Talk:Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articlePolitical history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 25, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 13, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted

Note on page size[edit]

I am leaving a note here on the page size (mainly to remind myself how much the content needs to be pruned):

  • File size: 186 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 67 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 32 kB
  • Wiki text: 69 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 37 kB (6130 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 3006 B

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Comments by The Enforcer[edit]

  • Most of the sections mention a time-span. However, the section on Poligars of Vijayanagar does not mention any year.
  • I feel it would be better if the section names were changed. "Declining imperial presence" could probably be replaced with "Decline and breakup of the Vijayanagar Empire". Similarly a few other sections could also be renamed.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 14:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the name of the section "Declining imperial presence" needs to be retained, then it could probably converted to a level 3 heading and placed under a level 2 heading titled "Vijayanagar Empire".-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 14:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have incoroporated your suggestions. "Declining imperial presence" is now part of previous section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Abecedare[edit]

I'll add my comments here over the next few days as I read through the article (comments numbered for easy reference):

  1. The article mainly (exclusively ?) deals with documenting the shifting empire's and conflicts during the period of interest, but has nothing about the people's history or other developments (economic, social etc). Should the title or lede be amended to reflect that ?
  2. I really like that the article includes a section on Sources and historiography. Good practice.

Abecedare (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Abecedare:
1. Good point. Part of the problem is that there is very little documentation of the period. There is some though (e.g. Stein and Subrahmanyam). Let me think about it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Thanks.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Like I Care[edit]

My first impression of the article is that is a great article describing the history of region today known as Karnataka after the fall of Vijayanagara empire. I would be thrilled if Fowler ever chooses to write such a comprehensive history for the rest of South India for the same period some time (wonder if it already exists). I will post my comments here as and when questions arise.

  1. Geographical region of Mysore and Coorg are generally not well defined and in the article. Inclusion of rulers of Ikkeri and Sira is confusing. Why cant the article be titled History of Karnataka (1565-1760)? --Like I Care 17:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nayakas of Ikkeri and Kanara trade contains much detail about portugese, which can be shortened and detail moved to another appropriate article. --Like I Care 18:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Narasaraja Wodeyar II is described in this article as dumb and mute, which is questioned in his own article. --Like I Care 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In the history of Wodeyar, the article says that Although their own histories date the origins of the Wodeyars of Mysore (also "Odeyar," "Udaiyar," "Wodiyar," "Wadiyar," or "Wadiar," and, literally, "chief") to 1399. I dont have access to ref 15. My question is what it means when it says their own histories. --Like I Care 20:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Like I Care:
1. Karnataka is much bigger than Mysore and Coorg. See Map 8. Making it the history of Karnataka would mean including the history of northern Karnataka, which is anywhere between three-fifths to two-thirds of the area of the state, and would include the histories of: Bahamani Sultanate (for the period 13** to 1518), the Sultanate of Bijapur (for the period 1518 to 1686), the Mughal Empire for the period 1686 to 1749, Haidar Ali for the period 1760 to 1799, and finally a combination of parts of Hyderabad state, Bombay Presidency, and Madras Presidency for the period 1799 to 1947. In history books, those are usually studied separately. After independence, and especially after the creation of the Kannada speaking state of Karnataka, some Indian historians have attempted to write such histories (e.g. Suryanath U. Kamath), but they are revisionist histories in my view. I don't know what common threads there were (other than the Kannada language) between the various histories. I wonder how different the situation of present-day Karnataka is from a hypothetical scenario where after Indian independence, say, United Provinces, Rajputana and Central Provinces had successfully agitated to combine into a (giant) Hindi/Urdu speaking state. For such a state, finding common threads between the histories of Oudh (northeastern UP) and Jaisalmer (southwestern Rajputana) would be well-nigh impossible. I will try to make the description less confusing though. Strangely enough the Wikipedia pages, Karnataka and History of Karnataka are silent on the post-1686 histories of Northern Karnataka, focusing mostly on Mysore and the Wodeyars! Northern Karnataka is almost two-thirds of the state! Of the 27 districts in the current-day state of Karnataka, only 10 (of the smaller ones) were in Mysore, 12 if you include Coorg and Shimoga. I think a good solution to the problem you pose would be to develop properly all the pages I've mentioned above (i.e. Bahamani Sultanate, ...,) Some, such as, Madras Presidency have already been developed, but I haven't looked into how well they cover the Kannada speaking regions. (Updated: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
2.I agree. Will soon create a separate article and summarize it here.
3. Well, that is a tricky one. Up until 1947, he was considered both deaf and mute. Obviously if a ruler doesn't utter a single word during his entire 10-year reign, he isn't doing it out of choice. The questioning about his deaf-and-mute condition started after Indian independence, spurred on, in part, by the refashioning of their family history by the Wodeyars. Increasingly their rule was beginning to look ludicrous, and Narasaraja, the deaf and mute King, who nonetheless wrote in 7 languages, and composed music (?) was contributing a fair share to this historical comedy of errors. I will look for some sources for this and fix the parent article.
4. By their own histories is meant the various "palace" genealogies commissioned by the Wodeyars starting the early 1700s. See the second paragraph of the "Sources and historiography" section. The reference Ramusack (15) is at home, not in my office; I can post the exact quote later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is revisionism.I can not imagine someone choosing not to speak if they can. --Like I Care 17:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More so, he communicated only in sign language or in writing, which strongly suggests he couldn't hear as well. Sadly, in my view, he as a handicapped young person, and the wodeyars (as puppet kings) were used by everyone: first by the delavoys, then by Haidar (and to a less extent Tipu, who, in fairness to him, wanted to end the charade and get rid of them altogether), and lastly by the British. The story of the tragedy (and the exploitation of these (many) child-monarchs) remains to be written. But then there were millions in the larger populace who witnessed greater tragedies (as Abecedare wisely implies) ... and that remains to be written as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your previous comment, The source which deals with History of Mysore and Coorg was written before the existence of modern day Karnataka. My suggestion was based on my belief that it might be more appealing to readers if the scope of the article is rather broad encompassing all the small kingdoms, principalities or whatever they were called after the breakup of Vijayanagara Empire (which would mean whole of South India and agree, may be too much for one article) or alternatively, the same breakaway regions corresponding to what is Karnataka (including Mysore and Coorg) today. I dont think broadening the scope of the article would in any way constitute synthesis or revisionism. It appears to me to be a matter of choice. But, of course, it is absolutely fine to focus just on Mysore and Coorg, which has its own advantages such as the prospect of wider coverage of the subject. --Like I Care 20:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered the question in my update to question 1 above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i see. does it help to include that reference as well in the references section? again, does that mean that there is no question about the begining of Mysore in 1399 by Yaduraya just that he was not a Wodeyar? --Like I Care 21:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Yaduraya story was all written up later. The earliest record is the 15?? inscription (which is likely very short) and a mention in a Kannada literary text. The story about the Yadurayas, who supposedly were wodeyars, were all written up later in the early 1700s and then picked up by various British civil-servant-turned-historians after 1799. There is pretty much no contemporary documentation. The problem with adding the palace genealogy is that they have not been published (certainly not in English, as far as I know.) Lewis Rice's Mysore Gazetteer, however, is based on Wilks' earlier account, which in turn is based on the genealogies. So, I think it is enough to cite Rice (which I either already have, or soon will add). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, I can add a small paragraph on the traditional history going back to 1399 and cite Rice and Wilks and through them the palace genealogies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i see. would you then contend this reference to 1399 in The Imperial Gazetteer of India (page 94, para 2, first sentence) is also based on these unverfied claims made by Wodeyars? Apparently, the author is not assertive when he talks about the founding of Mysore in 1399. but, whether he refers to any other reference than the self-genealogy of the Wodeyars? --Like I Care 22:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) The Imperial Gazetteer Mysore section is a abridged version of the Mysore Gazetteer and both are written by Lewis Rice. You can click on the Mysore Gazetteer (volume 1, Mysore in general) in the references and read it. Rice relies on Wilks who you can also read in the references and Wilks in turn relies on some inscriptions and the royal genealogies. We know all this from Sanjay Subrahmanyam's paper (which we went through in the FAR). That is why both the Imperial Gazetteer and Mysore Gazetteer both say, "... is said to have come to ... from ... in 1399 ..." I think Rice and Subhrahmanyam are together quite reliable as sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mattisse[edit]

I will leave comments piecemeal.

  • I would not have the latitude/longitude in the first sentence, as it is rather dry information and not all that informative.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copy edits and simplifications. I agree there was no need for lat/long. I've made some more changes along the lines you suggested. Why, btw, are "would" constructions not popular with FAC editors? Are all "future in the past" constructions unpopular? (I mean "was to" or "were to.") If so, is the entire text (in Wikipedia articles) written with the present as the reference frame? It is not a big deal, it can be easily fixed, but it does limit the "temporal" ebb-and-flow in the narrative. (I remember RegentsPark once suggesting the same to me.) Maybe I should bring it up on the FAC talk page (and increase my popularity there even more. :) ) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Tony1 has largely set the high prose standards for FAC. He is against the use of useless extra words. (The editing exercises on his userpage are enlightening. Unfortunately, I cannot find the place where he discusses "would".) His general point that most of the time, words such as "also", "however", "very" - and a host of other imprecise words - can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence while improving clarity. He dislikes what he calls "noun+ing", such as "His describing of the event" instead of "His description of the event". He dislikes the unwarranted use "would". (This is amazingly frequent and become irritating once you become aware of it.) For example, General George Washington won the war and would become the Union's first president. → (Since we already know he did win the war and became president.) George Washington won the war and became the Union's first president. You could ask him on his talk page for a better explanation than I am giving here. (Another of his hates is the gratuitous use of "himself". Bob Dylan, himself, wrote most of the songs he recorded. → Bob Dylan wrote most of the songs he recorded.) Tony1's exercises have taught me to be aware of common traps to avoid. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good points all. I realized after I read your post that I was using "soon" in the same way as some people use "you know" in their speech! I have now copyedited the text to the end of the wodeyars section for redundancy. I did that to make your task a little easier. Please keep making your copy edits. I won't worry about "future in the past" for now, and I have made most past constructions the usual ones (simple, progressive, perfect). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why I am using Rice[edit]

Mysore, in its pre-1760 period, historiographically speaking, fell through the cracks. It was a mostly land-locked hinterland region on the periphery of empires (first the dying (or dead) Vijayanagara Empire and then the Mughal empire) and ruled by "little kings" or "big chieftains." After 1760, when Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan took over the reins of power in Mysore and began to challenge the British, Mysore did began to receive more attention. This, in fact, increased exponentially; so that the Tipu period is now one of the most studied period in modern Indian history.

In his paper, Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1989), "Warfare and state finance in Wodeyar Mysore, 1724–25: A missionary perspective", Indian Economic Social History Review, 26 (2): 203–233, historian Sanjay Subrahmanyam, while surveying the threadbare historiography of pre-modern Mysore says:

"A major problem attendant on such generalisations by modern historians concerning pre-1760 Mysore is, however, the paucity of documentation on this older 'Old Regime.' Hayavadana Rao’s History of Mysore, which attempts to do justice to this period, falls back in large measure for information on the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, on Lewis Rice’s Mysore and Coorg Gazetteer (1877-78); in turn, a careful examination

of Rice’s discussion of Mysore in this period suggests that he has based himself for the most part on Mark Wilks’s Historical Sketches of the South of India, in an attempt to trace the History of Mysoor, (c. 1810). Wilks’s work is an important one therefore, not only for its own sake, but for its having been regurgitated and reproduced time and again with minor variations. In his preface to this work, Wilks informs us that his sources were varied and diverse, ranging from oral materials to the records of Fort St. George, Madras, and included several manuscript records in Kannada seldom used by later historians. Some of these Kannada manuscripts have disappeared since Wilks’s day, but others do survive: an example is a manuscript, originally composed in Kannada in around 1710-15, and based-according to Wilks—on ’an extensive collection ... of historical materials, including all inscriptions then extant within [the] dominions [of Mysore]’, which in all probability is the same as either the Maisüru Mahardjara Vamsävali or the C’hikkadevaraya Vamsävali of Tirumalarya. Equally of significance are such texts as the Kalale Doregala Vamgdvati, a manuscript written on Portuguese-manufactured paper, and dated to roughly 18U0.5 But these genealogical texts, while interesting in their own right, are not of great help in addressing such questions as the extent of centralisation, the nature of the fiscal methods used, or even the nitty-gritty of warfare. By all accounts

then, eighteenth century Wodeyar Mysore has left very little by way of administrative records to modern historians. In this, the kingdom forms a marked contrast to other eighteenth century regimes such as the Maratha states of the Deccan, Central India and Tanjavur, or the Rajasthan states of the same period."

I do have the 2,000-plus page three volume History (published 1943–1946) by Hayavadana Rao, but this is a poorly (or rather barely) paraphrased version of Lewis Rice (at least for the period discussed here). A bigger problem is that Rao is found in only a handful of academic libraries and unavailable on Google books or Amazon. So we are back in the situation that we are trying to avoid (unverifiable content). Rice, on the other hand, is available in its entirety on Google Books. I can easily in a few hours change the Rice cites to Hayavadana Rao cites, but what will we gain?

I should also add that there are also no subaltern, post-colonial or people's histories of this period. Burton Stein's 1985, Notes on Peasant Insurgency is the one that comes closest and even that focuses on the early 19th century. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say, that after Mark Wilks first history (1811), rehashed in Rice, there has been no new history of this period until Subrahmanyam wrote his 1989 paper (based on a newly rediscovered Portuguese missionary manuscript). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only half-joking. Good point. Put "Historiographical difficulties" as the first section, paraphrase Subrahmanyam on the problem of sources, and note that the Gazette is both "Books"ed and a clear and clean copy of the regurgitation of classical era secondary sources. I'm thinking more and more that the article is more interesting focused on the historiographical issue, and then dealing with the substantive meat: war, fiscal policy. Social policy. ... I'm missing something. When I think "Article of feudal history" as my horribly marxist mind perceives this, I think.... LAND TENURE.... I know... I know... but what about the ordinary customs of life in this period, and the relationship of the workers of the land to the rulers of the land? Fifelfoo (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) Sorry, I'm stuck in meetings. So, another few hours. :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "Historiographical difficulties" section is a good idea. I'm not sure if it should be section 1 though. I'm afraid we'll lose many readers (who might be looking for the story line). Let me think about it. Perhaps the historiographical difficulties could be mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead and then discussed more extensively in the last section, whose name could be changed to the one you have suggested. I'll search the references for land tenure content. Will report tomorrow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after sleeping on it, I think a "historiographical difficulties" section at the beginning might be a good idea, at least good to try out. If people don't like it, we can always move it. Will work on it later today. Thanks again for great suggestions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian English[edit]

Its obviously appropriate that Indian English be used here, generally. After checking the Wikipedia page (I am not a Linguist), it appears that the major impact is to use contemporary British English spellings (-ise). The grammatical differences in Indian English appear to be colloquial or lingual, and haven't been accepted into academic Indian English? Not a specialist. If anyone suggests we should use British English, or American English, raise it here. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you. I think the standard written registers of the two Englishes (British and Indian) should be the same. Even more true of academic English, as you observe. Happy to change to British/Indian spelling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class C[edit]

The only thing holding this back from B class is the lack of social history outlined in the FAC already, which I would claim is a "major gap". Also, I was tired of seeing "Start quality" on such an excellent article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this! I will be looking for social history in the sources later today. That was a very good suggestion. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to parenthetic ref.[edit]

There are several instances in the manner of "According to (Subhrahmanyam 1985, p. 209)". Why should they go in brackets after 'according to'?--117.204.82.61 (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would perhaps better to simply put his full name and who he is then the quote. That's just my opinion however. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The parentheses shouldn't be there. That's a mistake (instead of (...) it should be .... (To Kuzwa), the advantage in have this format (with or without the parentheses) is that the reader can click on Subrahmanyam 1985, p. 209 and go straight to the reference. When I use that format, I then usually don't provide a footnote (if the quote is short). I suppose the full name with footnote for the quote will be fine too if the person has a wikilink (authorlink). Without an authorlink, the names mostly sound anonymous. Will fix all instances. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've chosen a compromise. The first time an author's name appears, I provide the full name, if they have a Wiki page; otherwise or thereafter, I provide only the reference without the parentheses. I personally love the harvnb format: you click on the link and you go straight to the reference instead of having to worry about who and what. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! --Kuzwa (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A social, economic, cultural, administrative, ...? history[edit]

To Fifelfoo, Kuzwa, Mattisse, and Johnbod: Well, I've been scouring the sources and it seems that all I can find (in addition to the political history) is some material on land tenure, on a peasant rebellion from 1700; Catholic missionaries from 1670ish; trade with the Portuguese ca. 1650-80; and probably not much more. Of these, the land tenure is probably the most detailed and there is enough material there for a new section. What should I call this section? In Rice's book, it is listed under "Administration," although later, it is also listed under "revenue." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS In some hagiographic loosely-dynastic histories, there is material on religious and cultural activities of the rulers, but no modern scholar cites these histories.
PPS I've moved historiographical difficulties to section 1. It needs more work, but how do we state our difficulty (about using a 1908 reference) without self-referencing (which we've agreed not to do)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'd leave it pretty much as it is for now, but insert "political" in the title. I doubt if you can get the rest of it up to FA standards of comprehensiveness quickly enough for the FAC. It's not just "religious and cultural activities of the rulers", but all social & economic history of the region, which is currently absent. Johnbod (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I tend to agree with you. Not only are the pickings slim (for a social/economic history), but my heart is not in it. All I have is some administrative stuff, which can still be added to Political History of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) either now or later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too wish there was a little more detail as to who these various people are. Perhaps you could add a little more context in the article, rather than relying completely on wikilinks for descriptions. For example, the Nayaks. Also, considering there was a switch from Hindu to Muslim rulers, were there not some effects from that? —Mattisse (Talk) 12:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to Mattisse) Yes, I was worrying about the same, although I couldn't put my finger on it, as you have done. So, thanks! Will work on those issues. I have changed the name now to "Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760)." (as you will have seen). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good choice! Narrow topic adequately defines the work. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree! —Mattisse (Talk) 13:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to add that hasn't already been mentioned above. Good choice of a new title though. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progress[edit]

The article is coming along very nicely. One minor quibble that may be unreasonable: "The early eighteenth century saw...". (I always think to myself that centuries do not have eyes to "see" anything!) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:) Where did you see this? Please change it, if you can. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "ushered in." If you don't like it, please change it to something more acceptable. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag[edit]

I have added a POV tag as the article is heavily weighted on a single source i.e Rice. Which is clearly problematic, as it maybe creating an unforeseen neutrality issues please do not remove the tag until remedial action as been taken to balance the article with more sources. --Rowland938 (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rowland938: have you read the section Why I am using Rice above? This concern was also addressed in the Featured article candidacy that this article passed. It's hardly an "unforeseen" issue. Moreover, out of the 70-some citations, some 30 are Rice, less than half, so this is not exactly a classical "single source" issue. I have removed the tag for now. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: by the way, there are a couple of citation errors in the article. Some of them are already marked but I spot a few additional ones. Would you mind taking a look at them since you are most familiar with the sources? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAR[edit]

This article no longer satisfies the FA criteria. To avoid a nomination at WP:FAC, editors might want to address some obvious issues in the first instance:

  • There is a random mixture of WP:ENGVAR usage throughout the article. I think it should be written in British or Indian English but there is American usage as in "traveled", "neighbors", "watercolor", "labor" throughout the article mixed up with British English as in "watercolour" (in two neighbouring image legends!) "travellers" "favourable" (cf. "favored") and many more.
  • There are unused sources cited, Nair (2002) Rao (1943) Stein (1985) and Subrahmanyam (2001a), which suggest the article is incomplete (being too long).
  • The article is not written in summary-style and it is way to long.
  • Image legends that contain a finite verb should end in a period.
  • Some of the sources are very old and therefore of doubtful reliability. There are ones from 1908, 1897 and 1878.
  • The "See Map" device is frowned upon.
  • Are the no modern images that can used? I have some of Hampi, which I am happy to donate to the Commons if needed.

Graham Beards (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I haven't thought about this article for a very long time! I had written it on a lark after receiving Rice's Gazetteer as a present; the maps are from it as well. If you think the problems are easily fixable, please fix them. Yes, please add the pictures you have. Alternatively, you could simply delist it, and I'll save a copy as a user subpage of mine. Thanks for the post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like all major Indian sites, we have 50 gazillion photos of Hampi, plus thousands more not categorized. What they need is sorting & tidying. Pity it's outside the period. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been up in the loft and have dusted off Rice's Gazetteer. The two volumes have 1300 pages, with beautiful maps, the kind they don't make anymore. I'm afraid to open them for fear of causing damage. They are now on my desk. One of our cats, Einstein (first name Alberta) has been sniffing the volumes. No mice in the loft, but she is our resident genius. Anyway, I noticed that the 1897 edition (which I have) is a revision of the 1878 edition. My wife remarked, "If he could revise 1300 pages in 20 years, you can't revise a measly 10 in 10?" or words to that effect. Maybe the mood will strike me. I am assuming I have a couple of weeks. Casual rummaging on the web does bring up some recent books. The article probably is too detailed. It was written in the afterglow of reading Rice. I have my fingers crossed. Won't make any promises though, on the principle they might jinx my incipient resolve. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I will be doing the revision in four phases (i) replacing the cites to Rice and the Imperial Gazetteer of India with modern, reliable, approximations taken from the list below, quotes from which I will temporarily leave in for easy access and later record, (ii) rewriting the affected sentences to reflect the new subject matter, (iii) reworking the text, a section at a time, for coherence, WP:SS, and WP:DUE, (iv) inviting interested others in reworking the sentences further if they'd like. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards, Johnbod I did look at the Commons Hampi pictures, including two FPs (e.g. File:Krishna Pushkarani - Hampi Ruins.jpg). The Hampi picture in place, which was taken in 1868, before ASI cleaned up the site, shows (or aspires to show) the overgrown version of the destruction described in the text. A higher-res version can be seen at BL's zoom option, but I don't imagine is available in full view. Before I had looked at the Commons pictures, I reasoned that the new pics would not bear such graphic witness; now I'm not so sure. The Krishna temple pictures at Commons don't have the two free-standing roofed gazebos/cupolas, but there's enough there in higher resolution to have given Islamic iconographers (if that's the word I want) the hiccups. Graham, why don't you upload your pictures, if convenient? What do you both think? Also, I don't know what WP rules are in this matter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly clear from Commons that by the time photographers reached it in the 1850s the site wasn't all that badly overgrown (compared to Ajanta, Khajuraho, Cambodian & Maya sites), whether because some clearing had already been done, or just the nature of the site & local climate. Nothing up to Hollywood standards. Category:Greenlaw_1856_Hampi_Vijayanagara_photographs are the earliest & probably the best. This perhaps, or or this. By all means upload, but please categorize and describe fully. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I clean missed seeing those, including that terrace garden. Yes, the Greenlaw pictures are good. I'm leaning toward File:Eastern Gopura, Krishna Temple Complex, Hemakuta Hill 2 1856 photo.jpg in part because it's the same temple as in the current picture, and it shows the destruction, undisturbed. But I'm in no hurry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards: Casliber DrKayJohnbod SandyGeorgia Fifelfoo Karanacs Pmanderson Also copying some South Asia hands RegentsPark Abecedare Vanamonde93 Kautilya3 Ms Sarah Welch Doug Weller MilborneOne Dwaipayan Titodutta as well as others such as SchroCat who have expressed interest in seeing this article improved. I will finish revising this article by the end of next week, i.e. midnight (00:00 (UTC)) Sunday June 7. I will be delighted to receive feedback from you thereafter. All criticism will be welcome. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this has taken a little longer. I would like to request another week. I'm in the groove though. The problem is mainly in replacing citations to Rice and the Imperial Gazetteer of India (which was written by Rice) with more modern sources. But Rice being Director of Epigraphy in Mysore State is pretty much the source of all history there, so there is an overabundance of modern sources. For now, I'm preserving the phrasing, but once all the citations are in place, I'll rewrite for cohesion and flow. I've also requested a graphics editor Avantiputra7 to make a gif of the shifting boundaries. Mysore and Coorg—like India—was defined as a modern geographical region with clear regions of sovereignty only during British times, i.e. after 1800. Before that, different sub-regions or super-regions were ruled by different rulers, which this history aims to describe. A dynamic map might make that clear. I have my fingers crossed. I beg your forbearance. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards: Casliber DrKayJohnbod SandyGeorgia Fifelfoo Karanacs Pmanderson RegentsPark Abecedare Vanamonde93 Kautilya3 Ms Sarah Welch Doug Weller MilborneOne Dwaipayan Titodutta SchroCat Avantiputra7 I'm taking the summer off WP to finish some writing (unrelated to WP). Well, I will be making two exceptions: this article and Mandell Creighton, which I will be editing (approx once a week). I would like to finish revising this article, but if this time table is not acceptable to you, then feel free to delist it. I won't mind. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flexibility in timetable is absolutely fine by me. Am happy to view any improvements favourably and grant considerable leniency in timetabling with FAR-type issues. i.e. go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, How is this going along? Are you satisfied with the article? If so it should probably be removed from Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given. Thanks for your many improvements! (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe I forgot about it—which is par for the course, says my wife. It has about a week's worth left in the last two sections, a matter of replacing citations to Rice's Gazetteer (from the 1880s) with newer citations. But the Rice has beautiful illustrations and beautiful stories in which I can lose myself. The newer sources are boring, lifeless. I cringe every time I replace Rice with them. I think that is the crux of the writer's block, the psychological problem, I'm facing. Anyway, I'll just have to suck it up and do it. So, please hold on. A week. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe I'm done revising what I could reasonably revise. I've removed citations to Rice 1878, but not to Rice 1897, as pretty much all history of the Mysore region from the mid-16th century to the mid-18th (the topic of this article) is based on it. Actually, it is based on Wilks 1811 which Rice has updated (see the Historiography section). I've used some new books, but new authors no longer write broad busy narrative histories. If I were to use only very modern sources I'd be looking at turning a Garden of Earthly Delights (please don't click on its 30Kx17K hi-res) into the Andy Warhol Campbell Soup Cans, which is beyond me. So here it is, the changes made since the FAR notice of Graham Beards captured in this diff. You are welcome to edit it, change it, keep it, delist it or AfD it; the ball is in everyone else's court but mine. Ccing: Casliber DrKayJohnbod SandyGeorgia Fifelfoo Karanacs Pmanderson RegentsPark Abecedare Vanamonde93 Kautilya3 Ms Sarah Welch Doug Weller MilborneOne Dwaipayan Titodutta SchroCat Avantiputra7. PS I did change the dark, busy, map in the lead to a light, sparse, one. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
F&f, I will add this to my list, but I despair as to how soon I can look in-- I am quite behind. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sandy, Delighted you will be looking in. Unfortunately, I won't be around during the next three months. I had attempted to take a partial vacation earlier to do some off-wiki writing, but that didn't work out too well. So this time, I'm taking a full vacation. I won't be logging in until mid-February 2021. But as I've already stated, the article has flown the coop as far as I'm concerned. I've done what I could. I won't mind the others drastically altering, indeed delisting it. Copying Buidhe Graham Beards Casliber DrKayJohnbod SandyGeorgia Fifelfoo Karanacs Pmanderson RegentsPark Abecedare Vanamonde93 Kautilya3 Ms Sarah Welch Doug Weller MilborneOne Dwaipayan Titodutta SchroCat Avantiputra7. All the best and a happy new year! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for F&f's use[edit]

Poligars of Vijayanagara, 1565–1635[edit]

Bijapur, Marathas, Mughals, 1636–1687[edit]

Wodeyars of Mysore, 1610–1760[edit]

Nayakas of Ikkeri and Kanara trade, 1565–1763[edit]

Unused sources removed[edit]

Removing these sources to talk as they are causing harvref errors and no longer used in article:

Never mind. I don't use harvnbs or sfns and I don't know how to fix this. Many of the sources that are returning errors are in fact used in the article, and when I try to fix them, I get inconsistent citation formatting. Can someone who uses this citation style help? I reverted my attempts to fix this except for removing the unused ones below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy: As I'm still around and I made the mess, let me fix it. Please dont' make any edits for the next half hour. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry I just saw this ... will stop now ... also, this needs to be fixed ... According to Rice 1897a, p. 370, the ruler's lack of interest ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources[edit]

Primary sources[edit]

Notes[edit]

User:Fowler&fowler, here's what I don't know how to fix. SFNs give a period at the end, while harvrefs don't ... Asher & Talbot 2006, p. 175. How to standardize? Also, this needs to be fixed ... According to Rice 1897a, p. 370, the ruler's lack of interest ... Do you have the script or whatever installed that tells you where the harvref errors are? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much better ... but there is still a harvref error at Roy 2015 and Thornton 1898. Also, I think for consistent ending punctuation, maybe they have to all be switch to harvnb, or all to sfns ... best I can tell, they punctuate differently, but I have never used them, so could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy: Have I fixed them all now? I've switched all to Sfn. The redundant year-b's have gone.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good from here ... no more harvref errors, and now all citations end in punctuation. I have removed this article from the notifications list; given the work you've done, I think the least we can do is wait til you are back in Feb if anyone wants to raise other issues re FA status. Go enjoy some time off ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition in the first sentence[edit]

Hello John M Wolfson. Sorry to revert your edit. I agree that there is repetition in the first sentence, but these regions—a princely state and a province of British India—were defined clearly a little later, in the 19th century. The regions whose history we are discussing do need to be defined. Perhaps you or Johnbod have a suggestion about removing the repetition in a way that does not remove the links to these regions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Try:

The political history of the region on the Deccan Plateau in west-central peninsular India (Map 1) that was later divided into Mysore state and Coorg province, saw many changes after the fall of the Hindu Vijayanagara Empire in 1565. The point before the rise of Sultan Haidar Ali in 1761 introduced a new period.

Hmm. It would be a lot simpler if one could just say "This article covers...". There used to be strong prejudices against that - I'm not sure if that is still the case. One might drop "political history of", but the places need to be in the first sentence. Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I'll wait to hear from John M Wolfson as well before changing. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thank you both! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_history_of_Mysore_and_Coorg_(1565–1760)&oldid=1209802628"