Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Political history of medieval Karnataka

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:03, 4 June 2007.

Political history of medieval Karnataka

edit

The Political history of medieval Karnataka covers the political developments that transpired in the region known today as modern Karnataka state, India in a time period popularly known as the "Classial Age" of Indian history. While some FAs about the famous dynasties that ruled from this region have been documented individually, this article pieces together the flow of history and the transition of political power from one empire to the next, providing information that would otherwise not be apparent. Apart from the large empires that ruled from Karnataka, the article also discusses the earliest native Hindu Kingdoms and the much later Muslim Sultanates of the region.

Please provide constructive feedback about the format and presentation of the article which has already been through several rounds of copy edits. ThanksDineshkannambadi 20:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I think there are quite a few things missing in this article. First, there is no peerreview feedback. Hence the effort on this article is based on the sole contribution of single member. Also, there are a lot of unclaimed and unverified statements. I shall try and list them as much as possible. Some of the main feedback for the article include:

DK Reply I nominated the article for peer review two weeks back. Normally from my experience, peer review's generate very luke warm responses anyway. The article is strong in citations which I am confidant about. There are no "unclaimed and unverified" statements here. Please feel free to tag the article where you feel needs verification and I shall provide the necessary citation.Dineshkannambadi 12:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. No Maps: There is no maps that indicate the boundary of any of these kingdoms. i think maps that detail the extent of these kingdom over a period of time is essential for an FA article.

DK Reply The attached main articles provide the territorial maps for a readers interest. A decision had to be made whether to clog up the article with maps or add colourful monuments. I choose the later. If there is consensus that maps are better than monuments, I shall be happy to provide that. Only the Gangas and Sultanates dont have maps which I can have prepared at short notice.Dineshkannambadi 12:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


2. No reason is provided for the timeline that the article covers (4th century A.D. and 16th century A.D.). Why the classification and what happens next?

DK Reply The words "political" and "medieval" were intended to provide that reason. Prior to 4th century, the empires that ruled over the Karnataka region had their power centres outside the region. This is why some historians (K.V.Ramesh, Kamath, Adiga etc) see 4th century as the beginning of a political history controlled by empires that ruled from within. Also the 16th century date was chosen with a specific intent. Normally this period onwards, the history of Karnataka and for that matter India is not considered medieval. Also the intention was not to clog up too many post 16th century events (Mysore kingdom, Keladi Nayaka, Maratha invasion, Portuguese rule in coastal Karnataka, British rule, unification of Karnataka etc) into one article. So we (the Karnataka work group) discussed it (not in the peer review) and decided to make it two separate articles.Dineshkannambadi 12:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


3. The article is jumbled in terms of dates. The native kingdom has dates running thru 12th century.

DK Reply Not sure what you mean. Please be more specific where the dates are jumbled and I shall be happy to correct it if it is jumbled.Dineshkannambadi 12:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


4. Headings needs re-examination. The headings need to be based on timelines / empires and not as current.

DK Reply The headings are based on citations and opinions of historians. If you have an issue with any of the headings please point them out and we can tone it down.Dineshkannambadi 12:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


5. The article seems to indulge in self-praise. There is no contrary view of events provided. The article COULD pass as Karnataka Govt literature to promote its history.

DK Reply I am not sure what you mean by "contrary view" and "Karnataka govt. literature". All the schoars I have referred to concur to the citations I have provided. If you know of any contrary views, please bring it to the table and we can add it.Dineshkannambadi 12:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thus, the article has major issues that needs work at this time. I will aid the author in the review mechanism and think that it needs to garner more support before being bought back to the FA candidature. These comments does not reflect on the nature of work spent on the article. Kalyan 07:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I shall be happy to work with you to bring this to FA. All citations are there and can be freely examined. However please be aware that I have tried to put in 1100 years of history into one page and that takes some decisions.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 12:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since there is a lot of data, i shall present my concerns in the talk page. we can bring the summary of that discussion to the current page. Kalyan 13:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC comments by Kalyan

edit

DK Reply:The attached main articles provide the territorial maps for a readers interest. A decision had to be made whether to clog up the article with maps or add colourful monuments. I choose the later. If there is consensus that maps are better than monuments, I shall be happy to provide that.

I thinks maps are very useful. Please add maps as per the empires or better still, please show snapshots of the region at points in time. say 600 A.D / 800 A.D (the map will show multiple kingdoms in the region as well as kingdoms of other regions.

DK Reply I have a map for the empires at their peak in most cases. My books dont provide maps at different instances during their rule and as such would be a very difficult job searching for those books that provide maps at different times in the rule of an empire. Same case with a map showing other kingdoms in their neighbourhood. Given the constant competition between adjoining Kingdoms, the constant increase and decrease of territories of any kingdom with respect to its neighbours would IMO not be available in any book.Hope this is ok.Dineshkannambadi 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dk Reply I will request User:Mlpkr to draw them for me as he is the expert. I will provide him with the scanned pages with full citation about the book source.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I have requested User:Mlpkr for maps for Gangas, Bahamani and Bijapur Sultanate.May take a few days though.Dineshkannambadi 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply: The words "political" and "medieval" were intended to provide that reason. Prior to 4th century, the empires that ruled over the Karnataka region had their power centres outside the region. This is why some historians (K.V.Ramesh, Kamath, Adiga etc) see 4th century as the beginning of a political history controlled by empires that ruled from within. Also the 16th century date was chosen with a specific intent. Normally this period onwards, the history of Karnataka and for that matter India is not considered medieval. Also the intention was not to clog up too many post 16th century events (Mysore kingdom, Keladi Nayaka, Maratha invasion, Portuguese rule in coastal Karnataka, British rule, unification of Karnataka etc) into one article. So we (the Karnataka work group) discussed it (not in the peer review) and decided to make it two separate articles.

Thatz great. Can you please add this info in the article. i think you should clearly mention in the lead para that 4th and 16th were identified as the start and end of independent kannada identity coupled with the growth of kannada culture & kingdoms. 16th century would define the change of kannada into a multiregional kingdom or the likes. i hope you see my point. In the main sections, identify the kingdoms that preceded the 4th century that controlled karnataka regions (one or many kingdoms). also in the last para, detail the environment in the post-16th century that marked the transition to modern kingdoms.

DK Reply: Sure. I will take care of this tonight.Dineshkannambadi 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Done. Added required info to LEAD, Main article first Para describing rulers prior to 4th century, last paragraph called "modern era" to describe 16th century onwards, briefly though.Dineshkannambadi 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply: The headings are based on citations and opinions of historians. If you have an issue with any of the headings please point them out and we can tone it down

This is in conjuncture to the other point on titles. When you point out Early native kingdoms - when did they start? what was the period of their rule? were the kadamba dynasty and western ganga dynasty the only dynasties that started then? if there were others, mention them. same way, "Age of Imperlism" - when did it start? what were the main dynasties? was chalukya the only dynasty of the age? if so, why not rename it to Chalukya dynasty? what does "South conquers north"? is it south india or south karnataka? the heading needs to be specific. i hope you get my concern.

DK Reply: yes the Kadamba and Gangas were the two major entities starting from 4th century.. All other ruling clans were very minor feudal families that came under them quickly. The early native kingdoms are the Kadamba and Gangas dynasties. I will reword to remove any ambiguity. Yes the Chalukyas were the first main entity to really get imperialistic though some scholars tend to include Kadamba victories against the Vakatakas in Maharashtra region also as imperialism though that may be a stretch. I will change the heading "South conquers North" to perhaps "Rashtrakuta and their Northern conquests". Hope this is ok.Dineshkannambadi 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK-Done I have simplified the titles.Dineshkannambadi 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply: I am not sure what you mean by "contrary view" and "Karnataka govt. literature". All the schoars I have referred to concur to the citations I have provided. If you know of any contrary views, please bring it to the table and we can add it.

I shall quote an example - "In a prolific age of literature in Kannada, Tamil and Sanskrit, the Telugu language also attained its height in popularity ...". Krishnadevaraya's reign was the golden era of telugu lang. apologies for my ignorance but i never heard of 'prolific age of kannada literature' attached to his rule. the article is filled with statements like these that are centered around kannada, kannada region and kannadigas and thus my comment. you are welcome to ignore my comment but to me, the lang of the article is clearly POV in nature. that will not however prevent me providing "Support" to the article.

DK Reply: The above statement clearly says that Kannada/Sanskrit and Tamil literature were prolific generally speaking throughout the ~225 year rule of the Empire. It also clarifies that Telugu literature was popularised by Krishnadevaraya. As such Telugu poets were not the only poets in his court, though they are very popular. Among famous Kannada poets in his court, Mallanarya of Gubbi, Timmanna Kavi, Chatu Vittalanatha standout. Vyasatirtha of Mysore was the emperor's Kulaguru (as the king writes in Jambuvati Kalyanam) and an early great carnatic composer. A recent discovery, Krishnadevaraya Dinachari in Kannada is being attributed by some scholars to the great King himself. Kannada Haridasa Sahitya and Vachana Sahitya and Sanskrit commentaries on Vedas etc. were at their own new heights, though I do agree that Telugu literature, especially under Krishnadevaraya became popular. Saying the only Telugu literature was prolific would be cutting short and doing injustice to the glory of the empire. Of all the great poets that graced the Vijayanagara court, not many are aware that only Purandaradasa had the previlage of a Mantapa of his own called Purandara mantapa (During the time of Achyuta Raya/Aliya Rama Raya, Krishnadevaraya's successors). I hope I have answered you question fully.Dineshkannambadi 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Done reworded literature in Vijayanagara Empire section for clarity.Dineshkannambadi 00:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope i provided info on what made me write my earlier comments. For all my reservation, i think the articles (incl. all attached & referred articles) are well-written. now it is just the effort to bring it to FA. Kalyan 13:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply The article is filled by "Kannada", "Kannadiga" and such because the article is about Karnataka and would naturally include high points in Karnataka monuments, Kannada literature and conquests by Kings who ruled from the region. However please point out where you feel I have over indulged and I am willing to tone it down. But One must accept the there is hardly a reason to write about Karnataka's history, if it does not bring out the high points about the region.Dineshkannambadi 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply-->I shall reply tonight to your comments on the FA page itself so that its visible to all reviewers. Thank you for your quick response and your guidance. Of particular interest is the Krishnadevaraya era and literature which I shall answer in detail tonight when I get home. In the meantime please find time to read the article Vijayanagara Empire Literature as it contains important info on how prolific Kannada literature was, along with Telugu and Sanskrit. Unfortunately, some historians focus on one angle which is why its important to get information from many scholars, which is what I have done. ThanksDineshkannambadi 14:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Medieval"

edit

Issues on the burner
a) Use of term Medieval
b) Use of term Political
c) Time period described in the article and its relation to above two terms.
d) Suggestions if any to rename the article to better reflect the topic.
Dineshkannambadi 14:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Using "medieval" to descrive the history of a region in South Asia is not advisable. Try finding periodization terms that are more applicable to South Asia instead of using terms intended for European history. Peter Isotalo 21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I will think of a suitable replacement for the word. However I would like to discuss with other reviewers and the Karnataka work group what the best wording could be.thanksDineshkannambadi 22:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: can an clear explanation be provided for using "political" in the title? The article does not seem to exclusively concentrate on the politics of the area. Politics are naturally a large part of any regional history but they are not and should not be exclusively featured as the "only" history. That's why the title always throws me off when I look at it. If I could narrow down the definition of "Political" even further I would have thought the whole article deals with "elections" or "political appointments".

DK Reply the time period covered includes (after recent edits by me) an explanation of how the region became an independent political entity in the 4th century onwards and fragmented (like some other parts of India) after 16th century with the arrival of foreign powers on the scene. I have added a para at the end to explain this. So the choice was not really arbitrary.Dineshkannambadi 10:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Let me explain why the word Political was used. If the term Political had not been used I would have to include topics on cultural development such as women, dwell more on fine arts such as dance, music, agriculture, society in general. Here I have merely touched upon architecture, literature and languge of Administration going more in detail on conquests. I am now going to replace the current images with "territorial maps" to better represent the topic as political.Dineshkannambadi 10:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The word "Medieval" is indeed used very commonly in the context of Indian history also. But I also think that it is unevenly used(depending on author). At the same time, I am not sure if the entire period between 4th an 16th can be called "Medieval". I'll give this further thought and give my suggestions. Sarvagnya 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the problem might be that the article is covering a time period that is too arbitrary. There might be a need to divide it into more manageable pieces that coincide with other historical events. Maybe even merge it with other articles. And why is the term medieval used in the first place? Is there a South Asian antiquity and Renaissance in which it actually fits? Peter Isotalo 07:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply The term medieval I though is used frequently in Indian books too. For example I refer to these books,

  • George M. Moraes (1931), The Kadamba Kula, A History of Ancient and Medieval Karnataka.

This books covers the period in question.

  • Malini Adiga (2006), The Making of Southern Karnataka: Society, Polity and Culture in the early medieval period, AD 400-1030
  • Karmarkar, A.P. (1947), Cultural history of Karnataka : ancient and medieval, Karnataka
  • Vaidya, C.V. [1924]. History of Mediaeval Hindu India (Being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.)

The term may have been used more frequently with respect to Western or European history but that may have been because they were the ones who wrote most of the history related books in the 18th-19th century. Thereafter, historians from developing countries have increasingly written about their own histories using the term medieval. Perhaps I can change "medieval" to "ancient" or add the term "ancient" to it. But the term "ancient" itself is open ended. As such, the History of Karnataka is only a small part of history of South Asia.Dineshkannambadi 09:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply The phrase "antiquity and Renaissance" mentioned by Peter Isotalo does sound interesting though.Dineshkannambadi 10:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Antiquity" is slightly open-ended, but the Renaissance most certainly isn't, so there's no "middle period" to insert. Again, no matter if certain authors choose to use the term "medieval" for naming their works, I would still recommend not using it. If anything, it's a rather euro-centric approach.
Peter Isotalo 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply

How do these sound? (just throwing some ideas)

  • Political Renaissance in Pre-colonial (or ancient) Karnataka
  • Kingdoms of Pre-colonial Karnataka-->this is really a very general name and sounds attractive to me
  • Kingdoms of ancient Karnataka
  • Renaissance of polity, language and architecture in ancient (or pre-colonial) Karnataka
  • Renaissance in pre-colonial (or ancient) Karnataka

More ideas are welcome.Dineshkannambadi 15:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I must confess the Renaissance is a term best suited for cultural/artistic developments which is not the major topic here.Dineshkannambadi 15:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update PR archived.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going back on your use of "political" justification reply, you said the article "touched upon architecture, literature and languge of Administration going more in detail on conquests." I really would term such information just plainly "history" based on the standard in use on wikipedia. Take History of the United States or any "history of the [insert country]" article, none of them dwell on cultural and so forth topics but purely political and government related. As I'm sure you know such information can be put into sister articles rooted from Karnataka. I'm having a hard time understanding why this article is a special case and should be branded "political history" instead of simply "history". Not a big issue and I'm very fond of wikipedian achievements but it threw me off as a reader and I assume it would others as well. It's sort of like I'm asking "If its just political history, where is the 'other' non-political history?" 99.244.236.54

DK Reply Sounds reasonable. How does "History of Pre-colonial Karnataka" sound, since this article covers the time frame only up to 16th century. Pre-colonial implies rulers, kingdoms etc prior to arrival of westerners. Then a separte article could be created for English rule, Portuguese trade and administration in coastal Karnataka, Mysore kingdom under the British etc. all of which fall between 1600-1947.Dineshkannambadi 11:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can other reviewers give their opinions please. Dineshkannambadi 11:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My suggestions are,

  • "Pre-colonial history of Karnataka"
  • "Pre-colonial empires of Karnataka"
  • "Pre-colonial Kannada empires"
  • "Pre-colonial imperial history of Karnataka"
  • "Pre-colonial native empires of Karnataka"

- Sarvagnya 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I like some of User:Sarvagnyas suggestions. Lets boil it down to

  • Pre-colonial history of Karnataka
  • Pre-colonial empires of Karnataka--->This is the most specific
  • History of Pre-colonial Karnataka

-Dineshkannambadi 16:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I would like the author to take this article back to peer review and we can all have a look at the article and then bring the article to FA candidature back. This is no way a reflection on the effort made in the article. Kalyan 17:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cant see what can be achieved by taking it back to PR. The way I see it, there is only one issue(that of title) that remains to be resolved and I cant see why we cant get that sorted out here(considering that we've already made some progress on that count). Taking it back to PR is totally unnecessary and a waste of time. Sarvagnya 19:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am still confused on the intent of the article. The article spends a lot of time and effort on the empires and dynasties operating in modern-day Karnataka. If my conclusion is reasonable, why the last section on "kannada people outside Karnataka"? If this article was about Kannada rules in the timeline given, there will be a lot of dispute on some empires being termed kannada in nature. Thatz my issue with the article. Also, though the article was part of the Karnataka workgroup, i saw no effort from anyone except Dineshkannambadi. I think the members of the Karnataka workgroup should be more active in participating on this FAC.Kalyan 10:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply The small para on "Immigrants from Karnataka" is simply meant as an additional info which is why it is restricted to 5-6 lines only.Dineshkannambadi 11:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC) All the empires discussed had their regal capitals in modern Karnataka and used Kannada as a language of administration and patronised literature in Kannada(in addition to Sanskrit), With the exception of Vijayanagara Empire which gave importance to Kannada and Telugu. Citations for this has been provided in this article as well as the main article for each empire. Knowing the sensitive nature of this topic, I have avoided specifically calling the founders of the Vijayanagara empire even natives of Karnataka, let alone Kannadigas. This is also reflected in the main article in Vijayanagara Empire.Dineshkannambadi 11:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Please be more specific when you say "some empires being termed kannada in nature". Communication between myself and the members of Karnataka work group is scattered all over our talk pages over the last few months.Dineshkannambadi 12:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK response Apart from the title, I have to satisfy a map requirement for three kingdoms. I have requested User:Mlpkr to draw them for me as he is the expert. User:Planemad,the other cartographer I know is busy. It should be ready in a few days. I have already explained the difficulty in getting maps of contemporary neighbouring kingdoms, fluctuation of territories within a kingdom etc. Any changes to format can be done easily right here. The article is strong in citations which I am confident I can defend. If required as I have mentioned earlier, tags can be added to those areas where uncertianity is deemed to exist and I shall provide citations for them. Above all, I am more than willing to cooperate with serious reviewers to take this to FA.Dineshkannambadi 19:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The thing we have to remember is that FAs are not about 'perfection'. When an article is promoted as FA, it is never meant that there is no scope for improvement. The most important things are that it complies with the five pillars, manual of style and that it is, among other things, well cited. Maps can certainly help enhance the article and we already have some maps, except for some empires. But even without those couple of maps, I think this article is FA material. Sarvagnya 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sarvagnya that amps unless they are basic foundation of the article can still be added after the FA article passes thru. Kalyan 10:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes. Looking again at my suggestions, I feel "Pre-colonial emprires of Karnataka" is best. Because, all these empires were both 'Pre-colonial' and of Karnataka(ie., were either natives of Ktaka or had the power centers of their empires in Ktaka). Sarvagnya 18:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please refer to FA article History of Tamil Nadu. I would like you to have the same format and link to other articles as required. Kalyan 12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply to comment-->Sir, the intention of this article is not to write about prehistory or colonial history as explained earlier which is why the term "Medieval" was originally used. Moreover, each user can only oppose ones.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 13:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the para on "Kannada Immigrants" as it started the confusion. Also, I strongly believe that merging of pre-4th century as well as post-16th century colonization would enable improve the understanding of the overall article. But that is a call you need to take as the driver of FA. If you remove the Kannada Immigrants para, i shall change my vote to support (as most of my other comments have been addressed). Kalyan 17:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re to Kalyan - Where did History of Tamil Nadu come from? What does it have to do with this? What do you mean by we should follow the same format as that? Remember, this is NOT the History of Karnataka. History of Karnataka is a different article which will glean from several Karnataka history related articles. And when we get to FAing that, you can come up with your suggestions. Sarvagnya 16:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get started on history of Karnataka. All i was implying in good faith was that reviewers would be able to support this article when they place it in context with equivalent articles. This article covers 75% or more of the data required for History of Karnataka and i see nothing wrong in coverting it (as i said earlier, it is a call of the FAC nominator / article primary owner). Moreso, i tend to use FA articles for baselining my work and thought it would be the same for you as well. but that is a call you folks need to take. Kalyan 17:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cant see what confusion the few lines about immigrants from ktaka is causing. Nor can I see where you've explained yourself in that regard. Sarvagnya 18:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarvagnya - What is the objective of the article? Is it the political history of karnataka region? or kannadigas? if it is of karnataka region, the para has no place in it unless you bring in the reverse as well (non-kannada people who came in btw 4th cent and 16 th cent and established kingdoms in karnataka). if the article is about kannadigas, the title is inappropriate. Kalyan 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK's Reply The "immigrants from Karnataka" section was written as a balance to possible immigrants to the Karnataka region. We all know w.r.t Vijayanagara Empire, there is an ongoing controversy between historians whether Harihara and Bukka Raya (the founders) were natives of Karnataka or immigrants from Warangal, Andhra Pradesh. Similarly it is well known to historians that the Kalachuris were immigrants from Central India though they encouraged Kannada in a big way (1250-290). Similarly there is controversy whether the 6th century Rashtrakutas who ruled from Maharashtra were Kannadigas or not and eventually took control of the Chalukya empire in the 8th century, ruled from Karnataka and gave major push to Kannada language. What I am trying to say is that neither Kannada culture nor any other culture in India has evolved in isolation. If we are willing to accept that great Empires were built from modern Karnataka by possible immigrants, one should also accept that Kannadiga immigrants may have built empires in far away places. This is in the spirit of history and development of Indian History.Dineshkannambadi 18:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK - I am in no way underemphasising the contribution of kannadigas in indian civilization. as stated by you here, the section was intended as a retribution. as explained in my comment above, the section has no place in the current article unless you change the name of reflect that the article focuses on political history of kannadigas. Kalyan 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply -->Done. Removed section on Immigrants from Karnataka.Dineshkannambadi 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Section break


Support very well written article and comprehensively referenced. The only additional comment I have is perhaps to include a section that discusses the impact of this period on modern Karnataka. But regardless, I think this is a very well written article and is a worthy FA candidate. AreJay 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - FA material any which way you look at it. Sarvagnya 04:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - very well written article.Nrupatunga 04:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support:Based on the above not so brief discussion triggered by me, i provide my support to the FAC of the article. I think this article has been well-referenced and well-written. I strongly believe that the article should be expanded as the History of Karnataka at a later instance thus providing uniformity to the topic. Kalyan 05:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - very well written article ,You can't get a good article than this. Good references to back up all the content.I recommend FAC 210.210.49.148 05:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support' - Article contains strong citations and well referenced material. Good candidate for FAC. Gnanapiti 05:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article says that Vikramaditya II defeated the Kalabhras. The references I have seen indicate that the Kalabhras were driven out of the northern Tamilakam with the ascendency of the Pallava Simhavishnu.

DK Reply I will verify this again.Dineshkannambadi 00:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I verfied this. According to Dr K.V.Ramesh, he quotes The capture of Kanchi which symbolised in itself the cumulative power of the three traditional Kingdoms of Tamil country placed the Pandya, Chola and Kerala territories at Viramaditya II's mercy. He did not let go of the opportunity and overran those territories and also defeated the Kalabhra ruler to boot (anivarita-pratapa-prasara-pratapita-Pandya-Chola-Kerala-Kalabhra-prabhritirajanyakah). Perhaps he meant a minor Kalabhra feudatory of the Pallavas?. Dineshkannambadi 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section 'Modern era' seems out of place in the article dealing with the Medieval history of Karnataka.

DK Reply This section was added later at the request of Kalyan. He wanted some continuity to what happened after 16th century. Please discuss with him if this is really needed. I can remove that section as some info regarding post 16th century events are already provided in the Vijayanagara Empire section and Bahamani Sultanate section.Dineshkannambadi 00:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of terms such as 'Kanarese' and 'Tanjore' seem in my opinion non contemporary. These are colonial terms and should be replaced by 'Kannada' and 'Thanjavur'.

DK Reply I will take care of this.thanks.Dineshkannambadi
DK Reply I could not locate "Tanjore" please pinpoint.
DoneDineshkannambadi 02:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If possible the maps used in this article should be made consistent. The first map showing Pulakesi's territories seems to be of a different style to the rest. - Parthi talk/contribs 22:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Yes. I will deal with this. I have already requested for 3 maps (Gangas and the two sultanates) and I will add this to the list.thanksDineshkannambadi 00:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply -->DONEDineshkannambadi 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I have made the request for a map from an experienced cartographer.Hopefully he is not too busy as I have requested four maps on the whole.Dineshkannambadi 01:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Done-->maps added.Dineshkannambadi 18:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—The writing is way below the required "professional" standard. Below, I've dissected the opening sentence to demonstrate why the whole text needs the attention of fresh eyes. Research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the good copy-editors. Familiarise yourself with their work, and when you ask them for a favour, show them that you've done so (it’s a form of flattery). This is a valuable investment in a collaborative framework that will serve you well in your future development of FA nominations.
    • Opening sentence: "The Political history of medieval Karnataka spans from the fourth to the sixteenth centuries C.E. when those empires that emerged from the Karnataka region of India made a lasting impact on modern India."
      • Why P, not p?
      • Remove "from"—ungrammatical.
      • Consider "16th" rather than spelling out a multi-digit number.
      • Modern practice is not to dot initialisms: CE
      • Comma after CE.
      • "The", not "those", which is too sharp a reference, given the context (it's their first mention).
      • Empires emerged from a region? Logical issue: they "evolved in" a region.
      • More logic: surely these ancient empires impacted not just on "modern India", but on "India" (i.e., ever since).

Many hours' work required to get a gold star for this one. Tony 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Thanks, I will work on copy editing and finding experienced cpeditors. I used to use 16th, 15th instead of spelling it out but other reviewers in previous FA's did not like that.Dineshkannambadi 02:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those reviewers probably stuck to the jokefest that is American grammar and mechanics. — Deckiller 13:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I have done one more round of copy edits and changed dates to numerals. Ex: sixteenth-->16th.Dineshkannambadi 16:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see more than just maps. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Would you like me to add images of monuments, sculptures? I had them there earlier but commentd it out.Dineshkannambadi 22:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Done. I dont have any images for Bahamani Sultanate. I will try to locate it.Dineshkannambadi 22:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment: I've copy-edited the lead to demonstrate why the whole text still fails 1a. The writing could be elegant and there are some potentially grand statements there, but it would require several skilled English-language and Indian culture experts to have significant input to craft it so that we can be proud of it. Tony

DK Reply Can you please suggest someone who could copy edit this to the style you are looking for. Every editor has his/her own style and it may be difficult to find someone who could write it in a style to please everyone. Or better yet, if you can find some time to copy edit this article, I could learn something from you and use it for future articles.Dineshkannambadi 14:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I have requested for copy edit help from Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. Hopefully one of them will find time.Dineshkannambadi 22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as above. The emblem [1] is claimed by the author to be self-made(!?) Clearly this is a dubious claim. How can a government symbol be self-made? The Modern era section should be removed as irrelevant. The Bijapur sultanate section talks about quite modern (post-15th century) history not the medieval history (5th to 15th centuries). So it should be removed as well. Anwar 14:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvagnya's Reply :It is my work. 'Self made' means I photographed the emblem on Mysore palace gate myself and then cropped and 'photoshopped' using Picasa. Sarvagnya 17:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply-->Self made probably implies self taken photograph. I have a photograph of one taken by myself and that can be added too. The modern era was added at the request of another reviewer. If you want it removed, please find consensus with him. I cant add it for one reviewer and remove for another and keep the churn going. The Bijapur Sultanate was added becaue it started in late 15th century and this falls with in the period under discussion and is fully relevant. Please read the article carefully, the era under discussion is 4th-16th century, not 5th through 15th century.Dineshkannambadi 15:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The "modern era" section however probably needs to be expanded to the legnth of some of the other sections. Also there needs to be some references and wikilinks in said section; compared to the others it looks kind of bland. The image could be placed in a more convenient location as well. Otherwise its the kind of article we have come to expect from dinesh, well researched, interesting, and "exotic" enough to pique the reader.Bakaman 21:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Done adding links, citations, moving template slightly higer up. Tried other locations, did not seem to look good.Dineshkannambadi 13:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Well written, cited and illustrated article. A few minor cavils/suggestions:
  1. On my computer, the {{History of Karnataka}} template diplays overlapping text (under both Firefox and IE7) - is this an issue for other readers too ?
  2. The above-mentioned template labels the period 545-1645CE as "Empires", while the article calls roughly the same period "Medieval" - if Empire is an alternate name, perhaps it should be mentioned in the lead.
  3. Several kingdom maps have a black dot marking a city, which I presume was the capital of the respective kingdom. However the cite name is not labeled. Also, should a "star" be used to mark the capital ?
  4. Karnataka is not wikilinked in the article. Is that a conscious decision ?
Please place any responses to my comments below, rather than interleaving them with my message. I have numbered my individual comments for easy reference. Regards. Abecedare 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply
1. I will look into the overlapping text issue on the template. It seems to overlap in my screen also. It was ok till a few days ago!!!. Ok I verified. The width was reduced for lower resolution screens by User:Nichalp.
2. We have discussed with other reviewers higher up in the FAC page regarding the actual meaning of the word "medieval". One reviewer felt the word was more applicable to European history. But the word "medieval" as used by Indian historians only emphasizes "the period" under study (in this case 4th century - 16th century). It has no connection to the usage of the word "Empire" or "Kingdom". There were many Indian Empires and Kingdoms in the "medieval" period. I have quoted many Indian historians who use the term purely from the "Period" perspective.
3.Yes, the black dot marks the regal capital. We need to reach consensus (in the India history group of cartographers) on how to mark and name the capital. This is an issue that needs to be resolved. Right now each cartographer uses a different style and a standard needs to be arrived at.
4.I will wikilink Karnataka. Not sure how that was missed.:) Thanks. Dineshkannambadi 18:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support - Interesting read. Very well written and well sourced article. The coverage of different empires/dynasties and the flow has been impressive. Would make a great FA. - KNM Talk 03:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Political_history_of_medieval_Karnataka&oldid=1138469187"