Talk:Jayadeva birth controversy

Speedy deletion tagging

The "speedy deletion" banner appeared a second or so after I started this article. I was in the middle of editing it. I will be adding more substance, more references to it later. SDas 14:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll be NPOVing this article in the next few weeks. SDas 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure as to the factual correctness of this article, but have added an NPOV tag as it is clearly not written in a neutral fashion, regardless of the facts being true or not? It reads like a personal criticism of Bengali historians in India. Even if such a grand conspiracy was produced by some historians it should not be reported on in this one-sided manner. This then leads one to doubt the very nature of the argument being depicted. Maybe someone with an informed opinion could take a look? 81.155.83.62 18:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

While I (who wrote most of this article) agree that the text may read like POV, I could not find arguments from the other side to balance it out. I will not object to the POV tag being placed in the main article for now. All things said, there is nothing critical about current Bengali historians. As a matter of fact, it is the seminal works of notable Bengali historians (and a few others) that have been used in the article. There are no counter claims, and this whole issue has been settled for about 2 years. All statements are supported by references, including several scholarly ones authored specifically by experts on Jayadeva. Given the recency of the historical settlement described in the article, I'd welcome the opinions of genuine historians whose knowledge of the subject is actually up-to-date. SDas 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The views presented in the article cite eminent scholars supporting both views. Views of such eminent scholars cannot be dismissed or rephrased ; in history, it is very common for scholars to consider all views and dismiss misleading information based on primary evidence. This is the process of history and invariably involves separating the wheat from the chaff. It should not be seen as a criticism. Any editor is free to cite scholars who have alternate views. Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in this article. It is correct as per current historical research. One of the foremost scholars of Indian art, Prof. Samuel Donaldson of Cleveland State University has expressed his outrage, calling "dishonouring Jayadeva an act of cultural dishonesty". The late Prof. B. S. Miller, had expressed similar sentiments, and after the recent recognition of the historical data, so have the East Indian and Art history communities as well.

Thank you

K. C. Sahu (Retd. Professor in History) ProfKCSahu (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

merge

I believe this page needs be merged into the article Jayadeva, the information would be better presented within the main article. -- Meanpineapplefritter (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. This article and the Jayadeva article both contain duplicate data and a detailed treatment of Jayadeva's life invariably will have to mention primary sources which mention the data. Both sides of the birth controversy can be assimilated into a section in the 'Jayadeva' article. This article is unnecessarily diverting data away from the main Jayadeva article. Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Copper plates and C B Patel

I removed this. Having read the pdf I can't see that it asserts this claim. Also, besides being a government employee and head of the state museum, I'm not sure he is a reliable source for this. He is described as Dr. C. B. Patel, M.A., Ph.D, FRDME (Copenhagen). Dip in. Arch. Searching for FRDME Copenhagen only turns up Patel, so I have no clue as to what this is. Nor is it clear what Dip in. Arch. means. We really need sources that are not official government ones. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Forgot - he also claims Buddha was born in Orissa. Again, we aren't going to say that Buddha was born in Orissa, just that there is an argument that he was. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Dip in Arch. generally means Diploma in Archaeology.He was a Secretary- the rank of a commissioner in UK and and an IAS rank in India. He was the head of Orissa State Museum for a while. I am sure you are not a student of History. Please refrain from commenting here as you did elsewhere. We encourage you to come to Orissa State Museum, Kalpana Square, Bhubaneswar. Any lay man can direct you as they are not as illeterate as those of Kolkata and West Bengal.--Arjyap (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought, thanks. I see now you are insulting everyone from West Bengal, proving my point that this dispute is a nationalist one (at least in a sense, obviously West Bengal is a state). Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Dougweller. Let WB claim on - from some peer review and thesis /scholarly report. We will contest that. But let me tell you we are 3 times bigger than WB but we will certainly review any scholarly review from any any eminent scholar as per Indian University norms and not what your outsiders believe. But I am of the opinion that both posts are balanced now--Arjyap (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC) It is highly evident from the fact that the person who is editing the "Bengali View" doesn't know anything about Jayadeva. Jayadeva was a vaishnava Brahmin and his treatises were Viashnav..He could not have ever been a shaiva if he had wrote Gita Govinda..the facts are too contradicting. I mean who are you challenging? The scholars who had been long researching on Jayadeva or some stooges of the rotten state of West Bengal where their own people believe Jayadeva was born in Puri. Few days ago I met one of my great friends who is a reseach scholar and an IITian. A man of pedigree...he himself said Jayadeva can't be born in West Bengal because we still eat fish on Mondays and Sankrantis..§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.25.115 (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jayadeva birth controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930015045/http://orissagov.nic.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/jan2004/englishpdf/chapter4.pdf to http://orissagov.nic.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/jan2004/englishpdf/chapter4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey why is it not available in odia

Whitebr11 (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Revert on recent edit with proper citations

@Doug Weller : You reverted a recent edit of mine on 'Jayadeva birth controversy stating : 'It appears to me that a lot of this addition doesn't mention the controversy'. However, the information quoted about sociocultural and musicological evidence (by eminent scholars on the very point of Jayadeva's birth) are one of the proofs that point to the poet's place of origin. The points that you removed / deleted were :

• Jayadeva uses ragas and talas from the Odissi music tradition and unique to it. The list of ragas has been presented by Pt. Gopal Chandra Panda in his research book on the Gitagovinda. Pt. Panda is one of the most eminent scholars and musicians of Odissi music and has received the Central Sangeet Natak Akademi for his contributions. These ragas are not found in the Bengal school of music, whereas they are found to be in active use from Jayadeva's period until the 21st century in Odissi music.
• A 12th-century fabric with the Gitagovinda woven into it are used in the Jagannatha Temple, this is well-known and acknowledged. This fabric is attached great importance in Odisha and several medieval sources mention that it was woven in Kenduli, the poet's birthplace.
• The Jagannatha temple has a tradition of nighttime Gitagovinda recital from the poet's time and this is corroborated by inscriptions. The Maharis or Debadasis, students of Jayadeba's very lineage continued service in the temple until the 20th-21st century. This is very relevant as the poet himself was attached with the temple.
• Kenduli Sasana in Odisha has archaeological remains that predate the 12th century establishing it as a seat of Vaishnava worship. Poet Jayadeva's work the Gita Govinda is a poem extolling Vishnu. How is this not relevant?
• There is an upsurge of Vishnu-Krishna images in Odisha after the poet's time, because of the popularity of the poem. Thomas Donaldson is one of the leading scholars in the entire world on Indian sculpture and iconography. His book 'Hindu Temple Art of Orissa' is probably the most comprehensive volume on any regional art school of India. The temple in the village has an inscription of the Gitagovinda contemporary to the poet.
• There is a huge number of palm leaf manuscripts of the Gita Govinda from the 15th century till the 20th century in Odisha. Palm leafs do not survive for a period over 4-500 years. This shows a continued popularity of the text and a living tradition attached to it. Clearly a text enjoying popularity in its place of origin is understandable.

The sources were well-cited and were reputable as well. One must understand that the above scholars have examined the birth controversy from multiple points of view and furnished evidence from primary sources such as inscriptions and manuscripts. It doesn't seem fair to simply delete one side of the story (that is, the Odisha POV) by reverting my edit. Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Support.

All the above mentioned points throw light on the basis of Odisha claims even though it doesn't mention the controversy exclusively. Bikash Ojha (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bikash Ojha@Prateek Pattanaik you can’t vote to ignore basic policy, sources must discuss the controversy directly Doug Weller talk 20:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller The sources *do* mention the birth controversy directly and the scholars mention the above points in the very context of the birth controversy. None of this is primary research ; eminent scholars are being cited as they have written. You are free to check the sources and confirm for yourself that this is about the birth controversy. Until then, please revert the article, for the argument that it is not connected directly to the birth controversy is simply not true. Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the comments here. It's not sufficient to assert that a source verifies a claim—please quote some text from the source and explain how it supports your statement. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Quoting from the sources cited. From the quotes below it can be realised that the scholars quoted are indeed mentioning the aforesaid facts in the explicit context of the birth controversy.

• Bhagyalipi Malla in the Preface of the book Sri Jayadeva's Gita Govinda : with illustrations and commentary by Dhananjaya. Bhubaneswar, Odisha: Odisha State Museum, edited by Bhagyalipi Malla, 2008. "A host of scholars both in India and foreign countries taking into consideration the cultural milieu and natural settings, landscape and seascape have asserted that Sri Jayadeva was born and brought up in Orissa and composed his famous lyric. The so-called controversy regarding the birth place of Jayadeva has been set to rest by independent research done by two Bengali scholars, Dr. Satyakam Sengupta and Dr. Ashis Chakravarti, both of whom have presented their papers in national seminars. Both of them have clearly and categorically established that Jayadeva was born in Kendubilva of Prachi valley of Orissa and not on the Ajaya river of Birabhumi district of West Bengal." Again, "The earliest commentary of Gitagovinda Bhavavibhavini Tika of Udayanacharya (contemporary of Ganga monarch Raja Rajadeva - II 1170-90 AD)..." She proceeds to mention other points including those on sculpture, religion, the Gitagobinda Khandua fabric, music, commentaries and painting in the very same paper.
• Thomas E. Donaldson, in the books Kamadeva's Pleasure Garden (1987) writes on Pg 365-377 (the same article is also reproduced in the book Sri Jayadeva's Gita Govinda : with illustrations and commentary by Dhananjaya. Bhubaneswar, Odisha: Odisha State Museum, edited by Bhagyalipi Malla, 2008. Pg 12-19) : "Many scholars identify this Kenduvilva with a site of the Ajaya river in the Birbhum district of Bengal. More convincing, however are arguments of Orissan scholars such as K. Mahapatra and B. Rath, who identify it with the village of Kenduli in the Puri district of Orissa, between the Prachi and Kusabhadra rivers...."
• Donaldson proceeds to state the archaeological importance of the site in Orissa in the next paragraph "Whereas the site referred to as Kenduli in Bengal has no antiquities earlier than the 17th century, the Kenduli on the Prachi river in Orissa, surrounded by Kendu and Vilva trees, is of great antiquity. It is an area teeming with Vaishnava ruins and temples, perhaps more than any other site in India. At nearby Niali alone there are a dozen large Vishnu images from the sanctum of collapsed temples at Madhava. On the lintel of the Candi temple at Kenduli is an inscription with the figures of 1112 in the margin which can be read as "Jaya Jaya Deva Hare 1112" suggesting the temple may have been built in commemoration of poet Jayadeva in Saka year 1112 or AD 1190. The recitation of the Gitagovinda, rather than the Durga Saptasati is still in vogue at the temple."
• He mentions biographies of Jayadeva by medieval poets and analyses both sides of the controversy. Regarding the commentaries he cites K. Mahapatra, another eminent scholar of India, "There is little evidence, literary or archaeological, that the Gitagovinda was popular in Bengal prior to the advent of Chaitanya. In fact, Chaitanya first discovered the jewel of Gitagovinda when he visited Puri in AD 1590, and came to realize the religious significance of the work from Raya Ramananda on the banks of the Godavari when he went on pilgrimage to the south." Donaldson then states "In Orissa, on the other hand, the popularity of the Gitagovinda was almost immediate and the two earliest commentaries on the poem were produced there, the Bhavavibhavini by Udayana Acharya (AD 1190) and the Sarvangasundari by Kaviraja Narayana Dasa." and "Hundreds of palm leaf manuscripts of the Gitagovinda are found in villages throughout Odisha to attest to its tremendous influence and popularity."
• Donaldson mentions about the Devadasi and the tradition of Gitagovinda singing in the Puri temple "Prataparudradeva (AD 1497-1540) strictly ordered in an inscription not to sing any other song before the deity except the Gitagovinda"
• Donaldson about music "It is also noteworthy that all the musical notes (ragas) used in the Gitagovinda are fully utilized with greater dimensions by the old Oriya writers whereas these ragas are rarely met with in old Bengali literature". Pt Gopal Chandra Panda in Sri Gita Gobinda Swara Lipi [Notated music of the Gita Govinda] (in Odia). Bhubaneswar: Smt. Bhagabati Panda (1995) "Jayadeva's Gitagovinda forms an inextricable part of Odissi classical music. The ragas used by Jayadeva such as Mangala Gujjari, Baradi, Desa Baradi, are found only in Orissan Kabyas (epic poems), poems, Chhanda and Chaupadi ; these ragas are not found to be in usage outside Odisha. Why only ragas, according to many early commentators the talas used by Jayadeva, such as 'Astatali' are only found in Odisha, and are not found to be in use anywhere else. From these musicological points it is very clear that Jayadeva is Odia." He proceeds to give details of the exact notes used in the Ragas with musical notation of all the songs.
• Renowned scholar Parhi, Dr. Kirtan Narayan (2017). The Classicality of Orissi Music. India: Maxcurious Publications Pvt. Ltd. p. 383. ISBN 9788193215128 mentions "Jayadeva has composed this illustrious Gitagovinda as per the specifications of the Udramagadhi Pravrtti, Ardhamagadhi padasrita Giti, Bhinna Svarasrita Gita and Nava Talasrita Giti. The songs of the Gitagovinda are set to talas such as Rupaka, Nihsara, Jati, Astatala and Ekatali which are included in navatalas, commonly used in Odishi (music) till to-day....One has to acknowledge that the Gitagovinda was written in order to be sung before Lord Jagannatha and since then (12th century) the recital has been continued as a daily ritual in Srimandira to entertain the Lord." Parhi further writes "This statement (citing Sir William Jones) clearly corroborates that Jayadeva was born in Utkala in the east and it is beyond doubt that his Gitagovinda used to be sung in the Lord Jagannatha temple, Puri as a daily ritual."
• Another source cited can be seen on Google books to confirm that it explicitly talks about the controversy : https://books.google.co.in/books?id=qrKScdZ8M8kC&pg=PA257&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

In light of all this, kindly revert the edit. It is beyond doubt that the sources quoted were all very relevant, reliable and in the explicit context of the birth controversy. You can compare the edit that was reverted to check each of the points, they're all above. Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Most of your edit did not mention the controversy, it argued for one point of view. I also don't know how much is a copyright violation such as this text from Reddy."Several sixteenth-century texts declare Jayadeva was from 'Utkala', another name of Odisha."

In any case there is another issue. There are 457 words supporting the Bengali position. The text before you edited had 919 words, you almost doubled that to 1688 words. That seriously imbalances the article and would be a major breach of WP:NPOV. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

After furnishing proper proofs, that too by reliable scholars and sources, you still deny to see the obvious. The imbalance that you claim for is baseless ; is number of words the criteria for a 'balanced article'? If one cites scholars, does it make an article 'unbalanced'? If one side has more scholarly research, are editors to just ignore the work based on number of words?

And how am I "arguing" for one POV if I am citing the scholars themselves? If anything, the scholars are arguing for one POV, which scholars of both POVs are. The article itself is on an argument.

This is a blatant breach of neutrality and it is very apparent that the Odia POV is being removed, out of sheer bias. In any case, I'll edit the article again with explicit mentions of the controversy, citing the same passages quoted above. My replies in good faith above seem to have no effect in front of quite an explicit bias.

If you believed that one line is a copyright violation, you would've removed that line, not reverted the entire well-cited edit. Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Prateek Pattanaik I don't "believe" it is, it is copyvio. I don't have time to check the rest but when you find one line among a lot of text added by an editor it wouldn't be surprise to find more. But that isn't why. I've taken this to the NPOV noticeboard, please take part there. WP:NPOVN. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Odia language citations

@Sitush : Kindly refrain from removing citations of eminent scholars. I do not see the logic behind it. Shri Kedarnath Mahapatra was one of the most eminent historians of India, discovered the Chausathi Jogini temple at Hirapur among other things, was a longtime curator at the Odisha State Museum, has brought several volumes of works cataloguing and publishing rare palm leaf manuscripts. His book 'Sri Jayadeva O Sri Gitagovinda' has been widely cited in national seminars and was one of the seminal works in the discussion about Jayadeva's birth controversy. He was one of the first people to prepare an exhaustive discussion of Jayadeva's biographies across India and the various commentaries and imitations of the GG, which has been cited in the IGNCA's massive Gita Govinda project led by Kapila Vatsyayan. Just because the source is in an Indian language such as Odia doesn't make it a case of "a fair amount of WP:SYNTHESIS" as you wrote in your edit description. How a single line of citation by one of the leading scholars in the history of the controversy is "irrelevant" (as you write in your edit description) I cannot comprehend. Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Prateek Pattanaik The reason was given. I actually intended to revert all the way back to Doug Weller's version but got in a mess.

It is nothing to do with the language used or the credentials of the writer.

I am unsure how "a single line of citation by one of the leading scholars" ballooned into your edit of about 6000 characters. However, as a general rule here, it's usually a terrible idea to post such a large amount of text to an article in one go, especially if much of it seems pretty irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Prateek Pattanaik Oh, and the book seems to be self-published, which isn't acceptable on Wikipedia (see WP:SPS), regardless of qualifications/reputation. In fact, that an academic cannot find a publisher for their writing is quite worrying. Not helped by the government getting involved: the Odisha government has a bit of a record in promoting dodgy history. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The reason given was 'irrelevant and WP:Synthesis' when everything in my edit was clearly cited and mostly involved quotes. Irrelevant according to who? It is academics who decide if the work is relevant. In the 195-70s in multiple states of India, scholars would publish their books with governmental grant-in-aids ; this is not exactly what we mean by self-published. Your comment on "an academic cannot find a publisher for their writing is quite worrying" reflects an ignorance about the state of Indian scholars in the 20th century. By your logic half of the articles on Indian history and culture might be deleted, waiting to be published in English / by modern publishers. Most Indian scholars would be disqualified. Many early Indian texts were also self-published ; we might as well remove them from Wikipedia. Anyhow, the author has published his findings in several books and journals and I will quote those, if this seminal work is considered not adequate.

Your edit deleted a single citation for the preceding quote. Are Wikipedia editors discouraged from making edits of 6000 characters? As I know, well-cited information and expanding an inadequate article are appreciated. Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Prateek Pattanaik Well, a lot of Indian historical scholarship was very poor! Even the likes of Sarkar were very prone to promoting socio-political agendas, putting dispassionate study/interpretation to one side. (This isn't unique to India, of course.)

We have to balance things. Throwing 6000 characters in to one side of a long-running, highly-charged dispute does not look like balancing and, yes, you do run the risk of having the entire set of edits reverted en masse. It all looked pretty dodgy to me and it's not a good idea to reinstate it without discussion.

The article would probably benefit from being edited mostly by people who are not connected to the dispute, ie not from Odisha etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, if you want to balance the article, please feel free to edit the article and add 6000 characters about the Bengali POV. A single editor with access to limited sources cannot be discouraged from editing with whatever he has at his disposal ; I don't have access to unlimited books and materials to cover all possible points of view. If there are not enough works of the Bengali scholars at my disposal, or if the controversy itself has a disproportionate amount of research output from both sides, what is an editor supposed to do? Am I supposed to not write whatever sources are available? That sounds like a major breach of WP:NPOV. This also sounds like discouraging an editor from editing. An editor cannot 'create' sources to support one POV to 'balance' the article, as far as I understand. I would like to read more about this "balance" if it is in the policy at all.

WP:PRESERVE clearly states. "Adding another point of view to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced". As a fellow editor, it would be greatly appreciated if you could instead expand on the Bengali POV instead of removing the other POV. That is what balance means, not "entire set of edits reverted en masse", which is anyhow a clear violation of WP:NPOV.

(As for "Even the likes of Sarkar were very prone to promoting socio-political agendas, putting dispassionate study/interpretation to one side." - we editors are here to quote people, not judge their scholarship. That is for academia to decide and a proper researcher will have enough citations from his peers, peer reviews and whatnot, even if one may not agree with every one of their published works. "A lot of Indian historical scholarship was very poor!" - then please publish an academic article refuting it.) Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush why and how do you think the Govt has record of "promoting dodgy history". Providing some citations would be much better.

I think we need a better insight on your thoughts regarding "edited mostly by people who are not connected to the dispute".

The reason you mentioned is not enough to remove a citation that is from such a reliable source.

Also if you are not sure what you are doing then you shouldn't create a mess, also if you think you have created a mess please be kind to other readers by fixing your mess. Thank you. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 20:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jnanaranjan sahu

The dodgy history thing is just a statement of fact. Over the years, I have seen plenty of official govt publications positing untenable interpretations.

People from outside the two areas would be more likely to be neutral. I know it won't happen, though. One reason I edit India stuff so much is because I am uninvolved: it brings a clarity to things which many Indian editors can't, don't or won't see.

No self-published source is reliable. I really don't care about the reasons why it was self-published.

The mess was caused by using the Wikipedia app & is difficult for me to fix. Feel free to take it up with the coders at the WMF.

People saying "be kind" to me just get my back up. It is trite stuff & I'm too old to indulge it, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your time and never wanted to make you angry or annoyed. Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 20:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jnanaranjan sahu No worries. I do know that the "be kind" thing is a bit of a buzzword (buzzphrase?) at the moment. I also know that I can be a curmudgeon :) - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Donaldson quote

I have edited the description of Thomas E Donaldson and the quote attributed to him in the article, because:

1. As can be seen through a survey of his work or this or this review, Donaldson was a scholar of Orissan architecture and sculpture. Referring to him as a scholar of Indian sculpture and iconography is removing important context when discussing the controversy over Jayadeva's birthplace.
2. The longer quote was a misrepresentation since it elided more than a page of text between "...Prachi and Kusabhadra rivers." and "Whereas... the site". The sentence in the source immediately following the one with "...Prachi and Kusabhadra rivers" is:

In that the arguments of the Orissan scholars appear mainly in the small journal produced by the Orissa State Museum, little known outside of Orissa, I will include the most salient arguments here.

i.e., in the next few pages of his book, Donaldson is recapping arguments by "Orissan scholars" in journals "little known outside Orissa". Excluding this context and attributing those arguments to Donaldson is a serious misrepresentation.

Lets not repeat such POV pushing. Abecedare (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Helpful.

1. The bulk of his work indeed is on Odisha. Kalinga sculpture and iconography is a sub-school of Indian sculpture and iconography. Anyhow, precision is welcome.
2. Good point, makes one ponder. Donaldson was a part of the investigation that revealed the Padmavati temple inscription himself, and several of his comments do reiterate earlier arguments, but with this own expert comments added. He clearly states of course that he is including all previous arguments here. (Note he ; the author is Donaldson, and he is reiterating arguments with his comments and he is not using explicit quotes in the cited passage. This should be cited to Donaldson as far as I understand, since it is he who is reiterating the points.) I'm not sure if this would be called POV pushing. Anyhow, the author has written his primary findings about Kenduli in his magnum opus Hindu Temple Art of Orissa published by Brill. An overlook of that should clarify matters further.

Prateek Pattanaik (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm ok with using Donaldson (1987) to summarize the arguments of Banamali Rath and Kedarnath Mahapatra. Indeed that would be preferable to citing the primary sources that is the original papers by those two (or others) published in Orissa Historical Reasearch Journal. But accurate summary/quotes and attribution are important. Abecedare (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Afd

I do not see why this needs to exist as a separate page. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It's arguable. But one advantage of having a stand alone article is that the Jayadeva article/talkpage can (ideally) focus of what the subject actually did and is noteworthy for without getting gunked up such matters of parochial interest. Abecedare (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)