Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Kingdom of Mysore/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First FAR

[edit]

I will respond to each concern one by one. This may take untill tommorow. So please be patient.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh's replies to Fowlers concerns:

Sources

All sources are mainstream. They are well known authors.

  • Kamath, Suryanath U: One of the renouned historians of Karnataka state. Director of Karnataka State Gazetteer. President of Mythic society and Director of Raja Ram Mohan Roy library at Kolkata.
  • K. A. Nilakanta Sastri:Indian historian and Dravidologist, Professor, University of Madras. His book is a classic.
  • Chopra, Ravindran, Subrahmanian, P.N., T.K., N: Dr. P N Chopra is a noted historian with many books to his credit. Prof Ravindran is the Head of Department, University of Kerala. N. Subrahmanian is a former professor of History, MAdurai University.
  • Meera Rajaram Pranesh: A musicologist and a Phd in her field. She is a recipient of the Research Fellowship from Department of Culture, Government of India. She goes into details about the Mysore kingdom (even its history) that many writers dont. Such as their music, compositions, composition styles, religious preferences, names of queens, family relations between royal families, info normally not available to many historians.
  • Aiyangar, Krishnaswami: Well known historian with many books to his credit.[1], [2]
  • Narasimhacharya, R:Renouned scholar on Kannada literature with several books to his credit.[3]

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that they are all have important positions. All I am saying is that they are not the people working today on the cutting-edge of research in early-modern or modern Mysore. Compare the Google Scholar results for S. U. Kamath (2 publications with one not really a publication) with those of James Manor (23 publications), who is one of the scholars on my list of mainstream scholars in this area. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly compare some of the Mysore-related publications of some of the other people you mention above: Chopra (none of the 3 publications are P. N. Chopra's), Pranesh (no publications), Ravindran (none of the 5 publications are TK Ravindran's), Subrahmanian] (none of the three publications are N. Subrahmanian's). Contrast these now with some other people on my list: Janaki Nair (22 publications), Kate Brittlebank (7 publications), Sanjay Subrahmanyam (12 publications), Barbara Ramusack (3 publications), Susan Bayly (3 publications), and Chris Bayly (9 publications). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have been through this in other articles. This "my sources are better than yours" is a bit stale. I own these above books (with the exception of the Aiyangar book) and feel better when I hold it when I refer to it. It is easy to provide names of the web and ask "how come you did not use this book"? There are over 700 books on the web that come up when keyed for "kingdom of Mysore". One can't expect me to buy all of them. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we all have our personal work styles, but we also have to "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge," as criterion 1 (c) above reminds us. Your authors (and no disrespect meant to them as persons) are obscure authors that don't have any internationally recognized peer-reviewed publications, as I have shown above. In contrast, the authors whose sources I have presented are some of the best-known historians working on India today. Many of them (Muzaffar Alam, C. A. Bayly, Sugata Bose, Nicholas Dirks, Ayesha Jalal, R. C. Majumdar, Barbara D. Metcalf, Burton Stein, Peter van der Veer, and Stanley Wolpert) have their own Wikipedia pages; others (Sanjay Subrahmanyam, James Manor, and Judith M. Brown) should have Wikipedia pages (in case someone is looking for work to do!). We cannot ignore their views on the grounds that we don't want to spend the money to buy all their books, or regard references to them as a case of "my list is better than yours" or of "dropping names." Similarly, we can't use an obscure selection of half a dozen books on the grounds that there might be "700 references," as you claim, and reading them all might be humanly impossible. We don't have to read them all, only read a representative selection. I claim that you have not done this. Lastly, nothing gives us the excuse to use facsimile reproductions of 100-year old books, as secondary sources, and then pass them off as modern books by mentioning only the date of the reprint! Please see my analysis of your sources. That is simply inexcusable anywhere on Wikipedia, but especially so in an FA! Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a better google job below regarding sources.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Distinctions
(kingdom, chiefdom, principality)

The selection of sources you have provided seem to be choosen to prove a point. A quick survey of material available (on the web/library) will prove that,

There are no shortage of sources (books, encyclopaedias, journals etc) that use the term "Kingdom" for all three important periods of the Mysore era: 1565-1760 AD; 1760-1799 AD, when Haider and Tipu Sultan usurped power; 1799-1947 when it was under British authority. I know there are several books that use other terminologies also. The earliest period (1399-1565) is universally accepted as a period of feudatory rule under the umbrella of the Vijayanagara Empire. This has been clearly stated in this article. Even from 1565, it took the Mysore kings about 50-75 years to become a fully independent kingdom as indicated in the article. Those sources that do go into details do assert that the first period (1565-1760) was one of initial growth and consolidation despite internal squabbles and politics (that all kingdoms invariably go through), the second period was one of military peak and imperialism, when Haider and Tipu challenged the British might, and the third period, when Mysore was completely under the British authority, was a diminished kingdom (the original size it was before Haider usurped power around 1760's), but an important player in the development of South Indian culture, in particular that of Karnataka. There are books that focus particularly on the Mysore Kingdom prior to Haider and Tipu (1760's) and there are several books that focus purely on the post 1799 period. I do agree that most books tend to focus on the period of 1760-1799 purely from the nature of the study, where the author discusses Anglo-Mysore martial relations, without going into details of other periods. However, that does not mean the other periods are not important. There are no shortage of books available that focus on the development of Kannada literature/ Carnatic music in the kingdom indicating Mysore was not an impotent state, during the pre-Haider/Tipu era and in the post-Haider/Tipu era. Overall, this article that I authored brings balance to political, cultural, literary, religious, social and architectural developments, without giving undue importance to just one era or one angle. The Mysore kingdom existed for 400 years (1565-1947) and it takes a lot of research to bring out all facets, rather than focussing on just one particular issue.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if these sources are there, why don't you list some of them here, so that we can all collectively examine what they say? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I surely will. In a day or two. In short, what I am trying to say is: A kingdom is called as such if it became a kingdom at some point. When exactly it became a kingdom is a matter of author's opinion. One can't surely expect the name of this article to be "feudatory/bunch of villages, tiny kingdom/principality, kingdom, princely state/dependent state of Mysore". Also, one cant expect the article to be torn apart, which you claimed should be done, just because the kingdom went through the same phases that other kingdoms and empires went thru. Every kingdom, large or small, would have started as a small state, consolidated and fallen eventually. That is the nature of things. So long as the article touches upon all the developments in a clear manner (without calling it an independent kingdom when it was clearly a feudatory), then the article would have achieved its purpose. You seem to be very focussed on the 40 year period of Tipu/Haider, which is exactly NOT the intent of this article. Karnataka in particular and S.India to a significant extent owes its cultural developments to the Mysore Kingdom, (just as it does to the kingdom of Tanjavur), none of which is attributable to Tipu or Haider. If one feels very strongly about the 1760-1799 period, one should feel free to write a detailed article called "Anglo-Mysore relations" or "Mysore kingdom under Haider-Tipu", make it a FA and attach it to this article as a sub-article. Claiming that it became a kingdom only during this period (1760-1799) and was inconsequential otherwise is a narrow approach that does not help the reader get a full scope of the four century long existance on the kingdom.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look I don't think you need to write extended arguments. We are talking about what terms scholars use in describing the political entity that was Mysore during the period 1399 to 1761. My contention is that they either describe it as a chiefdom or a "chieftancy" usually for the pre-1610 period, and either a principality or petty kingdom. In other words they might use the word "kingdom," in the sense of petty kingdom but they will usually not call Mysore in the pre-1761 period a "Kingdom" (which, usually means a supra-local unambiguously independent monarchy). It's not that complicated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact if you search on Google Scholar for "mysore wodeyar kingdom" most of the publications that turn up are in fact of authors on my list, like Janaki Nair, Burton Stein, Kate Brittlebank, or Sanjay Subrahmanyam, who use the word kingdom (with little "k") in the sense of principality or petty kingdom. On the other hand, if you search, for "wodeyar" AND the exact expression "Kingdom of Mysore,", the only people who use the capital "K" are non-historians (lawyers, psychiatrists, ...)! I have to go now, but perhaps others will pitch in (historians, lit. crit. people) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overvalue the historical role of the Hindu Wodeyar rulers
I think this is a over stretched claim. This is a summary styled article covering 400 years of history. Haider and Tipu ruled, without being officially coronated, ruled for about 40 years. No book I have come across calls them Kings. In fact the most common terminology I came across was "rulers" and "usurped power", which is why the term "de-facto ruler" was used. Never-the-less, they consolidated on a lesser Mysore Kingdom and built what could have become a major south Indian power which ended abruptly. This due has been given in a seperate section allocated for them. No praise has been withheld either. But their short duration, covering 10% of the political history is a serious consideration here. A far better approach would be to create seperate and detailed articles on Tipu and Haider and attach it here. If one reads the article in its entireity, it will become obvious why I have not been able to provide more space for these two mighty warriors. Also, let us not forget, the topic of "Tipu Sultan" is not free from controversies either, all of which don't fit well in a summary styled article. If one does a google book search, (unless I am doing something wrong), there are about the same number of hits for "Kingdom of Mysore", "Mysore Kingdom" and "Princely state of Mysore". No doubt, Tipu Sultan and Haider Ali get many more hits then each individual Wodeyar ruler, but as I had written earlier, the Tipu and Haider topics cover a very small portion of the 400 years and it is not the "intention" of this article to hover on such a small period. As such, this article in its entirey had to make space for the Diwans of Mysore, English influence on society in addition to cultural developments. Just as I have created a seperate full length article on "literature" which is worthy of a FA (hopefully, someday), so also, seperate articles need to be created for Tipu and Haider. This would be the most rewarding approach for all readers and the best way we could show our apprecitation for their achievements.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "de-facto" from lead. Does not appear anywhere else.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove your new additions to older posts starting with this and refactor them here. How will anyone make sense of your posts and my replies to them?! Other editors will be reading this page too. If you don't do this, I will get admin help. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted those edits; please add them there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your calculating in the talk page that Kamath's book costs Rs 60=$1.50 is a gimmick. A book that won the Sahitya Akademi Award for Humanities and today sells for Rs. 65 in India "would not" sell for $1.50 here in the USA. The cost of living/publishing/royalties is a major factor. So lets not try to pull the wool here. Let me give an example. The book by Chopra et al, Ancient India, which I bought for some Rs 300 (if I recall) and that = $6 by today's exchange rates. But the same book on Amazon.com sells for atleast $56 (~10times) and that too a "used" book. A new book costs $112[4]. You can image how much it would cost if published in the US + royalties etc.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sources (from above)
Look, the point of an FAR is to help improve an article by incorporating scholarly opinion that is both more relevant to the article and more comprehensive. I had suggested that the works you have cited are not particularly relevant to the topic of this article, "Mysore." As evidence I used Google scholar to search within the topic "Mysore." I said that your authors are "obscure" (in the sense of "not relevant") to the topic at hand. For example, when you search for "Wodeyar Mysore," a very relevant sub-topic here, your scholars do not show up among the known ones; in fact, a large proportion of the publications are by scholars on list I provided.
How does it help to hurriedly throw up blind book searches for "T. K. Ravindran" in reply, supplemented by edit summaries, "Do you know how to Google?" Especially, when most of the internationally known publications in that link are by T. K. Sundari Ravindran, a scholar who works in women's health and agricultural economics, and who is not a renaissance woman on the side (writing history books). She has both internationally known books and journal articles to her credit. When you look for only T. K. Ravindran, the historian, whose college textbook you have cited, you get mostly out of print college text-books published in India; moreover, no scholarly articles show up on Google Scholar, let alone anything on Wodeyar Mysore.
Look, I'm not sure I'm interested in this ridiculous conversation. Apparently, you have decided that the Indian college history text-books you are using for this article supplemented by the books that have been raised from the dead by facsimile publishers are enough for the article, and you respond to any suggestions of improvement by defensively throwing up whatever you can find on the web rather than trying to understand what I am saying or telling me why you think the authors and publications I have suggested are not relevant. I'm afraid some admin(s) here will need to step in, for I see this "conversation" going nowhere. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation is going nowhere? You wanted proof that my references are from scholarly historians and experts. I have provided you proof. I cant help it if you cant appreciate it. You opened the FAR, its my job to answer your concerns to the best of my ability. Thats all I can say.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said specifically in my post above, that your scholars are "not on the cutting-edge of research in early-modern or modern Mysore," which is the subject of our topic. Please don't provide ludicrous replies by producing general web searches, otherwise we can all cite John Smith. Even for your own authors, if you do more focused searches for "Wodeyar Mysore," the publications that turn up are not the ones you have cited, such as, for example these two by Pran Nath Chopra (who, incidentally, is also heard saying, "It was Raja Wodeyar (AD 1578-1617) who may be said to be the real founder of the Mysore state ..." and who apparently doesn't like to use a capital K in "kingdom") or this book by Suryanath U. Kamath. (There is nothing by Subrahmanian or by Ravindran)
Contrast this with people on my list such as Burt Stein, or George Michell, or Nick Dirks, or Susan Bayly or Chris Bayly (which was trickier, since he is an editor too). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes errors of what could be called chronological-spatial correspondence..

Fowler, the article really does not make chron-spatial errors. The poet Sarvajna was born in modern Haveri district, but was a drifter. He travelled the whole of the Karnataka region and beyond. He did not stay in Haveri and write his poems. More over, most scholars that I know of, place him in mid-late 17th century. A few feel he lived in 16th century. I have gone with general opinion, more with the intent of giving readers a flavor about a new sort of lyrical literature that was growing in the Kannada speaking regions, in addition to the conventional courtly and monastic literatures. Regarding other "contemporary developments", they are very much relevant to the Mysore kingdom, but thats a different arguement all together and has nothing to do with this article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, it is a lot to read. Well, Is it possible to make some kind of table or something to make the points of contention visible and succinct for other editors to pitch in? I see several issues and want to assume good faith and believe the issues raised by F&F is purely editorial and can be worked out between Fowler and Dinesh by discussion.
  1. Use of sources by Dinesh which Fowler&Fowler considers not-mainstream: This is a genuine and serious concern. Dinesh has to explain why he doesnt want to use the several sources put forward by F&F and why his perception of historical timeline differs from Fowler's.
  2. Splitting the article into three: 1) Before Mysore Kingdom, 2) During Kingdom and 3) After. Though I am naturally inclined to separate things for the sake of clarity and accuracy, I understand Dinesh's reasoning that these three periods can be considered integral part of one political process happened over a period of 400 years. But, I also agree with F&F that continuum fallacy should not be used to blur the distinction and should be made clearly and explicitly.
  3. Title: If the article were to stay under the same title, Mysore Kingdom, it should then elaborately deal with whatever is considered Mysore Kingdom by reliable secondary sources and special care be taken not mislead readers by blurring the edges and not give undue significance to other issues. Docku: What up? 00:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu nationalism

I think these accusations are baseless. If you can show me where Hindu nationalism occurs, I can easily explain why it is not so or perhaps correct it if you are really correct. Ofcourse, if you feel the sections on :Literature & music are Hindu nationalistic, I can't wish these developments away. They are very much a part of the Mysore Kingdom. If you can pin-point where else Hindu nationalism occurs in the article, we can perhaps improve it. However, I have already explained above that this is a summary style article and only certian amount of space is available for each development, king and event. Improving the article does not mean you are right and my article is wrong everywhere. It is a two way process. I hope you dont make this a Hindu-Muslim issue.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to Docku

1) Sources dont become non-mainstream just because Fowler thinks so. I have provided enough proof that my sources are mainstream too. They are well established, well reputed scholars, just as any that Fowler has pointed out. If Fowler can prove w.r.t which points his sources are main stream and mine are not, we can make changes, keeping in mind that all must sections stay and keep to summary style. But I feel there is a basic issue here. Fowler, I feel, has no interest in the Hindu kings of Mysore. To him, Tipu and Haider are everything. I feel the article cant be represented that way.

2)The question of splitting the article does not even arise because every kingdom, from start to finish is one unit. Lets consider the Chola dynasty which describes "earliest Cholas", "medieval Cholas" and "later Cholas" all as one unit. it makes perfect sense to keep it all together.

3)This is a summary styled article. Elaborately dealing with any one section is not possible and UNDUE. History, Society, Culture, religion, music, literature and architecture are the legacy of the kingdom and should be maintained. It is one thing if the article lacked citations. Its a totally different thing if a FAR promoter thinks the existing plethora of sources are not worth it. Just saying they are non-mainstream does not make it non-mainstream.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, Fowler's sources seem to contradict (if not completely) your sources. One of them has to be wrong. Or, Can you both not use both (yours and Fowlers) sources and reach a compromise after a meaningful discussion? In the meantime, I wonder if there is any notice board other than WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for some input on these questionable sources. BTW, WP:SS is not the only policy we have, we also have WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE among others. Docku: What up? 01:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How did you assume these sources are questionable? The issue I feel is not about sources but about angle. The history of every kingdom can be approached from multiple angles. My article and my sources take a overall view giving a balance to military, culture etc etc. If Fowler feels the military aspect has been neglected and not enough credit given to Tipu and Haider, he should write a FA called Military history of Mysore Kingdom and focus on Tipu and Haider.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, you are misunderstanding WP:UNDUE, UNDUE is when you dont discuss elaborately about the title of the article but something else. To start with, you have to first discuss and determine what is considered Mysore Kingdom by most reliable secondary sources. If you are just going to be defending yourself, we are going to get nowhere. Docku: What up? 01:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But again you are assuming that "kingdom" means "military", "Tipu" and "Haider", an assumption Fowler has made too. Remember, you are here to play a non-partisan role and improve the article. If you guys can give me the time to pull up sources, I will surely do so. In fact starting tonight. The intention will be to prove that 1) There are sufficient sources that call early Mysore rule as a "Kingdom" 2) Same for post-Tipu period. It does not matter whether its a small kingdom or big kingdom. Kingdom is kingdom. Upper case or lower case.3)That the Hindu kings are well written about in scholarly books and journals for their contributions.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(To user:Docku) I am happy to focus on the three issues suggested by you. user:Dineshkannambadi has promised to produce sources that refer to Mysore as the "Kingdom of Mysore" during the period (a) 1399 to 1610 and (b) 1610 to 1761. I am happy to wait for these sources (with page numbers) so that we can discuss how best to interpret the information. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(To: DK) I'm a little confused. You claim you own all the books. Why is it that hard to find where exactly they describe Mysore during the period 1399 to 1610 as the "Kingdom of Mysore?" Why do you need time to "pull up sources" if you own them? It is only 3 sources Kamath (45 times), Chopra (11 times) and Pranesh (7 times) that have really been used in the first three sections. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Dinesh: I know it is painful, but it will be helpful for the sake of other participating editors if you also show your sources the same way Fowler did. Not doing so will just weaken your case. Thanks. Docku: What up? 01:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler, dont try to misrepresent me. Mysore grew into a kingdom only after 1565. I own some sources, not 700 sources. I was thinking of providing some 10 sources for each category, dated over a wide period to show that the nomenclature is valid.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdom of Mysore lead says it was a kingdom between 1399–1799 CE. Apparently, there is a lot of consfusion, let us just sort this out first. Docku: What up? 01:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
read further.The kingdom, which was ruled by the Wodeyar family, served as a feudatory of the Vijayanagara Empire until the empire's decline in 1565. What does a feudatory mean? I means feudal chiefs ruled it. Why nit-pick.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should we then change the numbers also to 1595-1799 temporarily? According to Fowler, 1761-1799 is the correct timeline for Kingdom. Let us just wait for your sources. Docku: What up? 01:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sources that generally use "kingdom" prior to Haider/Tipu, and after Haider/Tipu period(this will take time, but I will add it here itself, one by one).

1) The Kingdom of Mysore started growing strong after the decline of Vijayanagara dynasty. Yaduraya and his brother Krishnaraya were the originators of the Wodeyar dynasty in the year 1399 AD. (Meera Pranesh, page ix, authors note) Chikka devaraja's rule became one of the most illustrious and memorable in the annals of Mysore. By his conquests, he enlarged the limits of his kingdom. (Meera Pranesh, p. 19). I can go on and on.

2) The second half of the 18th century was a critical period in the history of South India. Mysore under Haider and Tipu sultan resisted the growth of British power in India. Mysore kingdom originally belonged to the Vijayanagar, but after the break up of that empire, it passed to the Wodeyar dynasty (Chopra et al, page 54 part III). Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3)The Mysore state became an subordinate ally of the British and was to pay a tribute annually and also a subsidy for maintaining the army stationed in the kingdom by the British (Kamath, page 24). See how flexible he is about "state" and "kingdom".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4)..usually calling themselves odeyars, of whom one would become the chief of Mysore town, 10 miles from Srirangapatnam. There were other chiefs in the upper part of the Kaveri valley which was destined to become the core of the seventeenth century Mysore kingdom. (The New Cambridge History of India by Gordon Johnson, Christopher Alan Bayly, J. F. Richards - India - 1987, p82)

5)In the early 1720s , The Wodeyar kingdom of Mysore was made up of a substantial expanse of territory in the modern states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.....p 67. The Mysore kingdom that was inherited from Chikkadevaraja Wodeyar by his son and successor, Kanthirava Narasaraja was thus at one and the same time a strong and a weak state......p 70 (BTW, Chikkadevara ruled from 1673-1704. Fowlers has also quoted this source. Penumbral Visions By Sanjay Subrahmanyam, 2001)

6)from about the middle of the seventeenth century, the core area of the Mysore kingdom had come under increasingly effective centralised fiscal management by the state....(see again how he switches between state and kingdom. State is the machinery, kingdom is the territory), Institutions and Ideologies By David Arnold, Peter Robb, p 199, 1993

7)The Yoga tradition that evolved through the patronage and participation of the wodeyar royal family, rajas of the kingdom of Mysore has today supplanted or affected a majority of the yoga teaching traditions..... A translation of "Sritattvanidhi" from the Mysore palace from somewhere between 1811 and 1868 containing 121 illustrations of the asanas.... (p35, The Yoga Tradition of the Mysore Palace by N. E. Sjoman 1999)Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8)At the time Lord Cornwallis, then governor general was pronouncing Bengal to be in process of decay under British mismanagement, the Kingdom of Mysore under the rule of Poorneah, was in a state of his prosperity... (BTW, Purniah was the first diwan from 1799-1811), England's Debt to India By Lajpat Rai, p 29, 1917

9)He inagurated a series of campaigns to expand the kingdom of Mysore in all directions. By A.D. 1637, the kingdom had been extended to the north of Channapaatna and Nagamangala (p 222, History and Culture of Karnataka By Kadati Reddera Basavaraja, 1984).Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10)Wilk's narrative ends in 1799 with Tipu slain, the English victory having put an end to the "uncontrolled exercise of the right of conquest" among native powers, and with the ancient Hindu kingdom of Mysore restored as a subsidiary of the English government...(Distant Sovereignty By Sudipta Sen, p 51, 2002)Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a short list. There are numerous references to "Kingdom of Mysore" in old books published before 1925 which I have not bothered to add. Even some British parliamentary papers refer to "Kingdom of Mysore" around 1875 time frame.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler's Sources For the convenience of comparing, I am adding the link here to Fowler's sources. Docku: What up? 03:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. DK: I have made a distinction between a chiefdom, a principality, a petty kingdom, a (supra-local and unambiguously independent) Kingdom, and a principality. I have repeated a hundred times that Mysore was a principality or petty kingdom or both during the period 1610 and 1761. You made a big to do about owning your books. After all that you don't give us anything from your books, but dump quotes from the web including from Sanjay Subrahmaniam's books that are sitting in my book shelf. I've been putting up with your incoherent rambles above long enough; to me they seem nothing but obfuscation. I think enough is enough. Do you have anything in your dog-eared copies of Kamath, Chopra, Sastri or Aiyangar, that refer to Mysore as the "Kingdom of Mysore?" If you don't, then don't waste our time! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While you are at it, let me save you some work. You won't find "Kingdom of Mysore" in your copy of Aiyengar's Ancient India, who you consider to be one of the great Indian historians, for he prefers to call it "State of Mysore."

If I can find "State" with a Capital S in your reference in a few minutes, you should be able to find "Kingdom" with a capital K, in your references, the ones that have been used in this article.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what language you use. BTW, you wanted proof that modern sources use the the term "Kingdom" as commonly as the term "state". If you feel I am wasting time, I suggest you get help from someone higher in this process. You wanted proof from Kamath, Meera Pranesh and Chopra, my main references in the history, governance and economy sections, and I gave it to you. You cant call it "obfuscation" just because it does not suit your purpose. I have not used Aiyangar often in this article. Aiyangar's citation if I recall is used only once only in the top para regarding their origin theory, not the "kingdom" issue. I have also quoted a source you yourself are using, Sanjay Subramanyan, who uses the word Kingdom as easily as he uses state, multiple times.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aiyangar source from FA itself (rebuttal to Fowler)

11)This was Raja Wodeyar of Mysore belonging, as he claimed, to the Yadava family of Guzerat. His first ancestor came into Mysore from 'the banks of the Godavari' two centuries before AD 1600 and the family had since been in enjoyment of a comparitively small bit of territory in and around the taluk of Mysore. It was given to Raja Wodeyar to enlarge the petty principality into a compact kingdom and this could be done only by occupying the viceroyalty of Tirumalarya of Seringapatnam... (Ancient India By Sakkottai Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Vincent A. Smith, p 83). Lets keep in mind Raja Wodeyar ruled around 1565.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More rebuttals using Fowler's own sources.

12)One of the most ancient and prestigious of the Muslim service clans of the west coast, the Navaiyit lineage, found office in the frontier state of Arcot and in the kingdom of Mysore which only fell to a Muslim ruler, Haider Ali in 1761. (See how is says it was a kingdom when it came into Haider's control)-Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire By C. A. Bayly, p 18, 1990.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13)The Gowda chiefs of Yelahanka, an insignificant town in the country immedietly north-east of the Wodeyar kingdom, also served as provincial governors under Vijayanagara (p 17)... Raja Wodeyar, who was on the Mysore throne at the turn of the 17th century, was able to steadly expand his kingdom. The capture of Sriranga-patna.... (p 20)--The new Cambridge history of India By Geraldine Forbes, B. R. Tomlinson, Sugata Bose, ISBN 0521441102. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, Fowler has called the above source "Architecture and Art of Southern India: Vijayanagara and the successor states: 1350–1750" in his link and should correct his mistake.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14)Here I am using Fowlers source that actually seems to inline-cite another source which uses "kingdom". In the poligar country, many of these warrior dynasties sought to assert kingly rank by instituting a lavish state ritual, the Navarattiri, which symbolised the ruling warriors conquest of the new kingdom in the name of the patron goddess<citation:Ramnad's first Navarattiri was in 1659, the Mysore kingdom's in 1647.Carol Appadurai Brekenridge... (source:Saints, Goddesses and Kings By Susan Bayly 2004, p66) What I am trying to show is the word state and kingdom are one and the same. No need to nit-pick.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing some other concerns of Fowler
Topic
Sources for nature of Wodeyar "rule" up to 1761.

I have shown conclusively that not only do my main sources use the term "kingdom" from the early period itself (1565), it is used quite freely with the word "state". In fact "state" appears to be more the machinery and "kingdom", the overall. I have also shown how some of Fowler's own sources use the term "kingdom" for the early period of their rule. In fact 4 sources. I could not open up a few others unfortunately. There are some 50 sources I came across that freely use the term "kingdom" for the early period (1565-1760) and later periods(1799-1947). I cant type of all of them. So I have provided some 14 sources, including all 3 of my most commonly used books in this FA.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan as rulers from 1761 to 1799 (without "de facto")

The word De-facto has been removed from the lead.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wodeyar "rule" in princely state 1799 to 1947

Again, I have provided some sources above that use the term "kingdom" even after the 1799 period. All I am trying to say is, it is common to switch the terminology from "kingdom" to "state" even among historians, modern or ancient. No need to nit-pick.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for some ideological issues related to this topic

Fowler will have to explain what this is all about. There seems to be Hindu nationalistic stuff which does not concern the topic of discussion.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a feeling there is a clear misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the word "Kingdom" and what it really means. We have to make a distinction between a "fluid" use of the word "kingdom" and its real meaning. According to Mariam-Webster: Kingdom means "a politically organized community or major territorial unit having a monarchical form of government headed by a king or queen". May be, for the record, it helps if someone explains the clear differences between "principality", "Petty kingdom" and "Kingdom" and clear the air of misunderstanding. Docku: What up? 14:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More rebuttals to Fowler from his own sources

15)The Rajput alliance destroyed by Aurangzeb's wars was never completely restored. In the far south, the former Hindu kingdom of Mysore was to grow powerful under the adventurer Hyder Ali.....(The Cambridge Economic History of India By Dharma Kumar, Tapan Raychaudhuri, P3, 1983)Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16)Apart from successor states and rebel states, which came into existance following the weakening of the Mugal empire, there were a few principalities, like the Rajput kingdoms, Mysore or Travancore.... (From Plassey to Partition By Śekhara Bandyopādhyāẏa, p31, 2004). The point I am trying to make here is that the author has used all three terms, "state", "principality" and "kingdom" in the same sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you dont care what "Kingdom" really means. Just mentioning of the word but not its context is sufficient for you. Well, that is a half-baked approach to writing featured article. Docku: What up? 16:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Docku, I think you may have missed the point. All I am saying is the Folwer has made a big issue perhaps without researching in detail what he was complaining about. There are big kings who rule small kings; there are big kingdoms that rule over smaller kingdoms. There is no need to nit-pick and waste everyones time. He has also selectively taken quotes from sources to prove his point, and that is half-baked.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I cant seem to open most of his sources, using which, I could have made it more clear to Fowler how commonly the term kingdom is used with regards to the early and last period of the rule.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Docku) A petty kingdom, as its own page informs us, "is an independent realm recognizing no suzerain and controlling only a portion of the territory held by a particular ethnic group or nation." A principality, according to Webster's unabridged, is "a minor semi-independent state under the rule of a prince." A princely state, according to its own page, "was a nominally sovereign entity of British rule in India that was not directly governed by the British, but rather by an Indian ruler under a form indirect rule such as suzerainty or paramountcy." Alternatively, a princely state was a principality whose suzerain was either the British East India Company or the British Raj. A kingdom (especially when used with a capital "K"), according to Webster's unabridged, is "a major territorial unit subject to a monarchical form of government."

(Replay to all) Of course, these are not mathematical definitions, and I am well aware (having given many examples in my sources) that "kingdom" can be used in the sense of a petty kingdom. What that means is that in the region of what was commonly called Mysore (and today is called Karnataka), in which the Kannada language is spoken, there were a number of such petty kingdoms during the period 1610 to 1761; the Wodeyars' was only one such kingdom. I am suggesting that Mysore during the period 1610 to 1761 was sometimes a principality, and at other times, when its fading suzerain was not paying attention, it was a petty kingdom. The Encyclopaedia Britannica article of Sanjay Subrahmanyam quoted in Sources for nature of Wodeyar rule up to 1761 speaks to this complexity as do the quotes from C. A. Bayly, Alam and Subrahmanyam, and George Michell. However, it was only after 1761, under Haidar Ali, that Mysore become a large territorial unit that not only was independent, but was also supral-local, in the sense of having no competing petty kingdoms. I am obviously not suggesting that the article be split into four or five sub-articles each focusing on a particular political system. However I am suggesting (a) that these complexities be discussed in the subsection incorrectly titled Period of sovereignty, instead of extended discussions of one Wodeyar's wrestling skills, or another Wodeyar's hearing loss, or yet another Wodeyar's award to Haidar Ali (during the fleeting moments, I might add, in HA's busy schedule when he could recall who a Wodeyar was) (b) that Mysore as a princely state not be included in an article titled Kingdom of Mysore. The use of the term "kingdom" aside, the pre-1799 Mysore is a completely different kettle of political fish that the post-1799 Mysore. The post-1799 Mysore was entirely the creation of the British, who raised the Wodeyars from the dead, styled them as "Maharajas," and encumbered their return with sufficient protections to secure subservience. The post-1799 period should be a separate Wikipedia page, as indeed Hyderabad state and the Princely State of Kashmir and Jammu are, and such as scores of other Indian princely states have. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proposal

I propose to split the article into 1) Pre-1799 under the current title but rewrite to discuss precisely all the complexities of levels of souvereignity enjoyed by different rulers. 2) Post-1799 into Princely state of Mysore. Suggestions? Docku: What up? 17:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is reasonable proposal and I would support it. 18:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
reject proposal
The re-creation of the kingdom during British Raj and re-installation of the Hindu king has been explained explicitly and in a summary style. If one wants to create a seperate detailed article Princely/State of Mysore under British, they are free to do so. This is the same argument about the Haider-Tipu period. If anyone wants to create a seperate article called Mysore kingdom under Mysore Sultans, they are free to do so. Both articles can be attached as subarticles for everyones purpose. No need to create needless complexity. This is consistant with other articles such as Chola dynasty, Song Dynasty (where northern and southern song are included) just to name a few. I dont accept the above proposal of splitting this article. The article fully satisfies WP:Summary while being comprahensive about the 400 year existance of the kingdom. Any creation of detailed information about a particular period has to be done in "sister" articles and attached to this article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting is the article was just one of the concerns. You are blanketly refusing to address any of the concerns raised by Fowler. I hope some other editors will also step in to get the message across. Docku: What up? 18:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Docku, all concerns have been adequately answered. It is Fowler, if anyone, who has to explain why he choose selective portions of his sources to argue his case, which I have rebutted comprahensively. I am under no illusion that you came here with a neutral attitude.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an article about a dynasty? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS If so, why are we including Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan and the British Commissionership (1831–1881) in it? If not, what is the article about? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cant help if I find Fowler's arguments more sensible than yours and if it doesnt neutral to you, i dont care. But remember this is wikipedia and we strive to write and disseminate information as perceived by mainstream secondary sources. History reviosionism has no place here. sorry. Docku: What up? 18:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have not proven in any way how history has been revised here. The Mysore period is one continuous period and has been described as such here. I have no more to say about this issue.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been proven here as concerns. It is clear you have given undue significance to Wodeyar dynasty. For the starters, there is no mention of Tippu and Haider in the infobox. The distinctions between Wodeyars rule and Tippu, Haider and British rule is very subtly blurred by doing just this, "The Mysore period is one continuous period and has been described as such here". Docku: What up? 18:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been proven? Fowler has some concerns, has jotted down a few points, with selective sources that "no longer" support his case and you came in last evening into this discussion with no prior knowledge of Mysore history and have become convinced that the Tipu-Haider-British rule has been blurred? wow!.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess i can read too. As far as I remember, when we read about history of Mysore kingdom in school, we read only about Haider and Tippu. Fowler's well-cited concerns and my previous experiences in wikipedia just strengthened my aforementioned belief. Guess, we should rather be discussing how the concerns are going to be accomodated. Docku: What up? 19:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since my question about whether this page is about a dynasty was not answered, let me ask some related some questions. But first some examples.

The kingdom ruled by the Wodeyars between 1610 and 1761 was no more powerful than most on that list, and less powerful than some. None of these kingdoms are called "Kingdoms," why should we refer to Mysore during the period 1610 to 1761 as the Kingdom of Mysore?

Reply
I have answered your question earlier. But again, this summary article is about a "kingdom" that went through various continuous interrelated phases between 1399-1947. Each phase is related to the previous phase historically, something that becomes obvious when read in its entirety. The kingdoms political history, developments in religion, society, literature, music, architecture and other fine arts are all tied into these phases of developments and are inseperable from each other. Fortunately, when we want to elaborate about any one phase or feature, wikipedia provides us with the freedom to write sub-articles. I will not repeat this again.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for calling Mysore kingdom a "kingdom" has been discussed in detail above, from my sources, your sources and sources in general.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes these "continuous and interrelated phases" different for Mysore, in contrast to all the other states mentioned above, that entitles this article to be called Kingdom of Mysore, and not the others? And, you still haven't answered my question about whether this article is about a dynasty. Could you please do so? Thanks. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This discussion appears to reflect a difference in views that can only be resolved by referencing current scholarship on the history of the period. As has been noted in other places, the understanding of India's history had been dramatically enlarged by recent archaeological and other technologically-facilitated findings that allow a more data-based versus a legend-based understanding of history. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General remarks on Information, Summary Style, and Hagiography in this article. (These are not specific suggestions to the primary authors for improvement.)

Imagine yourself, dear FAR reader, in the shoes of an Average Modern Person (AMP) who reads the following lead sentence from the Economy section of this article.

Sentence: "The economy of the kingdom was based on agriculture, due to the majority of its people being villagers."

If AMP interprets "people being villagers" to mean "people living in villages," (and not, attributively, as "people being simple,"), how will they go about establishing a connection between village and agriculture? Clearly, none of the meanings of "village" in the OED (for example, "an inhabited place larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town,") will help them. Will a handy copy of the 1901 Census of India help AMP? What will they find there about Mysore? Well, for starters, they will find that only 66% of the population of Mysore was either engaged in agriculture or dependent on agriculture. What does it mean, AMP will then ask, to say that the economy is based on agriculture if 34 per cent of the population, a full third, is not living off agriculture? If AMP also has a general background in History, they will likely know that the population of much of the world—and India is no exception—commenced living in villages after they gave up their nomadic ways and took to cultivation. Isn't the cause, the effect, and vice-versa, AMP will wonder: the population lives in villages because they live off agriculture?

Issues such as these are not issues of "brilliant prose" or of literary elegance. They are bread and butter issues of communicating information in a unambiguous way. I claim that most sentences in this article suffer in such ways, and indeed I leave you to mull over the meanings of each of the remaining sentences in the lead paragraph of the Economy section.

Click now on the mother article Economy of the Kingdom of Mysore and read its first paragraph. While the writing is not perfect, it certainly flows better than the paragraph above. So, user:Dineshkannambadi is certainly capable of writing more meaningfully, we will say to ourselves. Perhaps the deterioration in the prose was the result of summarizing.

If we now read the rest of the article starting with the History section, we will soon find ourselves asking, "Why, if the Sword of Summary Style is hanging over our heads, are we cutting corners in important sections, such as Economy, but yet regaling our readers with sentences such as the following":

  • "In 1637, the celebrated Narasaraja Wodeyar, known for his valour, wrestling skills and his interest in the fine arts, came to power. A popular account of Narasaraja Wodeyar recounts his victory over a champion wrestler of Tiruchirapalli. He is said to have proceeded incognito to Trichy, defeated the wrestler and left quietly without accepting any gifts from the local ruler, instead leaving a note that read 'someone from Mysore has defeated the wrestler'" (History:Period of Sovereignty).

The Culture section, in particular, is full of such verbal dross. In fact, I would wager that any time the word "Wodeyar" occurs in the Culture section, it is accompanied by an entourage of fawning fluff. And the Culture section is more than half of this History FA. (Please move your scroll bar to the middle.)

All this while, AMP has been asking, "What crops did they grow in Mysore?"

It would be great to be able to report that these are all our problems. Why? Because such problems can be fixed with copy-edits, revisions, or rewrites.

However, if AMP next leafed through the history literature, they would quickly discover a few things: (a) most contemporary general histories on India don't mention either the Wodeyars or their cultural achievements (Please search.) (b) Does it mean that Mysore—their kingdom—is not an important topic in Indian history, AMP will wonder? A quick search in the same texts will establish that Mysore actually is an important topic, but that the two people who keep turning up under "Mysore" are the father and son duo, Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan who ruled from 1761 to 1799 and fought in the Anglo-Mysore Wars. (c) Does it mean, AMP will wonder again, if Haidar and Tipu are mentioned mostly because of the glamor or tragedy of their military exploits? To answer that question, though, AMP will likely need to supplement the general histories with monographs and journal articles. Once so equipped, AMP will notice that historians write not only about Tipu and Haidar's military skills, but also about their political and economic innovations. (d) Ever more perplexed, AMP will now wonder, "Does the specialist literature mention the Wodeyars?" With a little more work, AMP will track down the Wodeyars, but will be surprised to find their assessments among historians to be mostly negative. Indeed, AMP will find that Nicholas Dirks's blunt characterization, "defunct family of rulers," doesn't just apply to the Wodeyars in 1799 but also during other times in their "rule."

What, then, will our Average Modern Person, make of this Wikipedia article? Will they not increasingly wonder about the likelihood of hagiography in the narrative of Wodeyar rule? Will they not wonder so, regardless of how they assess the representations of Haidar and Tipu?

That can't be good for Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply to these questions one by one. Please be patient. If necessary, I will make minor copy edits to improve the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replies to fowler

1) Agriculture: I have corrected the statement that you have an issue with. If you feel the English prose can be improved further, please provde me with a more suitable sentence and I can add it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2) Narasaraja Wodeyar, known for his valour, wrestling skills: I felt this was an interesting piece of info. If there is popular appeal to change this, I would be gald to replace that small para with the kings military exploits.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3)Crops:State factories were established in Kanakapura and Taramandelpeth for producing cannons and gunpowder respectively. The state held the monopoly in the production of essentials such as sugar, salt, iron, pepper, cardamom, betel nut, tobacco and sandalwood.. Some general info on this already exists , mixed with other types of production, and it pertains to Tipu's period. I can add some more information in a concise line or two sticking to crops only.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added two lines to Economy section.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4)Culture section, in particular, is full of such verbal dross. Unfortunately, I dont understand what verbal dross and fluff means, so I cant do anything there. You seem to have a fixed opinion about this FA and you need to shake it off. This FA is an "Overall summary FA of a kingdom" and each section is well in its place. Some other FA examples employing similar, though not exactly same scheme are Tang Dynasty, Ming Dynasty and Chola dynasty (and please dont ask me if this article is about a dynasty for I have already replied to it).Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

suggestions
1)Haider and Tippu needs to be mentioned in the infobox, it could be mentioned as under peak of power as the lead says and 2) {{Mysore Rulers Infobox}} is very ambiguous. It would have to be either removed or souvereignity of individual rulers clarified or the infobox title changed to Wodeyar Dynasty. Alternatively, the infobox can be devided into three sections before Hyder and Tippu and after (Under British). The infobox does not mention the ruler between 1868-1881. In effect, major rewriting needs to be done to eliminate the Wodeyar-centric sentiment of the article reflecting reality. Docku: What up? 19:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template has been fixed. King Krishnaraja Wodeyar III died in 1868. Rendition happened in 1881 when Chamaraja Wodeyar was crowned king in 1881. I dont believe a major re-write is necessary. This is a summary article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. My general remarks above were addressed to general readers of the FAR and later participants in the FARC. They were not specific suggestions to the primary authors for improvements. I have since clarified that in the remarks themselves. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions continued
Thanks for the change Dinesh. But, I notice you havent added Tippu and Haider in the main infobox. any reason? It is only appropriate to add their names since it is during their rule, the kingdom was at its peak power. {{Mysore Rulers Infobox}} certainly is less misleading now. But I have more suggestions
  1. Wouldnt it be appropriate also to mention that the chieftains were under Vijayanagara empire till around 1565 in {{Mysore Rulers Infobox}}. By the way, how did you arrive to the number 1565? Fowler's sources do not make it easier to determine the exact year. Is that the year when Srirangapatanam fortress was sold to Raja Wadiya? Well anyway, Imperial Gazetteer of India says VN empire fell on 1865 unless Mysore became independent earlier.
  2. Sanjay Subramaniam says "Mysore had come under the sovereign umbrella of the Mughals in the late 1690s" John Keay says "Although vulnerable to expansionist ambitions of the Deccan sultanates in the seventeenth century and of the Marathas in the eighteenth century, its relations with the Mughal empire had been inconspicuous. Exceptionally, therefore, it was not a legatee of Mughal authority. Unlike, say, Hyderabad or Awadh, it did not correspond to a Mughal province;" What is your and Fowler's opinion on this?
  3. In the {{Mysore Rulers Infobox}}, between years 1734-1796, the wodeyars seem to overlap with Haider and Tippu? What is their status during that time? Docku: What up? 01:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have put all my suggestions into this template User:Docku/MK using Dinesh's template. Please compare it with the left template with which we started this debate. I remember Fowler mentioned the kingdom was directly under the control of British for a period of time. Please incorporate that change as well and let me know any other concerns. Docku: What up? 05:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template on the right is inconsistant. Here is why. Haider Ali and Tipu never sat on the throne, per say. Haider himself coronated his puppet kings. I have tweaked the template to be consistant now. Only coronated kings should be in the non-colored areas of the template for consistancy. The template starts with kings of Vijayanagara feudatory, moves to independent kings, coronated kings under Haider/Tipu, coronated kings under British rule. We should give the reader a correct picture instead of blanking out useful info. We should also give them an opportunity to read the article and not just the template. Also, "Under British rule" says it all. No need to add another band for British commissioners, as they were servants of the British govt anyway.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding your question why Haider's control starts in 1761 and overlaps with a king who ruled upto to 1766, Haider was his army captain (some scholars say foot soldier) who rose to the rank of commander at that time. The king continued to sit on the throne untill his death in 1766. Hadier coronated the kings to follow.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sarvagnya

Content - Apart from the numbing pedantry, semantic pettifoggery and mischievous misrepresentation of facts on user:Fowler & fowler's part, I'd like to know if there is any specific, actionable instance in the article where the information is at odds with a given WP:RS source. If there are any such instances, I'd like to know.

Sources - Sources are only expected to abide by WP:RS - whether it is a FA or GA or stub. This is Wikipedia. We have our FA standards and nowhere in those standards is it required that editors should refer to every monograph and book or RS ever written on the subject. In fact, on summary articles, it is safest and a good practice to use standard histories and textbooks which are neither overly narrow in their focus nor overly broad and have stood the test of time. Recent theses and monographs which deal with the details can certainly be used to vet and build-upon/fill-in on the information gleaned from standard histories.

As far as I can see, User:F&f does not raise any specific instance where what the article says is at odds with what his sources (overly narrow or overly broad as many of them are in their focus) claim . If there are any such instances, let's cut to the chase and list out the exact sentences and let what's wrong with them be pointed out on the article's talk page instead of soap boxing endlessly and expecting people to read it.

Article title - Finally, just because the name of the article is "Kingdom of Mysore" does not mean that it has to deal solely with the period when it became a "Kingdom". Pretty much every kingdom in history has had humble beginnings and less than flattering ends and the Kingdom of Mysore is no exception.

The 'entity' which was ruled and 'entities' that ruled between 1399 and 1947 are historically contiguous and it makes perfect sense to have a WP:SS article about it. If it is felt that the article can be titled more aptly, then by all means bring it up on the talk page and build consensus for a move. There however, can be no question of muscling in changes to an article.. certainly not a Featured one.

Hype - I read and re-read the article and I find the claim that the Wodeyars are being hyped is baseless and unsubstantiated. While Haider and Tipu have a section dedicated to them, none of the Wodeyars are afforded any such treatment (including the ones who were the titular heads under Haider and Tipu) and are treated in summary style. Again, if there are specific, actionable instances of "hype", list them out and it can be worked upon.

Abuse of process - Finally, all these issues should be brought up succinctly and in dedicated sections on the talk page. Using FAR to discuss issues which ought to be discussed on the talk page and to try and muscle in changes for which there is no consensus on the talk page is disruptive and an abuse of process. Sarvagnya 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have infobox? Most dont have the time to read such heavily worded articles. Well, Look at template on the left and compare with the right. Anynone who is reading this conversation would agree that the left template is misleading, if anything. The question is whether it was just a mistake? Well, for the sake of assuming good faith, I would choose to do so. Now, you want to tell me that this change could have been possible in the article talk page when you, yourself asked Dinesh to deny Fowler. Here is you in your own words "Dinesh please WP:DENY. There's a reason there is a References section. Sarvagnya 01:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)]". Docku: What up? 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The infobox on the left is misleading? How? The only difference between the two infoboxes above is that the one on the right ostensibly provides some extra information to the reader which anyway has been explained at length in the article! It is, at best a simple editorial decision and has nothing whatsoever to do with 'hyping' Wodeyars, 'misleading' people or violating 1b, 1c or 1d. And pray, point me to where the issue of the infobox was brought up on the talk page.
I do not recall any instance where I asked for Dinesh or anybody to WP:DENY genuine and reasonable queries or requests for clarification or amendments. As far as I can see, there have been none such requested on the talk page. Instead, what we've had and had enough of on that talk page is a wanton conflation of issues, semantic obfuscation and trolling. Again, what are we doing discussing infoboxes here? Sarvagnya 00:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You dont think "incorrect" infobox is a big deal in wikipedia. You dont read the talk pages before jumping at others. See here, second sub-pointer in the third pointer. Let me just rephrase it, you asked Dinesh to deny Fowler for he raised those legitimate concerns. That is breach of fundamental wikipedia policy. Docku: What up? 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Dinesh I have some more concerns.
  1. You havent answered my question about adding Haider and Tippu in the first infobox and therefore, I am going to assume you dont mind and I am going to do it for you.
The reason I did not add Tipu and Haider to the infobax because it would be redundant. The band already says "Under Tipu and Haider" and that says it all.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relations between Mysore and the Moguls was "friendly" according to Kamath. The core territory of Mysore seems to have been uneffected by the Moguls. In fact, per Kamath, the Moguls developed friendly ties with the Mysore kings because they felt Mysore could act as a bulwark against the spread of Maratha power in the south. However, from Kamath and Meera Pranesh's books, the only controversy seems to be over Bangalore, an outlaying territory at that time. Palace records claim (per Meera Pranesh) that Chikka Devaraja Wodeyar defeated the Mogul commander Kasim Khan in the battle of Bangalore, where as Mogul records claim their victory at Bangalore in 1687. Either way, the Mysore flag was hoisted on July 10th 1687 at Bangalore (per Pranesh), by way of military victory or by way of a "lease". These political arrangements were common, just as in todays politics. In short, all this is not meant for the box.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead starts Kingdom of Mysore/State of Mysore (Kannada: ಮೈಸೂರು ಸಾಮ್ರಾಜ್ಯ) was both a kingdom (1399–1799 CE) and a princely state (1799–1947 CE) in southern India founded in 1399 by Yaduraya in the region of the modern city of Mysore. There is no mention of early feudal status in this particular sentence though it is mentioned in the following sentences. But I would recommend this sentence also changed since is the first sentence of the article and we certainly dont want it misleading.
I will copy edit the lead.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The religion of the kingdom is "Hinduism" according to the first infobox? What is your rationale? Obvioulsy, Tippu and Haidar were muslims and British were Christians. I find that ambiguous and not mentioning religion at all would be my choice. Docku: What up? 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The officially coronated kings were Hindu. None of the other "king makers", if I may use the term, Tipu/Haider or the British actually sat on the throne. This is why I called it Hindu.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the Mughal question. I am not convinced about the religion and would like to hear more opinion. That it had "Peak of Power" under Haider and Tippu is not redundancy and is certainly infobox-worthy. I have one more suggestion. Burton Stein says, "By the 1570s the chieftaincy had expanded to thirty-three villages protected by a force of 300 soldiers". This, I believe, is quite informative, you can consider including this as well. Docku: What up? 00:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have reservations about adding specific info like 30 villages/300 soldiers without being able to give readers any perspective what geographical area that may have covered, unless we can produce many sources claiming the same number. 30 villages in today's terms could be 30sq Kms (just a quess) but in 1565, it would have meant something entirely different, considering that India was 60-70% under forest cover, with populations and settlements much further dispersed. Let me look around and see what sources say was the actual command area in 1565.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are kind of details not all sources would necessarily cover. the book is a reliable source. Docku: What up? 01:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added Haider and Tippu in the main infobox and the status of chieftaincy during the fall of Vijayanagara empire. Docku: What up? 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An apology and a plea for inclusion

Dear FAR reader:

In the History, Economy, and Administration sections of this featured article, the college text-book, A Concise History of Karnataka from Pre-historic Times to the Present, by historian Suryanath U. Kamath, has been footnoted 45 times (counting repeats) out of a total of 57 footnotes (also counting repeats). Earlier, I been a little dismissive of the book and by implication of Dr. Kamath, who was a former Reader in History at Bangalore University, Karnataka, India. However, I now realize that my assessment might have been premature. Consequently, I would like to apologize to the FA's primary author user:Dineshkannambadi, and also take this opportunity to give the general FAR reader a flavor of Dr. Kamath's work.

  • First the book itself. In an earlier post, I had disparaged the the book's current publisher, Jupiter Books, Bangalore, as "little known." I had done so because searches for the publisher in both the Library of Congress On-line Catalog and the Copac Catalogue had turned up empty. I had become even more perturbed when I searched in IndCat: The Online Catalogue of Books in Indian Universities and couldn't find anything published by "Jupiter Books, Bangalore" in the libraries of Dr. Kamath's own Bangalore University (Select tab "Books" in IndCat, select Bangalore University in the menu on the left; select "publisher" in pop-up window, and search for "Jupiter Books, Bangalore.") However, I realize now that I had perhaps searched too narrowly. When I expanded the search to a unfettered Web Search for "Jupiter Books, Bangalore" AND "Wikipedia," I found 64,600 links for this publisher. In addition, user:Dineshkannambadi's other Wikipedia articles appeared there in good measure, and I offer him my compliments.
  • In a Google Scholar search in the topic "Mysore," out of a total of 7,490 scholarly publications in the Social Sciences and Humanities published between 1970 and 2008, Dr. S. U. Kamath has one publication. (The other Kamaths or Kamats are not him.) The article was published in the journal, Karnatak Historical Review, which was founded in 1931, and has been featured 5 times on Google Scholar.
  • Dr. Kamath is also known as the Chairman of the Editorial Committee of middle- and high-school text-books introduced in his home state of Karnataka in the late-1990s. The text-books garnered a review titled, Mis-oriented textbooks, in the magazine Frontline. Later, India's BJP-led government implemented some of the ideas in Karnataka's pioneering textbooks at an all-India level. Those textbooks in turn received wide international recognition, for example, in the review, titled, Hijacking India's History, in the New York Times.
  • In response to the Frontline coverage, Dr. Kamath wrote a letter to the magazine's editors titled, The Saraswati river, which provided scientific evidence for the Saraswati River and justification for the appellation, Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization. After the BJP's defeat in the 2004 Indian elections, the new government led by Oxford scholar Manmohan Singh changed all the text books, consequently, Indian high-school students are no longer learning about Dr. Kamath's "Saraswati river" in their maps (see page 2 of this online chapter). However, our own Wikipedia, has acknowledged these ideas in the lead of its page Indus Valley Civilization.

So, there is strong evidence that Dr. Kamath is a widely known historian, and I welcome user:Dineshkannambadi's use of Dr. Kamath's widely used Karnataka college textbook in this History FA, and again extend my apologies for my earlier rush to judgment.

However, I feel that this Featured Article might also benefit from the views of a few other historians who too have publications in international journals.

These scholars, some of whom appear in my list of scholars include:

Dr. Manor, for example, is the Emeka Anyaoku Professor of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, and VKRV Rao Endowment Professor at the Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, India. So that would strongly suggest that he is internationally known. In his paper, "Princely Mysore before the storm," Dr. Manor suggests that until 1761, the Wodeyars were "chieftains" who had only "claimed control over the southern and eastern parts" of Mysore.

Since user:Sarvagnya has so wisely stressed the word "actionable," I was wondering if we might not turn Dr. Manor's ideas into action and thereby make them actionable. In particular, I was wondering if in the infobox for the period 1565–1761, we—as the FAR community—might consider the changing the current title, "Independent Wodeyar Kings" (see here) to:

Independent Wodeyar Kings/Wodeyar Chieftains Claiming Control Over Southern and Eastern Parts of Mysore.

Although, it would be an addition of 12 words in a Featured Article straining under Summary Style, it might also be more inclusive of scholarly opinion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your suggestion is quite misleading and can't be accomodated. Your statement conveys to the reader that the territory included only "southern and eastern Mysore" throughout the independent rule. But this is not the case. That may have been the extent territory only in the beginning of independence. However all my sources and one of your favourite sources "Penumbral visions" by Sanjay Subramanyam clearly states that by 1720, Mysore Wodeyras controlled significant territory in Southern Deccan. More over the template is only a template, not an article by itself. Readers are meant to read the article and in fact should be encouraged to read the article.

quote: In the early 1720's the Wodeyar Kingdom of Mysore was made up of a substatial expanse of territory in the modern states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, even if it may appear somewhat poorly defined at the fringes... (p 62)

Many of these changes took place during the reign in Mysore of Chikka Devaraja Wodeyar (1674-1704), but this increasingly complex environment was turned by Mysore into its own favour so that further territorial gains were made : Salem to east, Hassan to the west, the rest of Coimbatore to the south, and Tumkur to the north. (p 68-69)

By 1700 then, The Mysore kingdom accounted for a fair sized territory in the heart of Southern India, expanding from the Western Ghats to the western boundaries of the coromandel plain. (p 69)

Quote from Kamath's book: Chikkadevaraya came to the throne in 1673. He was the greatest among the early rulers of Mysore and during his period the kingdom witnessed further expansion. He conquered Tumkur and Hoskote and descended the Eastern Ghats, major parts of Salem district. From the Keladi rulers he annexed Hassan, Banavara, Vastare and Chikamagalur (p 228)

For those unaware of South India's geography, Salem is in Tamil Nadu and is ~200 kms to the south-east of Mysore, and Chikamagalur is ~200 kms north-west of Mysore. Tumkur and Hoskote are ~150 kms to the north east and east of Mysore. So clearly, it was not a small path of territory in Mysore.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a content battle being fought on FARC?

[edit]

I must admit I'm confused about what's going on here. Is this a FAR or a content battle of some sort? If the latter, shouldn't there be an RFC or some sort of dispute resolution process going on rather than a featured article review? I'm afraid I'm neither knowledgeable enough to judge the historical or cultural accuracy of the content nor am I competent enough to judge the credibility of the sources, so I'm going to back off till I understand what this is all about. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 00:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. As I have explained to you on your talk page, the FAR is about violations of FA criteria 1 (b), 1 (c) and 1 (d). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from main FARC

[edit]
Comments by Dineshkannambadi

I have been watching this and am rather amused at the roller-coaster ride we are on here. One of the things that stands out in all this are Fowler's constant contradictions. Let me just list few of them:

  • Suryanath Kamath: According to Fowler's own admission in his unrefractored review commentary here [10], historian Suryanath Kamath is a widely known historian, despite the gentleman's probable controversial works on Aryan theory, Indus Valley civilization–though I am not sure what it has to do with this kingdom, which came to flourish some 3000 years after Indus Valley. Fowler did not have this issue in the first nomination of the FAR which was closed by Joel. It suddently sprang up in the second round (Dec 9th) after Mattisse made this ill-adviced comment about me on Dec 8th here [11]. But now, Fowler seems to be making an arguement on RegentParks talk page that Suryanath Kamath is actually a non-notable historian when he writes It is poorly cited: it cites two or three unremarkable sources, at least one of which is written by a historian with publicly stated Hindu nationalist sympathies [12]. Fowler really needs to prove what Kamath wrote about "Mysore Kingdom" is controvesial. Otherwise what we have here is WP:SYN. This is a summary style article. So, its amusing if someone expects a whole section devoted to Sir Mirza Ismail or Lord Cubbon, the British commissioner of Mysore.
  • The other interesting feature of this FAR, if one reads Fowlers comments right from the first nomination (Dec 5th) and his comments on the FA talk page, is his insistance that the Hindu Wodeyar rulers were worthy of nothing more than a passing reference in this article. Yet, Fowler himself authored the article History of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760 using numerous sources, focussing purely on political aspects, the contents directly pertaining to Mysore (sections-Shadow of the Mughals, Seventeenth century Mysore, Chikka Devaraja) being not too far off from the present contents in the history section of this article. Remember, here Fowler also focusses on states other than Mysore, so you may have to read through this. I am again confused. If the Wodeyars are unworthy of mention or have been over-focussed on, how come he took the trouble to write an entire article on an unworthy subject? Just to show us how to write?
  • In the unrefractored FAR commentary, Fowler claims the first nomination spiralled into a content dispute. But on RegentParks talk page, claims it is not a content dispute[13]. Fowler really needs to come clean what this is about.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comments by user:Dineshkannambadi
Dear user:Dineshkannambadi:
  • I was being sardonic in that "unrefactored" post you mention, a mode of expression that apparently was entirely missed by you (as I noticed in an earlier post of yours). For that reason, in the refactored version, I changed it to the bare unvarnished truth. If you read, My concerns, you will see that I have regarded your sources to be obscure from the start.
  • Furthermore, if you don't see the difference between History of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760 (which is still in development, needing more text for the period 1704 to 1760 and for Coorg) and Kingdom of Mysore, too bad for you. The first is a dynamic history that gives the reader a feel for how fragile the post-Vijayanagara polities were; the second is a static view that still, after being pushed for six weeks, is attempting to maximize the Wodeyars' contribution each opportunity it gets. The second is not even history; it is a hurried and badly paraphrased version of some sources. I have Subrahmanyam's paper right here and I can readily see what a hatchet job has been done in paraphrasing the first third. History is about perspective, not about picking a sentence here and a sentence there and stringing together a version of the family folklore we all, each of us, grow up with.
  • Finally, the first FAR had become a content dispute in the sense it had begun to focus, largely as a result of your long obscure answers (which drove me to post here on the talk page), on things which —as user:SandyGeorgia later observed—are best discussed on a talk page. The FAR has always been about violations of FA criteria 1 (b), (c), and (d). Let there be no confusion about that. Examining my posts on user talk pages for little nuggets and then playing "gotcha" here is not going to help. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were being sardonic? I though a FAR was meant to be a cordial atmosphere where users come together to improve an article, not to make hidden sardonic comments on sources and such. This is clearly bad attitude. Similarly, screaming Hindu nationalism, (a very catchy word, I must say) and hoping to get some mileage out of it is also not going to help. You have to prove it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't turn the tables so easily on me. I was unfailingly polite first on the article talk page. See my posts and compare them with your arrogant replies or no replies: Serious issues of inaccuracy and bias and One more attempt. I was unfailingly polite in [concerns and sources], where I explained that I was starting the FAR and in My concerns, which has always been my main criticism. I was unfailingly polite in the first FAR (see top of this page). Examine my posts and your replies! It was only after you started dumping blind searches from the internet (confusing T. K. Ravindran (a historian) with T. Kumari Ravindran (an agricultural economist)), that I made my post on the FAR talk page. And it was only after the sheer unintelligibility of the first FAR resulted in it being closed, that I finally resorted to some sardonic humor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Kingdom_of_Mysore/archive1&oldid=1088879166"