User talk:Dineshkannambadi/Archive17

DYK

On February 28, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kannada literature in Vijayanagara empire, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

arudraraju

Hello Dinesh, you seem to be very knowledgable about karnataka history, i am interested in Rajus history and was wondering if you had any information about this community in Karnataka. Thanks--Arudraraju (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I dont have any information about the Raju community in Karnataka. Sorry.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Will comply ASAP

Dear Dinesh: I lost my computer when my employer took it from me (!). I am writing this from the Brighton (New York) Public Library, which has a "computer cafe" with public access. I shall strive with all my might to perform this task via the library cafe. Namaste, Writtenright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writtenright (talk • contribs) 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Matrikas

Your imgs would be a great addition to the article. If you have Saptamatrika imgs, please upload them in commons. [1]. You are welcome to add imgs to the article yourself OR Please leave a note on my talk or article talk, when you upload, so i will search for revelant positions in the article. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature lead

Replying to your question on my talk page...I think that you have reversed the summary and detail concerning awards. In the lead paragraphs the article has the following sentences: "In the last forty years, seven modern Kannada authors have been awarded the Jnanpith award, a prestigious literary award in India. In addition, the Sahitya Akademi Award, the second-highest award for literature granted by the Government of India, has been conferred upon Kannada writers fifty times."

While the main content merely says: "Over the past two centuries, writers in Kannada have produced works of outstanding national and international merit, resulting in numerous prestigious awards."

Keep in mind that the lead summarizes and the content adds further details. Other than that, the lead structure looks OK to me. However, I'm not a strong lead person; there are a bunch of rules for writing leads and it can be hard to get them all right. I would recommend reviewing WP:LEAD if you haven't already. An important line of advice there is "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only, as may certain quotations." -- Michael Devore (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've been away from Kannada literature long enough, and it's changed enough, I could try more wording cleanup and tweaks later today if you want. I see a couple people have commented on the prose in its FAC, though the specifics are lacking. If you have a professional editor scheduled to come in, or like the way it is now, then never mind. -- Michael Devore (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll go through it this evening for more editing tweaks, following some real life "things". -- Michael Devore (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I'm having a hard time understanding this line from Kannada literature: "He is credited with more than 100 poems in ragale metre, called the Nambiyanana ragale (or Shivaganada ragale, 1160) after the saint Nambiyana and praising Virupaksha (a form of Hindu god Shiva) with an ability to express emotions as few poets could." Do all 100 poems praise Virupaksha? The reference listed only mentions Pampa-satakam in praise of Virupaksha. Also, the "ability to to express emotions as few poets could" part seems POV.

I have edited down until the end of the Hoysala section and hope to finish my pass in the next two or three days, eventually getting back to Kannada literature in Vijayanagara empire which needs more substantial copyediting, along with my regular work elsewhere. -- Michael Devore (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor issue: The article has Murthi listed twice in Notes, with no source. That's supposed to be Murthy, and is not a missing source, correct? -- Michael Devore (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature in Vijayanagara empire

First question, regarding the sentence "In addition, a vast corpus of devotional folk literature came into existence in the native metres: the shatpadi (six line verse), the sangatya (compositions meant to be sung to the accompaniment of a musical instrument), the ragale (blank verse) and the tripadi (three line verse) by musical bards, mystics and saint-poets who had a profound influence on the society in the empire."

This sentence is overburdened and hard for me to figure out. It starts as a list of the metres, then makes an expository remark about the influence of bards, mystics, and saint-poets. Are the bards and so on responsible only for creating tripadi, or are they responsible for all three types of metres? Are saint-poets the ones who had a "profound influence", or are the bards, mystics, and saint-poets all included in those who had the influence? -- Michael Devore (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not worded correctly. All writers: court poets, saints, bards, mystics etc etc have used various metres. In fact this was the age of native metres as opposed to earlier eras where Sanskritic metres in Kannada literature dominated. However, some writings were still in Sanskrit metres. Regarding the profound influence, that was meant for the bards, saint-poets and mystics only. These non-court poets,went all over the country side in South India to proslatize and bring/keep people of South India in the Hindu faith when northern India was already under Muslim rule.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason you bolded the centuries' titles like 14th century, rather than use a ==== header? I just checked and the four equals header works to the same effect. It seems more in keeping with formatting rules, plus it might make section editing easier. -- Michael Devore (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To keep the table of contents small. Some reviewers dont like a long TOC. But let me change it and see how it looks, or you could do it yourelf.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Stumbled to this talk page by mistake, but as I'm here, I might as well suggest Template:TOClimit. You can keep the section headers in the articles but have them hidden in the table of contents. Sorry if I'm butting in, or you've considered it already. :) Great contribs, best, PeterSymonds | talk 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into this.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:"In 1369, Bhima Kavi, forwarded the shatpadi (six line verse) tradition founded by Hoysala poet Raghavanka of 12th century." What is meant by forwarded? Do you mean it as a synonym for refined, or a different interpretation? -- Michael Devore (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Re: the lead's last sentence "From the beginning of 15th century, a unique literature, an attempt to synthesise the Veerashaiva and Advaitha (monistic) philosophies came into existence." This reads like an introduction or build-up to what the "unique literature" is, but as the final sentence, it leaves the reader hanging without answering the question it raises. I'm not sure which literature type is meant here.

Also, I'm going to be off-line over the next few days, at a minimum all of Sunday and most of Monday, possibly parts of Sat+Tues. If you have any major edits to the article planned, I won't be in the way then. -- Michael Devore (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed that sentence. Already exists in sub-section. Must have been a remnant from other cpedits.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Re: "The first consisted of followers of the Nijaguna Shivayogi school, the second was more brahminical in nature and followed the writings of Mahalingaranga, while the third was the only branch that kept the vachana tradition alive. Well-known poet-saints from this tradition were Muppina Sadakshari, a contemporary of Shivayogi, whose collection of songs are called the Subodhasara, Chidananda Avadhuta of the 17th century, Sarpabhushana Shivayogi of the 18th century and others."

In the second sentence about poet-saints, are they examples of only the third branch (vachana), or of the entire Kaivalya tradition? -- Michael Devore (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

About the third branch of vachana writers. Will specify.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been up for major copyedits the last few days. Anyway, re: "The Vijayanagara Empire, with their capital at Vijayanagara, successfully repulsed these invaders and created an atmosphere conducive to the fine arts." Is the capital city Vijayanagara important to repulsing the invaders and creating the atmosphere? I can't tell if that is the intent, but the sentence reads as if the capital city was instrumental in doing those two things. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Epigraphia Carnatica

Yes, I know that it is quite important. I need your help in adding more info to it. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 03:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoysala Empire

Congrats, Hoysala Empire is on MP! AreJay (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

59.92.* and 59.96.* with a pro-TAmil bent is PONDHEEPANKAR. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

unref tag on Bangalore

I am put a comment on User talk:Yutha on the unwanted unref tag - Tinucherian (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Dineshkannambadi. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:

Oh, ok. But I do have to say that Sahitya Akademi needs to do some good transliteration of Kannada words :) -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 12:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoysala and Vijaynagara Empire

The IP belongs to PONDHEEPANKAR (talk · contribs). If you have any suspicions regarding registered users who are pushing a similar POV as the IPs, forward a CU report to Blnguyen. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature

Frankly, following the recent changes by multiple copyeditors, I don't think the prose in Kannada literature is really lacking all that much, and doubt there's significant work I can add for the current content. I should be able to get back to Kannada literature in Vijayanagara empire after the weekend. -- Michael Devore (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

DK, although I oppose FA for this article, due to the reasons I mentioned, I want to record my appreciation for the tremendous amount of hard work you've put in. I sincerely hope that a need to relflect the truth and present a balanced view is all I've been seeking. As I've said, if this article were to receive FA, I would be among the first to be happy though I would have expected more balance and in an FA. Though, you may be mad at me for opposing FA, I hope you will recognize that it is such oppositions and criticisms that elevate the quality of an article. I have no right to expect you understand or accept this, but I thought I should say this. --Aadal (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am unfortunately quite busy at the moment and will be for several days (at least). I also usually only do copyedits on articles I have already collaborated on. If I get a chance, I will see what I can do, sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I've reworked and broken up the wording on the first sentence in the second paragraph that Fowler&fowler was unhappy with, based on his criticism and material from the E.P. Rice reference. Since the sentence is a high-profile part of the lead, I thought to run it by you first. The rewrite addresses the first two bullet points of the talk page criticism, as well as my own dislike of the original semicolon which is used before a dependent, rather than an independent, clause. I believe the rewrite also addresses the third bullet point criticism regarding "As a result", because it more clearly leads to that conclusion: Jain writers predominated and were well-supported ("ample" was a bit of the wrong word). Anyway, here is my proposed change, plaintext without markup and references:

Beginning in the 6th century up to the mid-12th century, the Kannada region was dominated by royal dynasties such as the Chalukyas, the Rashtrakutas and the Hoysalas. These dynasties were either Jain or remained friendly to the faith, offering generous patronage to the predominently Jain writers.

Let me know if you have problems with the suggested change to the paragraph. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused on the Kannada literature timeline again, while trying to refine the lead sentence "The rise of the Vijayanagara empire in the 14th century saw a renaissance of sorts with the arrival of Vaishnava literature—that of the Haridasas in particular." The body of the article says that Haridasa poets came along in the 15th century, not the 14th, as is mentioned in the lead. Also, Vaishnava literature is dated to well before the 14th century according to the Vaishnavism article, and implied by the article from a mention that there were "some Vaishnava writers" during the 13th century. How does this allow an arrival of Vaishnava literature in the 14th century? Thanks. -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's going to take me a little while to craft a sentence that reflects the updated information and keeps everyone happy (hopefully). -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm planning on making additional copyedits to the article, but am waiting for when I have a couple of free hours at a stretch. Non-typo work is to the point I can't finish in several minutes, so I'm internally queuing the work. That, or I'm procrastinating, which seems equally likely. -- Michael Devore (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

---

OK, this is the revised sentence wording given the new information you supplied and after attempting to reconcile the dates, movements, and terms. The original lead sentence "The rise of the Vijayanagara empire in the 14th century saw a renaissance of sorts with the arrival of Vaishnava literature—that of the Haridasas in particular." I suggest changing to:

Following a gradual decline in Jain influence and writings, the rise of the Vijayanagara empire in the 14th century saw a literary renaissance sparked by the Haridasas heralds of the Vaishnava Bhakti movement.

Let me know if this works within the article boundaries, or if more needs to be changed. The original sentence does need a substantial rewrite, but it is hard for me to get the revision exactly right while still including all relevant info, so I won't be surprised if you wish to make further changes. -- Michael Devore (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your revision to "A gradual decline...saw a literary" is that makes it sound as if the decline of Jain caused the renaissance of the new literature. There has be a decline of some sort in the literature during a previous period for there to be a subsequent renaissance, otherwise it's not a renaissance (a rebirth or revival). If the idea of a renaissance isn't critical, we could restructure the basic sentence. But if you want to keep it, how about:

A decline in Jain influence and writings during the reign of the Vijayanagara empire in the 14th century was followed by a literary renaissance in the 15th century, sparked by the Haridasas heralds of the Vaishnava Bhakti movement in Kannada.

Not the greatest wording, but if needed it could be tweaked afterwards. Let me know what you think, and whether you want to stay with the renaissance idea. -- Michael Devore (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if perhaps the third lead paragraph should be moved before the second. The third paragraph deals with the ancient writing (e.g. the Kavirajamarga and earlier works), right? Chronologically, the Kavirajamarga et al. ancient phase comes before the royal dynasties and the Vijayanagara empire of the medieval phase. Is this correct? -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

By "correct" do you mean the sentence about the Kavirajamarga should be moved ahead of the dynasties paragraph, or that it is correct where it is now?

I meant you are correct. we need to move Kavirajamarga up ahead , higher up in the lead.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way, you are right about the first sentence of "The writings of the medieval period drew greatly..." in that paragraph not being necessary as it stands. Perhaps it could be dropped and the Kavirajamarga sentence/paragraph could be reworked and expanded to a couple of sentences about ancient writings. Currently, there is a medieval and a modern paragraph to match the phases, but only a one-sentence ancient paragraph if the problematic "drew greatly" sentence is dropped. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now we could bring back Halmidi and Kappe Arabhatta poetry to the lead from the "attested..." section along with Kavirajamarga to make it a paragraph. How does that sound.?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's sounds right to me. I'll leave it for you to make the big structure and wording changes for this, since you know a few orders of magnitude more about the subject than I do. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk, in case you miss it. -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

c-e

Hi, try researching the edit histories of related articles that are well-written; copy-edit-type people are obvious from their edit summaries. Tony (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chennakeshava temple at Somanathapura

Sorry about that. The pictures that I included did showcase the bas-relief panel sculptures on the walls of the temple(Media:Somnathpur bas relief.jpg), and also the pierced screens mentioned earlier in the article, along with the lathe-turned pillars present inside the temple. (Although, if you notice the transverse grooves and cuttings on the pillars inside the temple (Media:Somnathpur pillars.jpg), they are clearly not just lathe-turned.) As for the eaves and friezes being depicted in the picture I removed, they are seen well enough in the other pictures on the page.

However, if you disagree with what I have said, I will soon be uploading images similar to the ones on the current page, but edited better. I don't think you will have a problem with me replacing the current pictures with those.

Media:Somnathpura Gopura2.jpg can replace Media:Hoysala_Vimanas.JPG

Media:Somnathpura Gopura1.jpg can replace Media:Close up of Hoysala style shrine and sikhara with decorative molding frieze in the Chennakeshava temple at Somanathapura.jpg

Pictures that I think will really enhance the article (other than the ones mentioned before): Media:Somnathpura ceiling1.jpg; Media:Somnathpura ceiling2.jpg; Media:Somnathpur gate.jpg Emeldil (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing for your FAC

Hi DK (I hope you don't mind if I give you a little nickname) -

If you would like, I will give a hand in copy editing your current FAC. I come with relatively good credentials in general copy editing, having worked on both Hockey Hall of Fame and most recently Jacques Plante (you can pull up their FACs to see comments on my editing). If you are interested, I will work on it over the weekend. I expect that I might have some content-related questions for you, will you be around to respond? Risker (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just worked through this section. Do you want to look at it and decide if this is an acceptable style from your perspective? I will hold off for a short while to give you a chance to read it over. Risker (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It must be very nerve-wracking to watch someone else take apart what you have so carefully crafted. I hope I am not driving you mad. Thanks for your comments, I have made some editing changes based on them. Risker (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Kannada Literature

DK, although I opposed the FA for the reasons I had given, which I believe are still valid. With the recent copyedits of Risker and others, it reads much better nowand though it is not an FA, it is a good and useful article for readers, such as me. I think it would fare a better chance of clearing FA with thorough cedits and resolving other MoS issues and content issues, which I'm sure you'll be working on. On another matter I I have a question for you, and I hope you can answer. In the Kappe Arabhatta Inscription, you quote Dr. (Mrs) Jyotsna Kamat:

ಸಾಧುಗೆ ಸಾಧು
ಮಾಧುರ್ಯಂಗೆ ಮಾಧುರ್ಯಂ
ಮಾಧವನೀತಂ ಪೆರನಲ್ಲ!

English Translation

Good to the good, sweet to the sweet,
This exceptional man of Kaliyuga
Is a veritable Madhava himself (to the distressed).[1]

My question is -where does the Kannada inscription say Kaliyuga? or "the exceptional man of Kaliyuga?" The inscription seems to read with my rudimentary reading of Kannada

Sadhuge saadhu
maadhuryange maathdhuryam
maadhavaniitham peranalla.

Am I missing something? Would appreciate your help! Thanks!

--Aadal (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the term "ಪೆರನಲ್ಲ" implies it in a poetic way. But this is only a part of the poem I think. I believe I saw an image of it from Badami on flickr or somewhere and it seemed to have many more lines of poetry.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought this was a Tripadi meter. What does "ಪೆರನಲ್ಲ" (peranalla?) mean? I thought it meant (along with ಮಾಧವನೀತಂ maadahvaniitham) Madhava himself or something like that. Perhaps there were other lines there? I'm copying our discussion to the Kappe Arabhatta talk page, so that there is some scope to discuss and clear this matter.--Aadal (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tripadi does not mean just three lines, it could be several 3 line collections also.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi Dineshkannambadi, I looked at Kannada literature once and Michael Devore was doing copyedits (and he is much better at catching typos and errors than I) so I waited. Just came back and saw it is being worked on by another editor, and that it did not pass FAC. I am sorry to have been slow and would be glad to look at it at some point if you still think that would be helpful. I am not thought knowledgable on the topic, which can be a good or bad thing, but I would be glad to read it again and make some comments. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Dineshkannambadi, I looked at the article and saw there are some disputes on factual accuracy, so I went to a later section (not disputed) to try some copyedits. I picked the "Medieval era" section, "Classical period" subsection. I read the first sentence The reign of the imperial Rashtrakutas and their powerful feudatory, the Gangas, marks the beginning of the classical period of writings in the Kannada language under royal patronage and the end of the age of Sanskrit epics.[60] Here's my problem - I do not know much about Indian history sadly, and so while I have heard of the Rashtrakutas, I was not familiar with the Gangas, and I did not know the word "feudatory" at all. I clicked on the link and found it was linked to vassal. Should I change it to vassal? I assume not, because if the link was made, then "feudatory" was the word chosen, and not "vassal". Gangas is plural, so I would think it should be plural too, i.e. "feudatories", but even there I am not sure. So, any way, I am afraid my lack of familiarity with the subject would mean I am more likely to cause harm by my attempts at copyedits than improve the article. Sorry again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding and for the explanations. Good luck with the article, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Amiably on the talk page?

Dear user:Dineshkannambadi, I have been thinking about the question of requesting mediation per our earlier discussion; instead, why not discuss the content issue amiably on Talk:Kannada literature page? Why don't we spend this week resolving the issues, and, if they are resolved, you can then resubmit your article for FAC again next week. That would probably be the easiest. It would also give other people time to look at the article. Let me know what you think. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear user:Dineshkannambadi, Since I didn't hear from you, I thought about it some more. I feel that it is best to include the community in sorting this out. The mediation page, in any case, asks the disputants to first consider simpler dispute resolutions methods like RfCs. I have therefore created a neutrally worded RfC on the talk page. I hope the questions about the age of the literary tradition can be sorted out without any ill-will or rancor. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing notes - Kannada literature

Hi DK - I hope you might still be awake. I have put some questions onto the talk page of the article; could you please read and respond, so I know which way to go? I can make the changes tomorrow if you are not available, and continue with my final sweep, but they are critical issues so I think it better to have it on the article talk page so all can see the discussion. Risker (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your copy edit of Sri Lankan Tamil people. It helps a lot., have you guys thought about adopting an obscure Indian state like Manipur or Mizoram and bring their aspects out as well. I got this idea as I was following the Gangas disambiguation page. One leads to the well done Western Gangas article and the other leads to a substandard Eastern Gangas page but both are Indian dynasties. Just my thoughts Taprobanus (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Kannada Literature

Hi DK. Thanks for your message left in my user talk page. I just don't understand why you should sound so rude and inconsiderate. Perhaps you're tired! Please note that I'm not being frivolous in asking for a quote. I do know about Google facilities, thanks. As you might recall my question about Kappe_Arabhatta cleared up a mistranslation. I hope you realize that the article reads much better than it was at FAC. Coming back my question - the quotation you provided is of no value since it doesn't give, as far as I can see, any source information for the claim. Perhaps he does give in the book. Could you please let me know where from Shiva Prakash (page 167-168) got that information and the claim The sudden efflorescene of Vachanas inspired by the Sharana movement during the 12th century is an event without parallel. It is hard to come across a literary movement elsewhere which produced more than 300 poets, each with his/her own distinct voice , from all sections of societ....... (I presume it is not something he individually discovered the 300 plus poets and their varied distinct voices; if so please let me know where he documented it)

Don't you think that such an extraordinary claim should have documentary evidence provided? The same request for the following: The Sharana movement produced 33 women vachana poets most of whom came from the lowest strata ..... Please note these are good faith questions. Thanks --Aadal (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Current edits in Purandara Dasa and Kanaka Dasa Articles

Hi Dinesh, thanks for the observation. I will correct it. I guess Kanaka Daasa's article has come to some reasonable form but still may need improvements. In Purandara Daasa's article, I am trying to place mostly books under references and websites under notes.In general I am trying to reduce # of references to websites. Hope it is OK.Naadapriya (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction done. The whole sentence was not needed there. I plan to use only references in the article.Naadapriya (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		This Special Barnstar is awarded to Dinesh for showing exemplary courage to stand his ground in light of false accusations laid on him in Talk:Kannada literature. Dinesh, you deserve this... ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 04:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology

By the way, I have asked User:Dbachmann to apologise to you in his talk page. His comments were not needed and smacked of bias. You may want to report his actions to an appropriate forum. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 04:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tamil Language

Hello Dinesh. I am not contesting your edit here but can you please tell me why you disregard this from being a reliable source. Also if you have enough proof that the particular citation is not RS, then please take it to the RS notification board so that editors will be aware that this is not a reliable source. Watchdogb (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A claim of 55,000 inscriptions in Tamil is a big claim. It should have atleast one reliable book/encyclopaedia type citation. It can also be from a gazzetted source. A newspaper citation alone is insufficient. Again its a relative thing. If the claim had been less severe, then a newspaper would suffice.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that statement. Would you agree to this version for the time being ? If no citation is given in sufficient time, then the sentence can be modified to satisfy your concern. I think we can at least quote some things from the article as it is generally a reliable source. Further it is always better to have some sort of citation rather than none. Watchdogb (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature in Vijayanagara empire

I took a second look at it and it is much improved - I made a few more comments at the peer review. I think it still needs a copyedit for commas and such, but it reads much much better. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Srirangam99

I have left a note on Srirangam99's user talk page. Hopefully, he will use reliable sources to back up his claims and stop edit warring. I advise you to also stop the edit warring with Aadal. An uninvolved admin might see the recent history on Western Chalukya and Satyasraya and decide to block you both. Best, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your unfounded claims and pointing out certain contradictions on Hoysala and Chalukya pages

It is fine for anyone to accuse another person of pushing POV and being jingoistic but going by the look of your post on my talk page (with you seeming to have typed very fast in anger and committing spelling mistakes etc.), it looks like (unfortunately) you are among those who are unable to digest plain facts and would continue to rely as well as quote regionalistic and linguo/state-centric historians and websites like kamath and www.ourkarnataka.com/. Can someone pls. tell me how a historian would come to conclusions like XYZ being the extent of his territories and of which were the empires or kings he confronted and won over or got defeated in war?

The reply to this would be that while any historian would be free to (fancifully, in quite a few cases) go an adding superlatives in praise of his or her preferred dynasties, but when he would be bound to stick to facts, the only "reliable" I repeat "reliable" sources are bound to be the various inscriptions and copper grants left by those kings, their ministers, subordinates and subjects etc.

Pls. tell me who is the reliable authority or source to this piece of information:

As stated (for example) in the Hoysala pages (Vira Somesvara) that after dividing his empire between his two sons, his empire was involved in skirmishes with the Pandiyas with ultimately on the second or third occasion Vira Someshvara was 'killed' by Jatavarman Pandyan (or speaking ever more neutrally, that Vira Someshvara was defeated by Jatavarman Pandyan.

I would answer that a jingoistic (pro-Tamil) historian might add superlatives and describe this war or victory in fanciful terms..... but I agree that is not enough... but what is the authentic and reliable source that wouldconfirm (without a hint of doubt thus making it completely reliable the above-mentioned historical event would undoubtedly have to be a source which, on which even a historian or history expert will have indeed to rely upon..... my reply, Dinesh, is a simple inscription (yeah it helps if it is available in the first place and sure, it establishes facts even more, if it is undamaged or has minimum damages or is in a condition that makes it readable and translatable by established and expert archaeologists.

That sort of source is this: (pls. feel free to satisfy yourself):

http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_24/pandyas.html

Let me add once again: that at least I won't be satisfied and definitely on rely on or believe (neither would you, I am convinced) if a historian brings up a story based on tradition, folklore or other forms of what I consider unreliable info that Jatavarma Pandyan defeated Hoysala Vira Someshvara "unless and until" some historical and epigraphical evidence in support of this contention. (It is another matter, that the inscription subsequent to the one mentioned above (those belonging to Jatavarman Sundara Pandyan I at the Srirangam Ranganathaswami Temple also mention about his other conquests i.e. of the Cholas, Cheras, the Kshemas, Konkanas etc. - in fact I have made a list of all these inscriptions and would be forming a team with my brother to go and see this inscriptions personally, not that I may understand them because they too are in old Tamil and Tamil Grantha characters - but just to corraborate whether they are indeed planted or placed on the locations mentioned in www.whatsindia.com/***

What I mean is that when these irrefutable evidences are present, what is the need for anyone to 'rely' on historians to tell us (in any case they cannot say anything new) either about historical events like these or indeed about the contents of these inscriptions.

Now coming to a few pieces of texts on the Hoysala and Chalukya pages that I consider very contradictory....

first of all, while those pages also indeed contain references to www.whatsindia.com/ (south indian inscriptions etc.) to back up claims on Hoysala or Chalukya achievements (indeed with historians like Reu, Kamath or websites like www.ourkarnataka.com), the similar set of verifiable information evidences relied upon by me on Chalukya or Cholas are sought to be dismissed as "unreliable", WP:OR or pushing POVs.... not so I think, especially backed by attribution of 'superlatives' by historians (biased in my view, while you are free not to share my thinking on historians at least) and indeed spreading falsehoods (I don't know by who) such as these:

Hoysala pages (Vishnuvardhana): pls. open the attached link(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnuvardhana)

Part of Text(#1): "The Famous Chennakesava Temple at Belur is attributed to him. He built this temple to commemorate his victory against the Cholas of Tamil country."

As per information on the above website, I may add that it has been relied on and mentioned (somehow) in the Chalukya Kingdom page, the text mentioned above is completely wrong, misleading, pushes POV and is certainly not based on any fact whatsoever. However, pls. read this text (http://www.flonnet.com/fl2008/stories/20030425000206700.htm) which says:

"""The ruler who built this temple was Vishnuvardhana, who succeeded to the Hoysala throne in the first decade of the 12th century and completed this (temple) in A.D. 1117. He had a specific purpose in mind in constructing this temple. He was a subordinate of the western Chalukyas who later declared his independence from them. By liberating himself from their political authority, he also wanted to excel them in their own field. The result was the remarkable temple which certainly overshadowed the Chalukyan achievements in the field of arts."""

It further adds: (text below the photograph of Salabhanjika)

In one of the first inscriptions engraved in this temple, Vishnuvardhana says that he has "built it from the wealth which he amassed from the sword". He says that the main temple was built to celebrate his liberation from the Chalukyas. It was a declaration of his sovereign status.

The above conclusively proves two things: 1. The Belur Chennakesava was not built by Vishnuvardhana to commemorate or celebrate his victory at Talakaud over the Cholas (so the Belur temple has no connection with the Cholas). 2. The Belur temple, as clearly pointed by Vishnuvardhana himself in his own inscription was built to celebrate his liberation from the Chalukyas i.e. his being able to establish the Hoysalas as an independent kingdom (this too has nothing to do with the Cholas, for though they were defeated by Vishnuvardhana, surely the Hoysalas were free not from the control of the Cholas but the Western Chalukyas).

The above evidence (irrefutable, you would agree) proves to be completely wrong the contention that The Famous Chennakesava Temple at Belur is attributed to him. He built this temple to commemorate his victory against the Cholas of Tamil country, which are certainly exposed as pushing POV, violating NPOV, being WP:OR, are malafide, derisive and prejudicial in content against people and kingdoms different in socio-politico-cultural and indeed linguistic origins as opposed to those originating from (modern) Karnataka and hence, these lines in the Hoysala pages (both Hoysala Kingdom as well as Vishnuvardhana should be removed without delay.

Part of Text (#2) "The word "strike" literally translates to "hoy" in Hale Kannada (Old Kannada), hence the name "Hoy-sala". This legend first appeared in the Belur inscription of Vishnuvardhana (1117), but owing to several inconsistencies in the Sala story it remains in the realm of folklore.[1][2] The legend may have come into existence or gained popularity after King Vishnuvardhana's victory over the Cholas at Talakad as the Hoysala emblem depicts the fight between the mythical Sala and a tiger, the emblem of the Cholas.[3]

To this please see the correct version:

Among the free-standing sculptures in the temple there are several of a soldier slaying a lion. What do they represent? (same source)

"""This is the image of Sala. By virtue of this heroic exploit he becomes the leader of the tribe and gradually emerges as the king. More myths were built around him. For example, he killed the lion, which was ready to pounce on a meditating muni who in turn blessed him by giving him the power to rule. Such myths legitimise dynastic rule. The Sala symbol was Vishnuvardhana's creation and became the Hoysala symbol or crest, from his time."""

Dinesh, in response, you may like to argue that Prof. Settar (as a universally acknowledged expert on Hoysalas) did not rule out either that the Hoysala emblem was indeed symbolic of the Hoysala fighting the Chola (represented by the Lion). Surely one would expect a dynasty and people as knowledgeable and learned as the Hoysalas to be able to distinguish between different species such as the lion, tiger, cheetah, panther etc. and not to mix up the lion with the tiger (which was the Chola emblem). While firstly Prof. Settar did not specifically as well as clearly state that the emblem (whole of it) itself represented the Hoysala fighting the Chola, secondly surely if it was the intention to represent Hoysala vs. Chola then surely the great Hoysalan artists would indeed have shown the Sala as fighting a tiger and not a lion.

Hence, in view of one more irrefutable evidence of the statement that “The legend may have come into existence or gained popularity after King Vishnuvardhana's victory over the Cholas at Talakad as the Hoysala emblem depicts the fight between the mythical Sala and a tiger, the emblem of the Cholas.[3]” should be removed without delay as it represents showing the Cholas in a poor light when in fact the representative legend does not anything to have either with Hoysala victory at Talakaud nor indeed the lion in the emblem (as opposed to the emblem of the Cholas, i.e. the Tiger) represents or resembles the Cholas in any manner (especially when the Soldier represented by the Hoysala is shown as slaying the Lion, supposedly interpreted in the Wikipedia page on Hoysala Empire as representing the Cholas. This I am convinced is one more example of content which indulges in pushing POV, violating NPOV, being WP:OR, are malafide, derisive and prejudicial in content against people and kingdoms different in socio-politico-cultural and indeed linguistic origins as opposed to those originating from (modern) Karnataka and hence, these lines in the Hoysala pages (both Hoysala Kingdom as well as Vishnuvardhana should be removed without delay.

Part of Text (#3): "Scholars believe that Vishnuvardhana was originally a Jain known as Bittideva. Under the influence of the Hindu philosopher Ramanujacharya, Vishnuvardhana converted to Hinduism[6] and practiced Vaishnavism. Numerous Vishnu temples were built during his reign at Belur, Talakad and Melkote."

Pls. see this for yourself from the same source:

There is a popular belief that Ramanuja came to meet Vishnuvardhana and brought him under the influence of Sri Vaishnavism. What do the historical records say?

Myths have grains of truth but most often they hide the truth in such a way that it is difficult to uncover it. Historical records do not support this, although the myth has become deep deep-rooted. In fact he never met Ramanuja seems not to have met Vishnuvardhana although he certainly visited the Cauvery-Kanva region,, and there is no evidence to show that he built this (the Chennakesava temple) exclusively for Sri Vaishnavas. The myth says that Vishnuvardhana built five temples for Narayana all at the same time, for which too there is no evidence. As he said in his own words, he built the Kesava, Lakshmi and Vijayanarayana temples to celebrate his victories and not to mark his conversion. In the same year he patronised a Siva temple in Halebid. But later on, it is true, that in his very first grant after constructing thisthe temple, Sri Vaishnava priests, along with the garland garland-makers, temple servants, artists and other members of the establishment, are also provided for. This, however, does not prove anything. It is only in the later part of the 12th century and in the 13th century that Sri Vaishnavas consolidated their position here. There was a settlement of Sri Vaishnavas in the region near Bangalore a hundred years before Ramanuja, . It and it is likely that he Ramanuja came to meet them as a religious and spiritual teacher.

The above lines help in appropriate placing in perspective several points:

 That in the conversion of Bittideva into Vishnuvardhana (or indeed exhorting him to fight the Cholas), Ramanuja had no had either direct or indirect.  It is also strongly suggestive of the fact that Ramanuja did not either have any role to play in the support of supposedly Vaishnavite kings like the Adigaimans or Adiyamaans – as called in Tamil in instigating them to fight against Kulothunga I by siding with Vishnuvardhana Hoysala.

 That the visit of Ramanuja to the Cauvery-Kanva (Kannada-speaking areas??) certainly did not have any connection with the supposed persecution of Vaishnavites in the Tamil country by the Chola Kulothunga I. I wanted to emphasize here that realization of this fact, immediately influences the view that Kulothunga I was a persecutor of Vaishnavites and propped up Saivism at the expense of Vaishnavism in the Chola kingdom. (It is another matter that both Kulothunga I and indeed Kulothunga-II who is considered even more fanatical and opposed to Vaishnavites than Kulothunga I have both left quite a few inscriptions at the Sri Ranganathaswami Temple, Srirangam considered the most important Vaishnavite temple by Tamilian Vaishnavites, one of which is dated 1099-1100 that authorizes two Ministers of Vikramaditya VI to that temple in Chola country, which belies the existence of animosity and enemity between Vikramaditya VI and Kulothunga I.

 The above correction of (wrong) views and notions immediately resurrects the hitherto sullied and wrong characterization of two Chola kings at least Kulothunga I and Kulothunga II.

 Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the lines attributing the supposed influence of Ramanuja on Hoysala Vishnuvardhana are misleading and pushing POV, are violative of NPOV and hence must be removed without delay.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Even I am of the view that in the pages on history of Hoysalas and chalukyas you have been pushing POV material, jingoistic and ethno-centric content which is prejudiced against to ancient history figures not belonging to Karnataka, making sweeping generalizations, adding superlatives etc. and all of which contents is violative of NPOV which deserve removal especially considering they are appearing in "FAs".

I surely would welcome neutral arbitration under WP:3O.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

May I also add, that websites like www.whatsindia.com/ (I would like to point out that whenever and wherever felt convenient by you, you have used references from this very website to support your versions of history, especially in the Chalukya and Hoysala pages). But when it comes to history of Chola, Pandiya or Pallava kings, using similar evidence amounts according to you "using POV websites", whose content you further describe as "overplaying victories and downplaying defeats". How can you be so manipulative and mean enough to decide that the evidence from one source can be only good for you, but bad for everyone else, if the same is used and quoted by others. Evidence from this website, which you may kindly pay respect to, for it is not the website of any independent jingoistic moron but one that is the official site of the Archaeological Survey of India, whose findings can never be doubted by any one, is used by you to support theories about the Chalukyas and the Hoysalas, but the same is not "true, reliable, reputable and is deemed to be without ISBN, OCLC numbers" when your own "reliable links" and other untrue information is proved as false with the help of not just this website but also you consider the findings (not opinion and your favourite word "interpretation") of someone like Prof. Settar who is an acknowledge world level expert on Hoysala history, old and new Kannada languages and who himself is formerly from the ASI and indeed, the Indian Council for Historical Research, a body with archaeological affilitations around the world. Do you consider "historians" like Suryanatha Kamatha more "reliable, verifiable" than him. What about Kamatha himself? I too did see the portion of "history" on the website link given to me by Aadal.. He says that Virarajendra invaded Gutti in 1069 without providing any "reliable and verifiable evidence". How are we to believe that Sastri and Kamatha are providing reliable and verifiable evidences in support of their version of history? What is there to make anyone believe that these versions of history are not POVs... their personal POVs.

Now coming to the ASI (www.whatsindia.com/south_indian_inscriptions)For your information it is this very website in which successive Chola kings (at least) have drawn both the chronology of Chola kings and acknowledged the fact that Rajadhiraja-I was killed by Somesvara-I. Vikrama Chola's inscription mentions that he regained Vengi which was lost during the time of his father Kulothunga Chola. There inscriptions of the Cholas available up to one from Rajendra-III in the year 1254.... those were the basis of my statement that while the Chalukyas ceased to exist by 1189 with their capital being occupied at least for 2-3 decades especially between 1155-1178, their downfall had no connection whatsoever with the fortunes of the Chola kingdom and so stop dragging the names of the Chola in the Chalukya page.... Kindly rest in peace, with the knowledge that the Chola kingdom existed from 848 AD to 1279 AD (431 years) while the Chalukyas lasted for approximately half the period of the Cholas i.e. 216 years... this is not to say one empire is more or less greater... just that their periods of existence were different... also do not try to diminish at least the greatness of the Chalukyas and Hoysalas by constantly yapping about Cholas being their main enemies or adversaries, they only had their main adversarial roles with regard to Vengi... otherwise both empires never meddled in each other's affairs. Similar to this Hoysalas to start with had their Gangavadi war at Talakaud with the Cholas but you cannot ignore that both Veera Ballala-II and his son Narasimha-III had marital alliance with Kulothunga III and Raja Raja-III. A marital relationship between ordinary people or kings is supposed to be an equal relationship... yet your penchant for superlatives makes you describe "Veera Ballala's overlordship of the Cholas ........."" How irresponsible? You did not even consider the simple fact that when he lived, Veera Ballala II (howsoever powerful, may be more powerful than the Chola king) lived as the king of Hoysalas... that did not mean Chola empires or kings did not exist independently. Stop treating non-Karnataka kings as lesser human beings as if they were some paid chaprasis of Chalukyan and Hoysala kings....

Last and not the least: let me add that your pretension, which I think it actually is just a pretension of my quoting the contents of inscriptions (which is exactly what I am doing) which again, by no stretch of imagination can be described "interpretation" of inscriptions which in your view is WP:OR ... not at all I would say... just see what Suryanatha Kamatha himself is doing:

To both you and the neutral observer, I would request to kindly see this link:

http://books.google.com/books?ei=eb8TSOisE4OOjAGy0eDZBQ&id=oqY9AAAAMAAJ&dq=A+concise+history+of+Karnataka+%3A+from+prehistoric+times+to+the+present.&q=Vikramaditya+&pgis=1

Kamatha openly acknowledges that..... "the Badami Cliff Record, Mahakuta Pillar Inscription of Mangalesha and the Aihole inscription of Pulakeshin II are the most important sources for the study of the Chalukyas."

So Kamatha is a historian having to substantially, if not completely rely on inscriptions (including deciphering them and making known to the world, the contents of these very inscriptions) "for the study" of ancient kingdoms be it the Chalukyas or the Cholas.

Kamatha also mentions one historical event as under: that "Rachamalla, Rakkasaganga lost Gangavadi to the Cholas in 999."

I want to add and say that the ASI website (does not matter if the website is very irritating to you)... precisely repeats the above information referring to the conquest of Gangavadi by Raja Raja I albeit without mentioning the name of the conquered ruler.

I feel the above pure examples should make you doubt any evidence of the ASI through its website and stop dubbing the same as a POV website, which is a very false, selfish and vicious allegation being made by a "senior historian and Wikipedian".

Srirangam99 (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?ei=eb8TSOisE4OOjAGy0eDZBQ&id=oqY9AAAAMAAJ&dq=A+concise+history+of+Karnataka+%3A+from+prehistoric+times+to+the+present.&q=Chola&pgis=1

One more point from srirangam99

Dinesh, one more small but glaring error:

In the page on Western Chalukyas, the following lines appear, very erroneously in my view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Chalukyas

“”King Vishnuvardhana built many temples after his conversion from Jainism to Vaishnavism including the famous Chennakesava Temple at Belur.[61][62] “”

Against this, pls. see what Prof.Settar says:

That is why he called the deity Vijayanarayana, a name later changed to Chennakesava. Later myths suggest that he built this temple after he was converted to Sri Vaishnavism by Ramanuja. But the records do not support this. He built three temples in this complex - the Vijayanarayana, the Kesava and the Lakshminarayana.

Also see what he has to say further:

As he said in his own words, he built the Kesava, Lakshmi and Vijayanarayana temples to celebrate his victories and not to mark his conversion.

I leave it to your wise counsel to retain or remove the lines suggesting that to mark his conversion from Jainism to Hinduism, Vishnuvardhana Hoysala built three or five temples.

I would repeat, as Prof. Settar unequivocally and unambiguously states as an expert on the Hoysalas, Vishnuvardhana Hoysala certainly did not build the Vishnu temples to mark his conversion, but definitely built them to celebrate or commemorate his victory, but (here comes the very, very fine distinction) --- he certainly did not build at least the Belur Chennakesava to celebrate or commemorate/mark his victory over the Cholas at Talakaud.

It will be in all fairness I think if you initiate the removal of the lines objected to by me in the Hoysala and Western Chalukya pages without any further delay.

I would like to emphasize for information of one and all, many contents of the Western Chalukya, Hoysala (and also the Rashtrakuta pages but I will come to that later) either are erroneus are indeed pushing POV, violating NPOV, are disrespectful and derisive to Tamilian Kingdoms, but that is not a worry to me at all. I am more concerned about the way these contents would wrongly influence and misguide a neutral visitor to these sites and leave him completely confused (in actuality) by leaving him with all sorts of wrong impressions. Even more concerning to me is that because of such inaccurate and in turn controversial content, it is the quality of the Hoysala and Western Chalukya kingdom pages of Wikipedia that is suffering of which I think the Western Chalukya page definitely is an FA page.

Thanks.

Srirangam99 (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)