User talk:Aadal

Welcome! Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
 * Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
 * Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome! -- ImpuMozhi 03:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome! --Aadal 19:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Aadal

Carnatic music article
Hi, congratulations on your work with this article. Let us not worry about serial reverters like Bharatveer. Can you also review Ancient Tamil music article which I wrote and make correction/additions? I don't have much technical knowledge as far as Carnatic music is concerned, but can help with WP:MOS, etding, etc. - Parthi 20:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thank you for your encouragement. I did take a look at the Ancient Tamil music earlier and I think I also made some minor edits there. It is, in my view, already a well written article with a wealth of info. Key points from your Ancient Tamil music must find a place in the Carnatic music article as well. I'll certainly take a look at the Ancient Tamil music article again offer my suggestions. Thank you for writing such a nice piece on Tamil music. Dr. V.P.K. Sundaram had written a lot on the Tamil music. --Aadal 04:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Aadal

Hello aadal. I saw the dispute in the carnatic music article and thought we could join hands and do some work on it to remove the POVs and get more facts in. I saw that ImpuMozhi and Parthi are also interested. Maybe we can discuss some stuff and retouch the debatable parts of the article. --Charukesi 19:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. I too will add whatever i know. Hopefully we can get the dispute resolved.--Charukesi 22:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tamil
Hello Aadal. I see you mention literature as one of your interests. We tried some time ago to get a WikiProject in the Sangam period going - see Wikiproject Classical Tamil. Unfortunately, it hasn't gotten anywhere much, although the article on the akathinais has improved somewhat as part of the effort. Is this something you think you could be actively involved in? From your contributions to Carnatic music, I think you could contribute a lot to it. -- Arvind 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Arvind, Thanks for your note. I'll see whether I can make any useful contributions. I do have a serious interest in Tamil literature. --Aadal 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

History of Carnatic music
Hi, Instead wasting our time arguing with ignoramus on the Carnatic music talk page, it will be constructive to start on the History of Carnatic music article. If we can write the facts with appropriate citation, there won't he any dipute regarding this. - Parthi 22:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am, of late, trying to bring some sense and _accuracy_ into Carnatic Music page. From what i garner (from the discussion page), evidently it has been attempted by you and few other, but has since been abandoned; may be for a good reason, as I realize now! I am anyway trying as well as I could, beginning with "Sri Purandara Daasaru as father/founder" claim. would it be okie if you had a look at the discussion (largely between mee and one Naadapriya) and let me know if I am making sense! thanks.. btw, ur nick is cool! Anarion81

Temples of Belur and Halebidu
Dear Aadal, The temples of Belur and Halebidu are not exactly in runis. Let me explain. Mostly due to gravity. There was some damage in the Khilji invasion but later was restored by the Vijayanagar rulers. The main Rayagopura which is actually a dravida style was added by Vijayanagar Kings as they patronised the diety at Belur. There has been lots of vandalism of statues over the years though, but thats India.
 * The Belur Chennakeshava temple was built by King Vishnuvardhana in 1117 CE to commomorate his victory against the Cholas. It apparently took over 80 years to complete it and it was completed. There are several smaller shrines in Belur complex. This temple again looks in fine shape to a common man's eyes, except experts know that the vimanas over the garbhagriha collapsed as this is a common mode of failure due to age.

The Hoysaleashwara temple suffered to some extent also in the Khilji invasion and also lost the vimanas either due to age or invasion and has been subject to vandalism. However, a tourist will normally be obvlivious to all this simply because of the remaining grandeur. The Kedareshwara temple built by King Veera Balla II (VishnuVardhana's grandson) partially collapsed possibly due to shifts in earth below. It looks great now though aftersome rework. It is common for later kings to add to work done by earlier ones. If you visit these places you will forget all about the invasion and just enjoy. If some rework looks shabby its because we dont have the artists now and have been slowly loosing the artistry that the artists used to have in those days. Thats why in places you see where ASI has done some rework, it looks shabby.
 * The Hoysaleshwara temple was built by his commander Katamalla in 1121. When we say built by, it means commissioned by. It took over 120 years for this one which was not completed for some reason. This issue of completion is actually something only experts can identify, not the eyes of common tourists. Meaning its not obvious. There are other fine temples in the vicinity like Kedareshwara temple and two Jain Basadi.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Reply: You are welcome

Dinesh


 * Hi, just to add to your interesting conversation. About the 'incomplete' nature of the temples, am not totally sure how 'incomplete' it is.  Let me tell you what i remember from what a professional guide told me when i was there years ago.  In both the temples, you will find many places where,  for example, on a panel you may find some empty(unsculpted) space.  the guide told me that these spaces were deliberately left unsculpted because it was meant to throw a challenge to anybody.  if a sculptor felt that his work was a marvel, he would leave the adjoining space 'open' or 'uncarved'.  it meant that anybody could accept the challenge and if possible sculpt a better figure.  but obviously, as the empty spaces indicate, nobody took up the challenge and hence we find the empty spaces.
 * That is one explanation. that explains the empty spaces in seemingly complete panels. but i also remember the guide pointing to some unsculpted portions and said that it was like that because they didnt find time to finish the sculpting because of invasions.

that was my 2 cents. Sarvagnya 05:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Carnatic music redux
Hi, you may be interest in the ongoing discussion:. Appreciate your input in this - Parthi talk/contribs 23:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. It is very hard to deal with those two unreasonable users. I have been trying my best. However I think the only solution now is to seek some kind of arbitration. Sundar is an admin and has always been very helpful. You can also seek input from Arvind and a few other experienced users with knowledge of Carnatic music. My drawback is that I don't have an in-depth knowledge in this. I can help in maintaining neutrality. - Parthi talk/contribs 21:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Kaveri water dispute
I hope u r aware of Kaveri_dispute.Plz see the article and make sure tht it is free of POV. Mahawiki 06:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Carnatic music
Hi Aadal. There are two ways out now. One is both parties agreeing to mediation and draft a consensus version in the talk page before effecting the change in the article space. If things don't work out this way, one can seek admin intervention either through requests for comment or in the worst case through arbitration. See Resolving disputes for more info. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Aadal, I will support you in the arbitration process. I think the best way forward is to elist the support of some of the senior editors and Indian admins. You should leave a note on Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics and on Requests for comment. - Parthi talk/contribs 22:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Aadal, you would be interested in this. This is maintained by User:Srikris. This user tries to include a link to this forum website of which he is the admin, in hundreds of places in WP. I have been deleting them as I find them. You can also see the lies and distortion the user has put forward!
 * One of the forum threads is on the current dispute on the Carnatic music article. He says:
 * ''There is a dispute on Wikipedia (not on our wiki) on the history of Carnatic Music.


 * One user "Aadal" is trying to prove that Carnatic Music came out of Ancient Tamil Music, based on musical descriptions in works like Silappathikaram etc. He is supported by another user called Venu62. Together they want to depict that Carnatic Music is 80% Ancient Tamil Music by engaging in an edit-war.


 * I (and some 4-5 others) have been trying to say that while CM (or Indian Classical Music as it is known before the Carnatic-Hindustani split) has some similarities with ATM, they are not the same and one is not descended from the other. Rather they have both influenced each other to an extent. I have cited the Natya Shastra, Sangeeta Ratnakara etc as being the treatises that Carnatic Music (and Hindustani) consider authoritative, not Silappathikaram or other Tamil Sangam Literature. I have been stating that this doesnt mean Tamil composers dont belong to Carnatic Music, but that some ancient ones "did not originally compose in Carnatic Music" but their compositions were later set to classical music. It has taken the usual Tamil vs Sanskrit turn although I have mentioned that Gopalakrishna Bharathi, Oothukadu Venkatasubbier are among well known Carnatic composers who have composed in Tamil.


 * I request those who are interested here to read the discussions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carnatic_music and help us reach Neutral Point of View (NPOV).

- Parthi talk/contribs 10:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Carnatic music arbitration
Hi Aadal, I can help you in any way I can, however when the arbitration starts and when questions are raised you should be available to counter them. So if you are going to be busy for a while, then my suggestion is to get into the arbitration process when the timeis right. cheers -Parthi talk/contribs 03:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page
Hello, one way to resolve this problem is to write about the contribution of ancient Tamil literature (such as Sangam) in the formation of modern pan Indian literray forms as a seperate, referenced article. If it is properly done and there is consensus about it then link it to the main article such as Carnatic music. Once it is there for a while you can add a sub section on it and ad a summary of your creation in the main page. Always patience on these matters work but start with your own article first with proper references. This is my suugestion. If you need any help let me know. Thanks RaveenS


 * I will look at that page to see if there is systematic vandalism. But a separate article is probably needed if current editors of that article in question are unable to see a fit through regualr edits. At least that's what I have done, created content where there was non before. Thanks RaveenS 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is systematic vandalism by a few editors who are dead-against Tamil, but the claim is content dispute. While I and a few other editors are for inclusive approach based on hard facts, a few editors are systematically against tamil and they want t0 and do exclude tamil and tamil-related info. WP should not be a place for displaying hatred for Tamil or for that matter any particular group.  --Aadal 17:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I just edited it, see for your self. Thanks


 * You have some work to do, you need to find the references for what you are adding. Find those references and anyone removing them is a straight forward vandal or bigot or both. You should have at least a week to do it. RaveenS


 * I think my work is done on the page, the origin theories is properly referenced and baed on it the body of the article can develop in an inclusive way. Like someone else suggested you may have to write a comprehensive article on the History of Carnatic music as a seperate article and then link it eventually. Given this I am going back to my macabre task of giving a face to all those dead, dying or going to surely die Sri Lankan Tamils for the time being. Good luck. RaveenS 17:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey aadal..tied up with a lot of work till last week and so its been a while since i visited wiki. Sure will take a look at the discussion and give my inputs..Cheers!!charukesi 23:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sruthi article
Thanks Aadal. I have read that article before and used it for the Ancient Tamil music article. - Parthi talk/contribs 02:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Kannada
I am going to remove most of the you put into Kannada page. Please read the citations that follow carefully before putting tags. In wikipedia, sometimes multiple sentences are clubbed into one citation for presentaton, so you have to read the cited web link or take the trouble to buy the book the citation comes from. One cant provide a citation for every word. Hope you understand this considering you are not new to wikipedia.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Standard Spoken Tamils
See ta:செந்தமிழ் for notes. --Natkeeran 17:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for ur remarks about my comments and ur continuous efforts to keep the tamil article of good quality. --Ravishankar 10:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

sure, i will keep a watch on all tamil, tamils related articles. natkeeran brought this issue to the attention of users in tamil wikipedia and also alerted arvind, sundar - the original main contributors of the article. Thats how we all landed here suddenly :)--Ravishankar 14:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bharathanatyam
I would like you to take a look on this article for comments about the edit war. Also, please advise me about the the procedure to address 'verify' tags (these tags are added by a user to references). Praveen 15:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hoysala Empire
Hi. I saw the edit you made and wanted to remark on that. While the map does not show the extent of Hoysala Empire at its peak, the LEAD tried to convey the message. If you read through the article you will see in citation15/16 and 17 what the lead was trying to convey. Srirangam which is pretty much in central Tamil Nadu was the Hoysala provincial headquarters around 1245. During this time, Even the Pandyas paid tribute to the Hoysalas and this is why the lead said "most parts of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and parts of Andhrapradesh" (which you altered referring to the map perhaps). I hope this resolves the confusion on the issue. If I can get hold of a map that shows Hoysala territory in 1250-1300 time frame I will upload it.ThanksDineshkannambadi 02:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have provided several citations all from different scholars. Are you suggesting they are all wrong? Can ypu provide counter-citations that Kannanur Kuppam (near Srirangam) and Tiruvannamalai were not provincial headquarters?Dineshkannambadi 18:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit in the Lead section as citations 13-18 convey the meaning.Dineshkannambadi 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Devaneya Pavanar's page
Thanks for showing interest on Pavanar, I very well understand the wiki standards and conventions, as this page is in developing stage, there may be some mistakes here and there. If you notice anything, please go ahead and correct it, as long as the edits are fair and neutral, I'm okay. Thank you againRajan 10:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Tamils
http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Tamils and its talk page probably contains topics of your interest. If you have links, and info that you can contribute, please do so. Thanks. --Natkeeran 21:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Halmidi
Aadal, thanks for showing interest in Kannada related articles. Your citation requirement has been fulfilled. Also, some POV has been altered. The Halmidi inscription is written in Brahmi charaters, with characteristics resembling those of Tamil.thanksDineshkannambadi 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Tumbula copper plate
I have corrcted your POV and provided citation for "bilingual" inscription.Dineshkannambadi 02:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message
Hello Aadal. Alas, my access to the internet is likely to be highly irregular for the next couple of months as my work takes me gallivanting around Europe, so I think I have done all I will be able to on the Tamil language article for now. Most of the issues now seem to be about language, and I'm quite awful at copyediting, what with English being my third language and me being dyslexic. Perhaps you could try and enlist the assistance of WikiProject League of Copyeditors? They were very helpful in polishing up the prose of Tamil people when it was on FAR. -- Arvind 00:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Kannada influence on tamil
If you think that Kannada's influence on Tamil is real but not very significant(you may be right), then Tamil's influence on Sanskrit is also insignificant and does not deserve a mention in a summary style article. Sanskrit's influence on almost all Indian languages, however, is widely attested and significant. Sarvagnya 22:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Kannada and Tamil
Sorry if I left a slightly rude remark on the Kannada talk page. I just want you to know that I dont hold anything against you nor do I claim to be an expert on Kannda history (though I have been working hard trying to learn). I am quite sure I have the sources to answer some of your questions if not all. I have not shyed away from discussing influences from other cultures, regions in all my articles nor do I claim Kannadaigas have evolved in isolation. Its just that I am busy working on other articles and dont have time to ruminate on the same issue and make it an endless debate. I wish you would work on many Tamil related articles, given its rich history and culture (like user:Venu62) instead of proving its superiority and eliteness over other languages. This would be beneficial to all of us. Wish you all the best.Dineshkannambadi 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw the questions. They neither 'digress' nor qualify as the subject of discussion for "groundnut munching evening walkers" (That was one nice Sidduism). Answering those questions with journal citation will definitely improve the credibility of the article. But may not be done since the literature of Kannada corresponds to much later date than 1 CE. You should have noticed that the literature of Kannada is not 2000 year old. The article merely claims that the language is 2000 year old (since something similar to the name 'Kannada' was mentioned in other languages' literature).
 * Anyways, I am not here to prove the superiority of Tamil over other languages. Having said that, it would not be wise to accept rampant regionalistic POV propagated by group-reverting POV pushers (just to keep them happy and in peace). Praveen 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

re: FARC
Hi Aadal. I'm trying my best. I'll try to allocate some time tomorrow evening. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope it can retain its FA status. But, someone should help with copyediting. Asking at the India notice board might help. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to help, but I'm not any good at copyediting - I tend to make prose read worse rather than better. I've asked for help from other Indian Wikipedians here. I hope things work out. Do let me know if any further content problems crop up. And a belated putthandu vazhththukal. :-) -- Arvind

Happy New Year
Hello Aadal, Puthandu Nalvalthukkal! Praveen 14:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

article request
romanisation of tamil--Ravishankar 10:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

MY Thoughts: hi, i'm new user of wikipedia. I found this discussion page about tamil status as classical language. I dont know much about linguistics( except that iam a ordinary man who likes his language, perhaps could still enjoy its ancient literature and see it as a part of my unique culture)but i dont see much of ideas or informations flowing rather harsh arguments...do we really need all this arguments to prove ours?..im not sure about it..i know it was not part of our culture..we were more of an assertive tradition...the irony is people who opposes this status to tamil are who i suppose the best people who should ideally vouchsafe for its qualification(?!)..they(rather i would like to use we) are culturally,geographically close to us than any others....Anyway i appreciate your work...may i get to know more about you..you can mail me @ prak.t@tcs.com

Hi!
Hi! You are welcome. I did almost nothing compared to the efforts so many people have given in saving the FA status. It seems the article is going to retain the FA status. Congratulations. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC
I agree with you Aadal. But it is sad that people resort to group reverting to remove quality content. Anyways, I think we should try RfC for all the articles. Praveen 16:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rashtrakuta
Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please add my references to official status too. Thanks Praveen 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hold on
I have reverted your recent big reversion. You already did one such big revert yesterday without any discussion and you've done it again. Stop doing it. As for the refs, phoneme table etc., I will bring it back in a few mins. Sarvagnya 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of scripts
Dear Mr Aadal,

I read your comments regarding the origin of scripts. May I add:

Kannada script originated from Proto-Telugu script which evolved from a variant of Asokan Brahmi script found on the urn containing Buddha's relics from the stupa of Bhattiprolu in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. The following reference gives a graphical account of how Telugu script evolved from proto-Telugu script and subsequently gave rise to Kannada script (See Figure 1a and 1b):

(http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html)

The origin of proto-Telugu script lies in the Brahmi script written on the urn found from Bhattiprolu stupa which was older than Satavahana times. Satavahanas used this script and spread it over Maharashtra and Karnataka regions which they ruled for about 400 years. The strong resemblance of modern Thai, Laos, Javanese and Balinese scripts to Telugu script is because of the spread of proto-Telugu script from coastal Andhra to east Asia along with Buddhism (from Ghantasala and Masulipatnam ports). The Chalukayas, originally hailing from Rayalaseema region (Kadapa-Kurnool) of Andhra Pradesh, used the script to write Telugu and Kannada languages. The script is known to historians as Telugu-Kannada script. One may refer to the displays about the evolution of scripts in National Museum in Delhi. Adikavi Pampa and his brother were Telugu Brahmins of ancient Kammanadu (same region as Bhattiprolu) who embraced Jainism, sought the patronage of Chalukyan kings and wrote the earliest literary works of Kannada language. The script of the mother tongue of Pampa influenced their contributions to Kannada. Some enthusiasts insist use the words "Old Kannada" or "Hale Kannada", which I feel is not right. Kumarrao 07:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning - Carnatic Music
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. It may also be in your best interest to review the talk archive for this article. .

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil about your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist 06:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your copyedit request
On 12 April 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit of Tamil language. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we apologize. Since your request, this article may have been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Carnatic music & Bharatnatyam
Nilakana Sastri's book on Cholas (published in 1955) has section on their temple culture that was a precursor to Carnatic Music and Bharatanatyam. You should get it, if you already do not have it. Also the K. Indrapala's Evolution of an ethnic identity... puts it together as to how Chola Art forms directly lead to Bharatanatyam forms in sculptures in Sri Lanka. Indrapal quotes Nilakanta Sastri extensively. Taprobanus (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There'll not be any point in that - the response will be that Nilakanta Sastri and Indrapala are not musicologists and hence not reliable as far as that article is concerned. And as experience with citing Sambamurthy, Emmie te Nijenhuis, Ramanathan, etc. has shown, even producing musicological sources doesn't really help. My own inclination is to retreat from the topic until these people come up with a solution - those guidelines should help deal with situations like these, and trying to do anything is just an unproductive waste of time until then.  A few days ago, I realised to my horror that there is no information at all about Iraiyanar Akapporul anywhere on the web.  As a result, I've started work on an article on that, and I can't imagine how that article could ever be controversial.  We have a few scattered sub-articles, but nothing about the entirety of Akam poetry or Puram poetry, nor about the major literary forms, such as Kovais, and virtually no information about Tamil prosody (yappu).  So there's enough to keep us busy until then.  -- Arvind (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At the moment, there actually isn't anything that can be done about it. The vast majority of admins refuse to touch anything that has anything to do with a content dispute.  Sometimes you'll find a dedicated bunch of admins who will crack down on a content dispute - as happened in WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation - but that's the exception rather than the rule.  The problem isn't unique to issues related to Tamil - it's happening in dozens of areas on Wikipedia, which is why the Arbitration Committee has constituted a working group to deal with the problem.  They should come up with recommendations in a few months which, hopefully, will make it easier to deal with this situation, and others concerning Tamil history and culture. It seems to me that the best thing to do is wait and see what procedures they come up with - this article has been having issues for nearly two years, a few more months won't make any difference.  -- Arvind (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont know why anyone would object to facts from conference papers such as this. We can take it all the way Taprobanus (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I've tried and Arvind had tried, Parthi had tried and many other editors have tried. Some of the editors opposing any mention of Tamil or Tamil Nadu in the Carnatic music article didn't even know who Emmie te Nijenhuis is. I had provided quotes from her well known book "Indian Music - History and Structure", for Silappathikaram, Tevaram. The Haridasa composers are not at all influential, nor are they even known much except more recently in some circles due to "propaganda". I've provided citations from authentic sources (Archaeological Survey publications) for Kudumiyanmalai inscriptions (7th century) in Tamil Nadu. "They" (a few editors who were group-revering) just removed.--Aadal (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How about a fully fledged FA quality article on Tamil musical traditions Taprobanus (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly what I've been thinking of -for quite sometime now, on and off. I've done some work on this already, but not at the level of even GA class, but quite possible to reach GA->FA  with considerable amount of work. It is a must. We'll work on it :) --Aadal (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

for what ever its worthTaprobanus (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ughabhogas
I've left a response regarding the innacuracies of the new Ughabhoga section in the CM article at Badagnani's talk page. As an involved editor, you may wish to research it further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's unfortunate, but I don't think an admin is going to step in just yet. I am working on a way that the same problems aren't encountered as has been in the past. A lot of the editors from the Tamil project seem to have stopped coming to Wikipedia, which isn't encouraging to some extent, given that they would argue the other side, which would improve the chances of balance. Still, there may be a way around it, but it is something that I can only discuss privately. It's ok - I'm going to be a bit busy in the next few days/weeks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature
Hi. Thanks for your earlier message. I have gone ahead and removed the lines on the Greek farce and Ashokan edicts per your objections. However, information about Halmidi, Kappe Arabhatta poetry, extinct writings and early poets is a must to trace the history of a literature and as such they are very frequently mentioned by sources. Thanks for your kind words too.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding your recent tag asking for quotation, there is something called Google search from which you can verify content. Dont expect me to sit and type out for you every citation you want clarification for, though I will oblige you this time. Also, while you have every right to ask for verification, making it a frivolous habit and tagging and could work against you. Please be aware of this.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Shiva Prakash (page 167-168)

''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.......''

The Sharana movement produced 33 women vachana poets most of whom came from the lowest strata ..... Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Aadal, Shiva Prakash is not my neighbour. He is a historian who writes for Sahitya Akademi publications. If you want to know where he got such an extra ordinary claim from, please discuss with the Shiva Prakash yourself. Better yet, write to Sahitya Akademi and wait for their reply. Your question is akin to asking, Can Mahadevan explain where he got such an extraordinary claim that Tamil Brahmi inscriptions dated 2 c. BCE could be possible? Good luck. Be a little more deliberate and if you dont know how to do google searches, please ask your pal Fowler, perhaps he knows. You have been on wiki long enough and must understand that I dont have to explain my sources, I just need to quote and cite them. You have the freedom to bring sources that refute my claim "directly". If you can find a source that says" The number of Vachana writers was only 120" for instance, go ahead and bring it and we can examine the reliability of the source. Then we can change the sentence in the article to say "The number of Vachana writers are known to be anywhere from 100 to more than 300". You have to do your homework too, if you want to refute Shiva Prakash.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit req
Sri Lankan Tamil people not done 100% if you have time Taprobanus (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC
I thought about it some more. I've now created an RfC on the Talk:Kannada literature page to get the community's feedback. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk» 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also analyzed the sources in the first two sentences of section 1 on my sub-page KLsources: Two examples. Please feel free to comment in the RfC (only if you want to, of course), whether user:DK has added his statement or not.  After suggesting to me that I pursue mediation, he seems to be now dragging his feet.  I fear that by not adding his statement he will discourage others from commenting. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Could you please check whether on the other pages, Sastry says anything explicitly supportive of the statement in the second (analyzed) sentence in my sub-page?  i.e. is Kavirajamarga mentioned anywhere else? and if so, what does it say?  Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure ...
... Halmidi dates. Using Google snippets to get the full-quote for Gai was a lot of fun (like a crossword). Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk» 05:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Email?
Hi Adal, Are you email accessible? Might be worth creating an adal at gmail dot com or adal at yahoo dot com type email for others to reach you. Of course, you might choose to keep this talk page the only means of communication with others, and that's fine too. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk» 00:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a message in your talk page. --Aadal (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Tamil language
Hi Aadal. I think it's best to report it to an uninvolved admin, someone like Taxman, DaGizza, Dab, or Ragib. In the meanwhile, we should strengthen the article with even stronger sources. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Do you have access to alternatives to Nilakanta Sastri? In particular, Burton Stein (1977)? -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Or James Heitzmann (1997)? -- Relata refero (disp.) 14:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Stein book should work, though the Heitzmann book is apparently the most up-to-date discussion of the Chola Empire's organisation. I've explained on User talk:Sundar why I was asking. -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Are you the same person as ta:User:செல்வா ? 121.246.13.47 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, Forgot to Sign in, This is ta:User:Vinodh.vinodh by the way Vinodh.vinodh (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please do not edit war on Western Chalukya Empire and Satyasraya. Discuss, don't revert. This same warning goes out to Srinrangam99 and Dinesh. Best, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From srirangam99 (Narasimhan Srinivasan) 28th April 2008
Hi Aadal,

To reply specifically to your questioning me about my adding the lines about the Chola kingdom lasting for almost a century after the demise of the Chalukya kingdom, there again my evidence is mainly what I consider to be the most reliable (it may certainly not be the most preferred - but that is the way of vested interests - see the remarks Dinesh has made about me having ethnocentric leanings and trying to hide behind books of historians many of whom present only one point of view - DK has even shown contempt to reading of epigraphic evidences including inscriptions calling them as description or overplaying of defeats or small achievements into victories or great feats etc. Can anything be further than the truth... then that way his claim of Western Chalukya convincingly eclipsing the Cholas with their victory in Vengi too is equally fanciful... considering that by his own posting of the citation in that page is the following: "Vikramaditya VI led an expedition against the Cholas in 1085 and captured Kanchi and held it for some years. Vikramaditya VI succeeded in conquering major parts of Vengi Kingdom in 1088. Kollipakei-7000, a province of Vengi was under his control for long after this. Vengi was under his control from 1093 to 1099 and though it was recaptured by the Cholas in 1099, he reconquered it in 1118 and held it till 1124" (Kamath 2001, p105)."about Chalukya generals occupying and gathering presence of their evidences through (what else? inscriptions only in the Eastern Chalukya territory but then sheepishly adding that Vikramaditya VI invaded Kanchi in 1085 and occupied it for 'a few years' (such ambiguity in an FA page? Surely, the ultra-'reliable' sources that DK has so much faith on could have provided the exact period of occupation of Kanchi by the Chalukyas -- tsk tsk....

DK also had the temerity to comment (contemptuously in my opinion) as under:

'Even after loosing a battle, ancient inscribers could well down play a defeat or overplay a victory for propaganda reasons. This is why historians use various sources before deciding on the outcome of an historical event. Srirangam99 has found one web site, (From ASI) and is using that to decide on his own, the outcome of a event. This is WP:OR.'

'''Pls. compare the first sentences and the last.... even after loosing a battle, ancient inscribers could well downplay a defeat or overplay a victory for propaganda reasons while in the same breath I am sad to say DK (what else can he do) as well as you (and Sundar earlier) expressed to me against "interpreting those inscriptions (which I admit very much rely on but make scarce attempts to interpret)... I want to ask you LOUD AND CLEAR: PRAY, WHAT IS DK DOING HERE.... WHILE ALLEGING I AM SEEKING TO INDEPENDENTLY INTERPRET INSCRIPTIONS.... BY SAYING ANCIENT INSCRIBERS MAY HAVE TRIED TO DOWNPLAY A DEFEAT OR OVERPLAY A VICTORY ...... I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE EMINENT HISTORIAN IN OUR MIDST, THE GREAT DINESH KANNAMBADI HIMSELF IS DOING EXACTLY THE SAME THING... THAT IS, INTERPRETING THE INSCRIPTIONS OF ANCIENT KINGDOMS ALL BY HIMSELF.... AND THAT MAY I BE GIVEN THE PERMISSION TO SAY AADAL, IS ITSELF AN ACT OF CASTING AN ASPERSON ON THE WORK OF EMINENT EPIGRAPHISTS, ARCHAEOLOGISTS (NO LESS HISTORIANS THEMSELVES) AND HIS VERY OPINIONS AND VIEWS CONSTITUTE WP:OR. I REPEAT, IT IS NOT WHAT I DO BUT WHAT D.K. HAS JUST DONE IS WP:OR. (but the same DK is fine with an inscription of Somesvara I describing himself as the destroyer of Rajadhiraja or indeed relying on both historians and inscriptions as proofs of Vikramaditya VI's not only victory in Vengi but also going on to 'interpret' inscriptions or evidence by saying with the loss of Vengi and Kanchi, Kulothunga I sustained further loss of territory.

As to the loss of Vengi, may I add, Aadal, that not just the loss of Gangavadi and Vengi, the Cholas have indeed sustained and then gone on to overcome loss of territories that too for a continuous period of 25 years or so, when Rashtrakuta Krishna III defeated Parantaka I Chola in the battle at Takkolam, occupied and conquered Kacchi and Thanjai (Kanchipuram and Thanjavur) and may be for some period even banished Parantaka I to Uraiyur, the old Chola capital.... this battle is described in the page on Krishna III as "Rajaditya (Chola crown prince, probably son of Parantaka I -- was killed with a well armed arrow" God knows which reliable, irrefutable and verifiable historian preferred by DK was a "witness" even to the way the son of an opponent of Krishna III was being killed!!!!! strange are the ways of some historians like D.K. Now if that is not pushing POV, being inimical to people and culture not from Karnataka, derisive description of other cultures and attributing superlatives to his preferred empires and emperors, constituting WP:OR, then what is???

What I mean is that earlier EVEN when two very very important and strategic Chola towns wever under the occupation of the Rashtrakutas (Krishna III even made presentations at Srirangam - but somehow I lost track of this invaluable inscriptional link - indicating that the Rashtrakutas had definitely reached even south of the Chola capital of Thanjavur), the Chola empire while definitely suffering a setback NEVER EVER got convincingly eclipsed as is borne out by the later Chola rulers starting from Uttama Chola himself (his coins have been found from Sri Lanka). Here I am only trying to fight (if you like the impression, by contesting what I strongly consider to be mis-representation of facts - that is blatantly taking place in Hoysala and Chalukya pages - I hope you would be able to convince DK that contesting and opposing mis-representation of history with innuendos, POV pushing, malafide intent through pushing of vicious and prejudicial content is violative of NPOV and constitutes not just WP:OR but is a fit case to be referred to WP:3O - can you help me with this pls.?)

Consider this once again:

'Even after loosing a battle, ancient inscribers could well down play a defeat or overplay a victory for propaganda reasons.

When viewed against the hallowed claim of Suryanath Kamath preferred by DK about 'Satyashraya's victory' (while the book excerpt mentions about Satyashraya having 'also' defeated crown prince Rajendra Chola ... the Western Chalukya page takes any number of liberties with the lines reading something like this: (However) Satyashraya was able to defeat Raja Raja and his son Rajendra Chola when they invaded (Chalukya territory) Manyakheta. I say what is this, clearly state whether Satyashraya defeated one king or two together or two of them separately in separate battles.  I on the other hand expressed thus: (pls. pay attention carefully now)... however, inscriptions of Raja Raja and Rajendra claim to have won victory ...... at the seven and a half lakshas of Rattapadi ..... etc. etc. and went on to express (not interpret) in any case inscriptions of Satyashraya are very few among Chalukyan kings (this is a fact and cannot at all be an interpretation of inscriptions(non-existing that is, meaning being too few in number) issued by Satyashraya. In his inscription Raja Raja I and later Rajendra claimed to have banished both Satyashraya and Jayasimha-II respectively (it is also proven by Jayasimha-II issuing inscriptions from territories like Kogali and Kadambalige in Chalukya territory after the date of the war). I said that (either rightly or wrongly) that the very few inscriptions of Satyashraya when compared with the detailed inscriptions of Raja Raja I (very significant that Raja Raja I claims to both assume the title Sivapadasekhara at the Big Temple, Tanjore and also present golden flowers or leaf at the Temple - but I am very well aware that the Big Temple was in the process of being constructed between 1007 and may be inaugurated sometime in 1010 while Raja Raja I (represented by his son Rajendra I) and Satyashraya fought in 1005-1006, so while the detailed inscriptions had been made or kept ready, they were affixed inside the Big Temple in all probability after the commissioning (opening) of the Tanjore temple.

What should have been done in the context of one glaring fact.... that of DK and a few others getting irritated may be you too said that over-reliance on inscriptions may not be desirable (but no one went on to claim that the inscriptions themselves could be entirely false in downplaying defeats and overplaying victories) ... is that it should have been acknowledged in the Satyashraya page that as against the claim of Satyashraya (by giving both valid and verifiable references), the inscriptions of Raja Raja I and Rajendra (mind you Raja Raja I's inscriptions when translated, themselves run into around 32 pages ... I have taken a print out) are claiming a Chola victory. Instead what DK is doing, very very dishonestly I am convinced, is he wants to stick to Chalukya or Hoysala victories while completely lies when he classifies inscriptions being relied upon by me as acts (by ancient inscribers) of downplaying of defeats and overplaying of victories... how defeatist and escapist, when faced with the truth one can get.... you may judge for yourself. But when you consider the wistful expression of Suryanath Kamath (quoted by you): Satyashraya had even defeated crown prince Rajendra Chola.... and in the same breath our DK speaks about inscriptions relied on by me as downplaying defeats and overplaying victories..... why is the same not possible in the case of Satyashraya and Tailapa-II (I very much added the comment that there are no inscriptions supporting their victory). Besides (pls. match this with the facts that) first of all epigraphist Huntzsch mentioned that the inscriptions of Raja Raja I when choronolised highlight that he did not fight any war till the 9th year of his reign where as Chalukyan 'records' say that Tailapa-III defeated Raja Raja I and Tailapa secured 150 horses, while at the same time mentioning that Tailapa II was first defeated 16 times by a Paramara king and later defeated him..... a king fighting 17 wars with an opponent and then having the time to vanquish Raja Raja ? was he a man or superman?

Mind you, Aadal that while seeking to only complain and express against an action of mine that he hasn't liked rather than acting as a true lover of history by trying to crack wholes in my specific contentions (by also seeking to escape that we should deal with one point at a time ... well that was what I was doing.... I mainly concentrated initially on just two chapters ... Tailapa-II and Satyashraya (Chalukya kings) and kept replying to DK by asking him questions and justifying my actions (I openly say and claim (admit, if you like) that I find reliance on regional historians like Kamath, Iyengar or KAN Sastri unacceptable because each one of these could give a thoroughly regionalistic and biased interpretation of history (as against inscriptions which we have absolutely no right to interpret as downplaying of defeats and overplaying of victories --- this is what constitutes interpretation of inscriptions - negative ones at that -- then why does he claim and relies on the fact that no other Chalukya king except Vijayanagara kings left so many inscriptions as did Vikramaditya VI? Further, for good measure in the Western Chalukya page this 'evidence' (and may I add, reliance on inscriptions) is significantly emphasized:

"^ Thousands of Kannada language inscriptions are ascribed by Vikramaditya VI and pertain to his daily land and charitable grants (Nityadana),Kamat, Jyotsna. Chalukyas of Kalyana. 1996–2006 Kamat's Potpourri. Retrieved on 2006-12-24. "

Then what about the same thousands (if not may more in number) Tamil language inscriptions ascribed by kings right down from the Pallavas to the later Pandyas of the 15-16th century be placed reliance upon?

Surely as far as DK is concerned, what is sauce for the goose (namely the Chalukyas and Hoysalas) is certainly NOT sauce for the gander.... how more objectionable and lop-sided can the views of narrow minded "lovers" of history like him could be? (Unable to withstand by gentle contesting of 'facts' he recommended to Nishkid and probably you, my being blocked from Wikipedia..... That is why I am going to have nothing to him.....)

If so, what about probably an equal number of inscriptions left by a very very weak king of the Cholas, namely Kulothunga-III (1176-1218) pls. note these dates... 1176-1218 means that Cholas outlasted the Chalukyas who demised by 1189-1190 and not just this... see these (numbering three overall) inscriptions of Kulothunga III and indeed the last king of the Cholas Rajendra III respectively:

No. 289 (Page No. 184) (A. R. No. 274 of 1909) Tirukkachchur, Chingleput Taluk, Chingleput District Same wall. Kulottunga-choladeva III : Year 37=1214-15 A.D. This inscription refers to the failure of crops in Tirukkachchur in the 10th year in the reign of the king and the consequent troubles of the people. It records the grant of 15 kasu in lieu of the land given by the ur in the Kilakkaranai of the pidagai of Tirukkachchur, made by a certain Kuppaisorudaiyan alias Oymanattu-velan, the kilavan of Ayalur, for food offerings to the deity Tiruvalakkoyil-udaiyar and for the eleven sandhya lamps gifted by the ur itself. The ur, receiving the amount from the donor, had agreed to perform the services accordingly. The villages of Kudalur, Sirumanur, Melvilimalli and Peramanur are stated to form the boundary of the said land.

No. 783 (Page No. 569) (A. R. No. 732 of 1909) Alambakkam, Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District In the same place. Parakesarivarman alias Tribh Kulottungacholadeva III: year 36, Kumbha (Masi) su. [ . . .]Monday=1214 A. D., February 17 (?) This inscription is damaged and incomplete. It contains the prasasti of the king beginning with Puyalvayttu, etc. It refers to the king as ‘who was pleased to take Madurai, Ilam (i. e., Ceylon), Karuvur and the crowned head of the Pandya.’ It appears to be a record of a gift of land to the temple of the village (name lost, but evidently sri-Madhurantakach-chaturvedimangalam), a Brahmadeyam, in Poygai-nadu in Vadakarai-Rajaraja-valanadu. it mentions the [Ma]durantakappreri. Other details are lost.

RAJENDRA III No. 688 (Page No. 477) (A. R. No. 643 of 1909) Konerirajapuram, Thanjavur Taluk, Thanjavur District In the same wall. Tribh Rajendracholadeva III (?) : Year 11=1256-57 A.D. This inscription is damaged in some places. It records a gift of crescent moon and diadem in gold and upper cloth as well as a bugle, a semakkalam and an eating plate in silver, by a certain woman Kuttadu Nachchiyar, the wife of a certain sri Vanakovaraiyar of Karikkadu to the god Udaiyar Urkkunallar.

If the inscriptions of Vikramaditya VI are 'full' of his daily land and charitable grants... then at least the Chola kings through inscriptions were not pillaging and looting their subjects... as I said Kulothunga III was (ultimately) a very weak king of the Cholas because around 1200 AD he had to endure the invasion of by the rejuvenated Pandiyas (Maravaramban Sundara Pandyan), who invaded Tiruchy and Thanjavur and Kulothunga III had to take the help of his son in law Vira Balla II (Hoysala) and defeated the Pandyans near Pudukottai (between Karaikudi and Rameswaram) to remain in power. However, in the second invasion of the Pandyas sometime between 1214-1217 he was re-invaded by the Pandyans and defeated this time (probably the Hoysalas lost too) and was turned into a tribute paying subordinate to Pandyas.

The two grants of Kulothunga III quoted above are very significant being dated in the year 1214... the first attests to the fact that the empire was going through problems because of a famine and the consequent problems of the prople. Even then there is some donation to a temple for performing the usual services etc.

The second one is even more eloquent. While the first grant of 1214 proves that the Chola emperor existed at least 25 years after the demise of the Western Chalukyas.... the second grant boldly proclaims not just the existence in almost the same period 1214-15, it however, proves through the prashashti of the king that not only the Cholas continued to exist their empire (had indeed) prospered through defeats of some of their rivals leading to expansion of territories which in all probability lasted till 1216 (before Kulothunga III was defeated by the Pandyans).... through its proclamation: 'It contains the prasasti of the king beginning with Puyalvayttu, etc. It refers to the king as ‘who was pleased to take Madurai, Ilam (i. e., Ceylon), Karuvur and the crowned head of the Pandya.’ Well not just this Aadal, you may remember the 4th temple (though not officially called party of the Great Living Chola Temples under the World Heritage order) of the Cholas dedicated to Lord Siva is the Tribhuvanam Kampahareswarar Temple on the outskirts of Kukbakonam. Kindly be realized that (you will even get historical or historians proof, though I hate quoting historians) the Tribhuvanam temple was built (considering the Chola empire was virtually on its last legs), to celebrate his conquest of Kalinga ... and Kalinga cannot be controlled by any king without controlling (old) Vengi for they form contiguous territory. So even in AD 1214-15, the Cholas had control of (some part of) Ilam (Ceylon), Madurai, Karur (Kongunadu or Kangeyam) Kanchi (definitely), Andhra (Cuddapah-Guntur), Vengi (Rajahmundry-Eluru-Prakasam) and Kalinga (at least half of modern Orissa).

Why am I describing to you the extent of Chola territories..... that my friend is to conclusively proove to you (with reference to your statement about my adding a tag about the Chola empire lasting almost another century after the demise of the Western Chalukyas by 1189-90) that the claim of vested interests, I would in the same Western Chalukya page about the Cholas being convincingly eclipsed because of their loss of Vengi was a blatant lie and a vicious attempt to thoroughly misinterpret events of history.

Also consider this incription of the last king of the Cholas Rajendra-III:

Tribh Rajendracholadeva III (?) : Year 11=1256-57 A.D. This inscription is damaged in some places. It records a gift of crescent moon and diadem in gold and upper cloth as well as a bugle, a semakkalam and an eating plate in silver, by a certain woman Kuttadu Nachchiyar, the wife of a certain sri Vanakovaraiyar of Karikkadu to the god Udaiyar Urkkunallar.

Even this king who would lose to Jatavarman Sundara Pandyan near Uraiyur and later at Gangaikondacholapuram in 1274 and 1279 (his last known date) is attesting to the continuing temple activites and donations by his subjects. The year of the inscription is even more important 1256-57 which is almost 70 years after the demise of the Western Chalukyas (this should thoroughly dispel the notion int he Western Chalukya pages that wars between both the empires exhausted them with both empires ceasing to exist. How come? Chalukyas ceased to exist in 1189 and Cholas in and around 1279 is a difference of 90 years is it not? This is what I described as the Cholas existing for almost another century.... (which you objected to) and now see what DK has done with his edit.... he ends that para by concluding about Pandyas taking control of Chola territory (but that was as late as 1260-1270 AD) but what about Hoysalas, Kalachuris and Seunas taking over Chalukyan territory by 1189 itself?

Aadal, Sir,

I request the following:

You kindly help me with WP:3O and seek third party review of some of the contents of the Chalukya and Hoysala pages where comparitive lines (certainly not based on facts, plus openly pushing POV, violating NPOV and being derisive to cultures and people not originating from Karnataka or non-Kannada speaking cultures being considered inferior (especially with 'interpretation' of their inscriptions being that they downplay defeats and overplay defeats thereby implying that inscriptions quoted or mentioned in support of Chalukyas and Hoysalas are absolutely true, honest and accurate in their content) and hence seeking removal of those lines.....

Last but not the least I thought I should leave you to examine one glaring error in the Chalukya page which DK has studiously avoided answering -- especially considering that he loves use of words like scholars, reputable and reliable sources and not website quotes.... let me inform you before hand (as I mentioned in the copy to you on Saturday also)... that fancifully the following excerpt has been entered in the Chalukya page (though it mentions Hoysala Vishnuvardhana) that Vishnuvardhana built many temples after his conversion to Vaishnavism including the Belur Chennakesava, while going on to mention in the Hoysala pages (Vishnuvardhana - hyperlink already given in previous post to you) that Vishnuvardhana commissioned (first) the Sala fighting lion emblem to symbolize Hoysala fights with the Cholas and secondly emphasizing that the Belur Chennakesava was built to commemorate his victory over the Cholas. To boot this 'fact' a citation has been added as under:

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2008/stories/20030425000206700.htm)

However, when you open this link, the following facts emerge (as per Prof. Settar, formerly with the Indian Council of Historical Research and an ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERT ON HOYSALA HISTORY - could he ever be ignored - instead, (with impunity I would say), his findings given in his interview about Belur and Halebidu temples to Frontline magazine of the Hindu group, HAVE BEEN TOTALLY AND THOROUGHLY TWISTED (EVEN DOWNRIGHT IGNORED) to give historical events a totally different meaning. What Prof. Settar said goes completely against the claims made in the Chalukya and especially the Hoysala pages:

Prof. Settar said that at the Belur Temple there is a personal inscription of Vishnuvardhana in which the King claims as under:

1. He said that the Belur Chennakesava plus other temples were indeed built to commemorate his victories, but not his conversion to Vaishnavism (this undeniable fact is further proved by a later incident in history, that of Vishnuvardhana commissioning the Halebidu Siva temple which is much bigger than the Belur Temple).

2. He built specifically the Belur Chennakesava to celebrate the establishment of the Hoysalas as an independent kingdom and to celebrate his throwing off the Chalukya yoke and establishing a free Hoysala kingdom that was not subordinate to Chalukyas.

3. The visit of Ramanuja to Hoysala country may have indeed taken place, but the events described as Vishnuvardhana meeting Ramanuja as Jain king Bittideva and converting to Vaishnavism (Hindu) are myths....

Out of these the first 2 points are difectly favourable to the Cholas as neither the Hoysala emblem (Sala fighting tiger) and indeed the construction of the Belur Chennakesava HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHOLAS -- BUT THIS HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY MENTIONED IN THE HOYSALA PAGES AND THIS SHOWS THE CHOLAS IN A POOR LIGHT AS BEING CONSTANTLY AND CONSISTENTLY BEING SUBJUGATED BY THE HOYSALAS OR CHALUKYAS WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL TRUE. THE FACT IS THAT THE BELUR CHENNAKESAVA AT LEAST IS MORE SYMBOLIC OF THE RIVALRY THAT EXISTED BETWEEN THE CHALUKYAS AND THE HOYSALAS AND THIS HAD NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE CHOLAS. (Then why are the Cholas being repeatedly mentioned in the Hoysala pages ..... actually this I would say enhances the glory of the Cholas because virtually every Chalukya king right down from Tailapa-II to Jagadhekhamalla is sort to be portrayed as a king who defeated the Cholas, as is the case with the Hoysala kings in that there is a concerted attempt to show them as not fighting their main antagonists the Chalukyas apparently because of commonality of culture, language and territory with all Kannada speaking kingdoms sought to be shown as one with them either joining together or separately portrayed as triumphing in war against the Cholas. This is clearly violative of NPOV, is to be throughly subject to WP:3O and is pushing POV and in facts fully and successfully diverts the claim of ethnic jingoism from me entirely to Dinesh Kannambadi.

I hope you understand and take adequate preventive steps to reform and better the jingoism-laden contents of the Western Chalukya and Hoysala pages.

Srirangam99 (talk) 12:32, 28 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 It is also strongly suggestive of the fact that Ramanuja did notindirect. 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) 10:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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.

Dear Aadal, I basically want you to help with Wikipedia third party review probably WP:3O or something like that... I would like to contest some of the contents of the Chalukya and Hoysala pages.. but I don't know how to...

looking forward to your reply.

Srirangam99 (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!
ralphamale (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)