Talk:Chalukya dynasty

Origin
Durgaprasad is quoted by several persons who wrote articles on history including that of Karnataka in Wikipedia. Deriding a historian is not proper.Kumarrao (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That is a good joke. Durga Prasad himself confirms he is not an expert of any sort. BTW, you can't use info from one wiki page as proof for another. Read up on wiki rules about "circular reasoning".Mayasandra (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Good job Mayasandra keeping an eye on this article. It is clear to me, looking at Kumarrao's editing habits that his only interest (going back as far as 2007) is to plop in this paragraph from Durga prasad's PDF file and continue to claim him to be a reliable source. We just have to keep an eye on this article. BTW, if it comes down to a debate in the presence of a neutral admin, I can not only lay out several reliable sources, but also happen to be in touch with some members of the Karnataka work group (on a different forum) who took so much trouble to write a thorough article. I can ping them and bring them into the discussion at short notice.Holenarasipura (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The long list of references of historians claiming that the Chalukyas of Vatapi came from Karnataka needs some fixing. The two references I checked just did not make that claim. John Keay is not making a claim about the Chalukya's ultimate origin at all, just their base of power in Harsha's time. Ramesh explicitly claims on the page cited that he thinks an Ayodhya origin is most likely, which seems to be contrary to what he is asserted as claiming in the wikipedia article. I wonder if there are other errors in this long list. I do not think the overwhelming consensus of historians is that they came from Karnataka, though it is certainly a reasonable view in light of their commonality with the Kadambas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.195.225.202 (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read article paragraph carefully. Nobody is trying to find the "ultimate origin" which is as unsure as any (and mentioned as such in the very first line) but rather the origin of the founding kings in the 6th century. John Keay clearly says "natives of Karnataka". Ramesh clearly says their ancestors may have migrated from Ayodhya but the Badami Chalukyas inscriptions are silent about this perhaps because the founding kings may have taken on a Kannada identity having resided their for a few generations. The corresponding para makes this amply clear. I own both books, so there is no guess work here.Pied Hornbill (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * And I own books by Kamath, Hans Raj, Mahajan which also clarify what the article says. Some of these books even quote other scholars cited who make the same claim. Book by Sen is available on line and confirms what the article claims. Don't see any debate here.Mayasandra (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

all royal dynasties were kannada?
as per wikipedia, all royal houses right from chalukya to kardam , everyone s kannada.It is a kanadapedia or what ? it is really laughing stock of knowledge. Please do not be so narrow minded and devoid of any knoweldge. I openely challenge f u think so scholar, show me a single royal family who says that they are kannada. And show a sngle kannadaa inscription in central and northern india. ok bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.245.37 (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This IP (112.133.245.37, 112.133.245.34) belongs to banned user (User:Dbkasar), banned back in 20011-2012 time frame. This is evident from the message left by him in the topic above called "Natives of karnataka or maharashtra?".Pied Hornbill (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021
I want unprotection for this article, I bet no one is going to vandalise this article 2405:201:25:6015:A168:33C:365E:55ED (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 05:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
The chalukya Dynasty was a classical Indian Dynasty that ruled large part of Southern and Central India between the sixth and the twelfth century during this period there ruled as the Badami chalukyas rule from the what the peak from the middle of sixth century the Badami chalukyas begin to assert their independence at the decline of kadamba 223.231.185.30 (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Social
About chalukya dynasty from 6 class 157.48.65.210 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism
@Gigabytetc, You are constantly vandalising this Wikipedia page. If you are new and don't know the rules of editing Wikepedia properly, then I want to mention that most of your sources are WP: RAJ and do not comply with modern era sources, Aside from that, your only source that passes WP:RAJ is not WP:RS. Hence, your edits are reverted, and if you want to edit this Wikipedia page with the same information again, then you must reach a consensus here by providing sources that do not fall under WP: RAJ and are WP: RS. Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * What are modern era sources? and which source is considered reliable? A contemporary source or an opinion of modern author? Gigabytetc (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gigabytetc, Sources published after British Raj do not fall under WP: RAJ and hence can be used. Most of the sources provided by you. do not fulfil this obligation. Regarding your second question, the sources that are not contradicted by other sources and are published by renowned historians are considered to be as reliable. The source that you presented was something like the history of Gujjars (if my memory serves me), which is contradicted by historian R.C. Majumdar in his book, A History and Culture of Indian People, Volume 3, Page 227. "The Chalukyas of Badami appear to have represented an indi¬ indigenous Kanarese family that claimed the status of Kshatriyas." The theory identifying them with the Gurjaras seems untenable. The name is sometimes associated with the Chulika people of Uttarapatha, who are supposed to have been identical with the Sogdians and to have given their name to the Prakrit dialect called Chulika Paisachl. There is, however, no evidence in support of the conjecture. The Sulikas, mentioned in the Haraha inscription of A.D. 553 and identified with the Sulkis of Orissa, probably had nothing to do with the Chalukyas." Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Gigabytetc, In wikipedia only the most common names are used. No one refers to this dynasty by the "root of their name" (which appears to have risen from the agricultural implement "chalki" or "salki" but can have variations across the country). Stop trying to lead the reader to believe the origin of this dynasty is somewhere in the North. Where their ancestors came from is of no consequence to the article. Stop edit warring.Pied Hornbill (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)