the arrival of the British? If it was united before the British, can you tell me under who and which kingdom? I will give you a hint, even though the whole sub-continent was not united fully, only with a good portion of the land. It is the Muslim Moghuls and the Shah Jahan, Akbhar, and the gang... If you are talking about a unified "India" right before the British, it was the Muslims who were in control. You know, the ones who built the so called wonder of the world Taj Mahal (which basically looks like any old mosque in Iraq...). You know, the Taj Mahal Mosque you guys actually think is a Hindu temple...

Anyways, I would like to see if you can answer these questions and give me some valid sources (real books).

1. Was present day India called India before the British arrived?
2. If India was unified before the British, can you tell me under who? (I believed you have worn out the Ashoka story)
3. How many years did Ashoka rule?
4. How many years did the kingdoms of Magadh, and Mauryas rule?
5. What happened to the conquered territories that were under Ashoka after he died and after his kingdom began to decline?

These are simple questions and can be found in your humble library. I you can answer those questions and post some valid sources (BOOKS). I will leave the Indian Martial Arts page alone. This is easy, don't make it hard on yourself. Indrancroos 06:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilakam most probably is a crystal-ball theory. Its almost eerie how Indrancroos seems to be the only person who believes it exists. Indian has rarely had unified kingdoms, the south was home to Chera Chola and Pandya.

To Bakaman: You have not given me any credible historical sources on your claims. I will us good ole' Freedom skies words. "Probably" doesn't cut it. Is that all you can do is make guestimations and rash assumptions? Tamilakkam is mentioned in Tamil literature. Tamilakkam was where the Cholas, Cheras, and Pandyas ruled. Just like in Bharat where the various different kingdoms ruled too. You say that the south has rarely had unified kingdoms. Can you tell me that if Ancient Bharat had unified kingdoms? There were times when the Guptas had rose and fell, Mauryas rose and fell, and others in Ancient Bharat. Just like how the Cholas, Cheras, and Pandyas each rose and fell in Tamilakkam. I think you do not understand English too well my friend from India. I am not saying that Tamilakkam exists now, but before during the Sangam ages just like how Bharat (the 16 Mahajanapadas existed long ago too. Today it is India. All I am doing is just quoting history. For some odd reason you all tend to get paranoid when I start mentioning history which is not in context with the norm. So what is the norm for you guys? Changing history around to make it sound good to the world? You act like I am speaking treason, or it is the end of the world or something. Do you guys feel threatened by what I post? Plain old history? Get over it...

Indrancroos 06:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still does'nt cut it. India has been unified before, including tamil areas, even then I have accomadated you all the same by mentioning present-day Kerala and the ancient Kingdom of Tamilakam. in the article.

The thing is that the article needs to have a comprehensive mention on the IMA influence on catch, shoot, sambo, potugese arts, muai thai, silat and arts of greater India, which unlike kung fu are not subjected to chaotic arguments in foreseeable future. The thing which seems to be happening around here is the editors who should be contributing to this aspect are busy playing John Amery (or Mir Sadiq , for that matter) to their cause, as long as the article is subjected to absuse such as this, it'll be impossible to add positive aspects of IMA in here. Freedom skies 06:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up.

I did a little copy-editing. The most dramatic changes I made were the replacement of "greater India" with "Indosphere" and getting more specific on the transmission of Silambam to Malaysia.

BTW, this whole Mahajanapada/Tamilakkam thing is best dealt with in another article.
That's why when I did the intro, I referred to the "Indian subcontinent," a geographic region, which changes only on a geological time scale, as opposed to a political unit like a state or kingdom, the identity and borders of which vary greatly within historical memory.
JFD 10:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Was present day India called India before the British arrived?
2. If India was unified before the British, can you tell me under who? (I believed you have worn out the Ashoka story)
3. How many years did Ashoka rule?
4. How many years did the kingdoms of Magadh, and Mauryas rule?
5. What happened to the conquered territories that were under Ashoka after he died and after his kingdom began to decline?

What do you mean by "it does not cut it". What does not cut what? You still haven't answered the five questions I have asked you... This chronic editing will continue until you can answer my five questions with valid sources (books)... Indrancroos 01:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]