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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:30, 7 March 2009 [1].

Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore

Nominator(s): Dineshkannambadi ( talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the required criteria. It is well cited and has been copyedited by User:Michael Devore and User:Finetooth. It has been peerreviewd by User:Ruhrfisch, User:Taxman, user:Michael Devore, User:Kensplanet, user:Finetooth, and User:Redtigerxyz. The article covers an important period in the development of Kannada literature.

• Peer review of Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore

Some comments by the primary author seeking advice from constructive reviewers

I am the creator and primary author of the article. I began to expand the article around November 7 2008, and by December 16 2008, the article had expanded sufficiently to cover all the literary aspects I felt was necessary to give the reader the full picture of events. I changed the article's title to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE", which I felt was the appropriate name for the article, a title that did not impose any geographical limitations on the Kannada literature written in this period. However, claiming inconsistancy of the changed name (relative to other literature related FA articles I have written) and that the main article, Kingdom of Mysore was in a FAR (now closed with "keep"), User:Fowler&fowler (the nominator of the FAR), reverted my move, bringing the article's title back to what it is now: "Kananda literature in the Kingdom of Mysore". Fowler's comments are available on the archived PR page and the talk page of this article. Taking advice from two well established administrators, User:YellowAssessmentMonkey and User:Dank55, I decided to bring the issue here, to let the reviewers help choose the best title for this article in a constructive way. On the peer reivew, two well established users, User:Taxman and User:Ruhrfisch suggested a more flexible approach and a sort of compromise. The contents of the article are now balanced, giving the reader full info on the development of each literary genre. So, keeping the content together is vital from the point of view of balance and completeness. I am seeking constructive and helpful comments to resolve this simple issue. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 02:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. The article cited only few references, the article do not cite any information for any other more references.-- Johnlemartirao ( talk) 12:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I am sorry, but I dont understand your comment. If you mean to say 162 citations (with numerous clubbed citations from multiple sources) from some 20 sources are not good enough, then I must say your comment in inactionable. However, if you can point out where you want more citations, I can provide it gladly. Literature is one of those subjects where information after some point become repetitive and adding more and more sources to the article becomes meaningless. Regards, Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 12:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • The article cites roughly 20 sources. How is this too few? Nishkid64 _{( Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This opposer hasn't edited much and has only two other nomming contributions to the FAC process, one was completely unreferenced and closed about 0-7, and the other was deleted as a copyright violation so he doesn't seem up to speed with FAC. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not involved in this FAC on the merits of the article, but now I'm watching the FAC itself for off-topic discussion per SG's nudge. Information on the process of getting an article to FAC has been moved to the discussion page. More may be moved. Please focus on the merits of this article and what can be done to promote this article, or archive it until it can be nominated again. -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

F&f's Post 1

• Oppose Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Here are some comments.
  • Poorly written. See my two sets of remarks on the article talk page: F&f's critique of first paragraph in lead and F&f's critique of third paragraph in lead (selected at random)
  • Why is the Mysore Palace photograph relevant to an article that is about literature? The palace was built between 1897 and 1912, and its own page says nothing about literature. The lead paragraph in the KLKM article says, "The available writings date from around 1600 CE to the early 20th century." How was a palace that was completed in 1912 relevant to these "available writings?" It is especially irrelevant, when the primary author is attempting to change the name of the article to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE" and is inviting others to discuss that issue in this FAC.
    • PS Since I made this post here, the primary author has changed the caption of photograph (without informing us here) from "Mysore palace" to "Mysore palace, centre of the court and its literary circle." Who were the members of this literary circle that existed in the narrow window of time between the completion of the palace in 1912 and the end of the "early 20th century" in ... ? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I have tagged File:KRWIII.JPG (used in the article) for deletion. The image has no source information. No name of artist or when s/he lived or any documentation that the portrait is whose it is claimed to be, has been provided. (My own personal view is that it is not a painting at all, but rather an old colored-in photograph, which is likely not of KRWIII for reasons I won't go into here.) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

F&f's post 2

(Reply to user:DK's post below of 19:00, 22 February 2009) I'm afraid you keep changing your story about why the image is relevant. I have posted a response to your latest rationale in the article talk page section, Mysore palace image As for your response to my criticism of the article's prose (in the article talk page sections F&f's critique of first paragraph in lead and F&f's critique of third paragraph in lead (selected at random), I would like to suggest that you take it seriously if you are interested in improving this article, Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

F&f's Post 3

(Reply to user:DK's post of 22:16, 22 February 2009) Citations or no citations, how can a palace whose construction was begun in 1897 and completed in 1912 be home to a theater in 1881, and how can its image then be meaningful in the lead of an article whose scope doesn't extend beyond the "early 20th century?" Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

F&f's Post4

I have moved the post to the talk page subsection: F&f Post 4 from FAC. I note that I made a similar post in the peer-review, but user:DK never responded to it.

I note too that user:DK has not responded to my other posts on the article's talk page (which link to my posts 1 and 2 above). Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

F&f's post 5

I note again that user:DK had not responded to my posts on the prose and the logic in the first and third lead paragraphs (See article talk page sections F&f's critique of first paragraph in lead and F&f's critique of third paragraph in lead (selected at random)) which are linked to my posts 1 and 2 above. After having stated, "Regarding 'poorly written,' feel free to suggest prose improvements and I will incorporate it if necessary, considering every user has his/her own views," he has done nothing with my posts—neither incorporated any variant of them, nor given reasons for not doing so.

In addition, he has only obliquely responded to my post 4 above (by describing the entire post as "off-topic"). Since the Kingdom of Mysore lasted until 1947, there also seems to be inconsistency in the logic of his arguments: on the one hand he wants to keep the image of the Mysore palace (the latter was completed in 1912) on the grounds that the article's name has not yet been changed to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900;" on the other hand he is restricting the scope of the literature to the early 20th century, as if the change to the new name has already happened. Why shouldn't the scope of the literature be synchronous with the life of the kingdom, i.e. 1600 to the mid-20th century? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Fowler&fowler's post 6 (note for SandyGeorgia and Moni3)

I note that user:Dineshkannambadi has continued to not respond to my post 4 above, except obliquely by singling out one point in part 4 of that post and holding it up as "off-topic," but not explaining why it is off-topic. user:DK has stated in his introduction, "I am seeing ( sic) constructive and helpful comments to resolve this simple issue (i.e. of changing the page name to 'Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE')." However, after having stated that, he has repeatedly ignored my arguments. I have stated that 1600–1900 corresponds to no known periodization of Kannada literature. If user:DK would like to change the name of the article, he needs to answer that objection. I would like to request him again (this third time) to answer my objections in posts 4 and 5 above. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

F&f post 7

In the various points below, which I will keep adding as and when I find time, I will show that this article involves both synthesis of disparate material and undue weight given to topics that are typically not included in Kannada literature; in addition, the primary author has—over and over again—incorrectly paraphrased the secondary sources. (Later, I will say something about the sources themselves.)

1. Yakshagana Why is Yakshagana included in an article on Kannada literature? Yakshagana is a folk dance-drama. It is not included in any of the major sources on Kannada literature used in the article: for example, 1) Narasimhacharya's History of Kannada literature, 2) E. P. Rice's Kannada literature, 3) Shiva Prakash's "Medieval Kannada literature," 4) M. Narasimha Murthy's "Modern Kannada literature, or 5) D. R. Nagaraj's "Critical tensions in the history of Kannada literature."
   1. Added after user:DK's response. Four and a half sentence out of 85 pages (Narasimhacharya) and three sentences out of 127 pages (Rice) does not constitute significant mention, and what Narasimhacharya says is not very charitable (see below). Neither work includes "Yakshagana" in its index. How is that a recommendation for two sections in an article on Kannada literature? As for your sources, I'd like to see a modern survey of Kannada literature that describes Yakshagana as a significant literary movement of the period 1600–1947, one deserving its own section. (I'm sure there are some Google links that refer to Yakshagana as literary; however, that is hardly an argument agains WP:UNDUE) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Kannada-speaking region The point is not made anywhere that the Kingdom of Mysore, for all but 40 years between 1600 and 1947, was less than half of the entire Kannada speaking region in Southern India (what later became Karnataka). The map File:Anglo-Mysore War 4.png shown in the lead of the article, is not only out of context, but is also misleading. Between 1600 and 1760, the Kannada-speaking regions of the Kingdom of Mysore accounted for about a third of the entire Kannada-speaking region of Southern India, what later became Karnataka (see maps File:MysoreRegion1625b.jpg and File:SouthIndia1704SubrahCIA2001.jpg); after 1800, the Kingdom of Mysore accounted for about half the Kannada-speaking region. A more accurate map for the lead would be File:Mysore1617to1799b.jpg.
3. Evolution of Yakshagana The section Yakshagana theatre, which has two long paragraphs, mentions the birth of Yakshagana in South Kanara and North Kanara (as do most references on Yakshagana; see, for example, map from the book, Yakshagana). However, neither region was a part of the Kingdom of Mysore except very briefly from 1766 to 1792 under the Muslim Sultans of Mysore, Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan (during which no Yakshagana artist is described in the article anyway). Why are two paragraphs being devoted to Yakshagana's birth outside the Kingdom? Is there a single sentence in these two paragraphs—but especially the second—that is relevant to the title of the page: "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore" (with scope 1600–1947)? Why aren't these two paragraphs examples of both synthesis and undue stress?
   1. PS In his reply to the point above, user:Dineshkannambadi says, "You seem to have left out Shimoga district (Ikkeri, Keladi, Soraba and Nagara towns) as one of the places of evolution of Yakshagana in that very map. I am sure you are aware that Shimoga remained very much part of Kingdom of Mysore from 1799-1947. More over, North and South Kanara are very much needed for context, completion and well-roundedness of a FA. I did not read anywhere that Yakshagana went out of vogue during the period 1760-1799 when Haider Ali and Tipu (rulers of Mysore) captured the Kanara region." He once again misreads both my post and the book he quotes. The Shimoga district was not a part of the Kingdom of Mysore during the period 1600–1763 during which Yakshagana developed; how does it matter if it became a part of the Kingdom of Mysore during the years 1799–1947 ? We are talking about the evolution of the folk-art form in that section. The book, Yakshagana, says on pages 21–22, "... one of its feudatories, the Keladi Kingdom (1563–1763) during which the Yaksagana of Andhra and the Yaksagana of Karnataka State might have developed." Fine, for the "well-roundedness of an FA" you could include a sentence or two, but an entire section with two long paragraphs? If that's not undue stress, then I don't know what is.
4. Inaccurate paraphrasing The second section on Yakshagana, Proliferation of Yakshagana is another example of synthesis used for the creation of "padding," which in this case consists of two paragraphs, the second quite long. The third sentence states, "However literary developments progressed unhindered even within the royal family, with King Narasaraja Wodeyar II, Nanjaraja and Queen Cheluvambe making important contributions. ^{[1] [2] [3]}" What are these three references? Well, the first two are to the Bangalore University dissertation in Music (with no ISBN information), Musical Composers during Wodeyar Dynasty (1638–1947 A.D.) by M. Pranesh, and the third is to Narasimhacharya (published in 1934), p. 25 (please see). What does Narasimhacharya, in fact say about Yakshagana and the royal family on that page? Here he is: "These (i.e. Yakshaganas) are opera pieces or rude forms of dramatic presentation suited to rustic audiences. As a rule, they are characterised neither by dramatic skill nor by literary merit. The works are mostly based on some incident or other of that inexhaustible store-house of old stories, the Puranas, and are generally acted in villages to the immense joy of the masses. It is not to be understood that there were no other kinds of literature during this period, though the number of Jaina and Virasaiva authors of any merit is very small." Then Narasimhacharya mentions a lists of some 18th century works, among which is a work of the Queen of the Wodeyar court. How does all this translate into: "However literary developments progressed unhindered even within the royal family, ..."? This is what I mean by inaccurate paraphrasing (often involving drastically optimistic readings), all this when the three modern surveys of Kannada literature used in the article say nothing about Yakshagana.
   1. PS In his reply to the above post, user:Dineshkannambadi says, "Narasimhacharya's personal views on Yakshagana are not important. Wikipedia gives importance to majority views. There are no shortage of sources that discuss the importance of Yakshagana in the genre of South Indian theatrical literature. The fact that Sahitya Akademi, an organisation supported and recognised by the Govt of India, has provided several pages of information on this is proof enough." I'm afraid I don't understand. Narasimhacharya has been footnoted, 32 times in this article. Why do his views on Yakshagana only become "personal views?" The survey articles on "Medieval Kannada Literature" (1997) by H. H. Shiva Prakash (footnoted 20 times in the article) and on "Modern Kannada literature" (1992) by M. Narasimha Murthy (footnoted 26 times in the article) are both in collections published by India's National Academy of Letters (Sahitya Akademi). Neither mentions Yakshagana. The article, "Critical tensions in the History of Kannada literature" by D. R. Nagaraj, in the book, Literary cultures in history edited by Sheldon Pollock, and footnoted a dozen times, says nothing about Yakshagana. Why do we need "majority" references in this instance, when we didn't in all their other footnotes?
5. Sarvajna Why is Sarvajna included in an article on Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore? He was born in Northern Karnataka, which was very far away from the Kingdom of Mysore. See map File:SouthIndia1704SubrahCIA2001.jpg for how far this was in 1704; in Sarvagnya's time, the Kingdom of Mysore was smaller, so the distance was even farther. True, he was a wandering mendicant, but he was never identified with the Kingdom of Mysore in any way. His major influence has been in Norther Karnataka, which was not only far away from Mysore, but the movement he inspired was quite the opposite of the literature popular in the Kingdom of Mysore. Here is D. R. Nagaraj (footnoted 12 times, see above), "... a new brand of writer, in the class of Ratnakaravarni and Sarvajna—one that was unaffiliated with any established monastery—was wandering throughout north Karnataka writing a vital kind of lyric; ... (These writers) composed poetry, remarkable for its style, that served as a curtain raiser to modern Kannada poetry. The class of writers that produced poetry at and for the Mysore court, by contrast, was not only conventional in its literary tastes but also socially conservative. ... (This) privileged class that kept on producing old texts with more archaic themes and ancient tales was left behind in history; to the contemporary reader, at least, they look boring and dull. The centers of textual production in both the court and monasteries had lost their social energy." Moreover, the biography Sarvajna by K. B. Prabhu Prasad and published by Indian National Academy of Letters, regards Sarvajna to be a 16th century poet. With these sorts of uncertainties, how does Sarvajna become included in "Kannada literate in the Kingdom of Mysore?" This, I'm afraid, is quite blatant original research.
6. Sources. Two books, Musical Composers during Wodeyar Dynasty (1638–1947 A.D.) (a Bangalore University Music dissertation published locally in Bangalore, India, and without an ISBN information) and A concise history of Karnataka : from pre-historic times to the present also published locally in Bangalore and also without ISBN information (and written by a historian with publicly stated Hindu nationalist views) have been footnoted 37 times and 27 times respectively. Can user:DK point to any publication (in English) on Kannada literature that cites these books, (let alone cite them 37 and 25 times respectively)?
7. Reply to user:Ruhrfisch and the page name question I believe we have made some progress. user:Ruhrfisch (and I'm guessing user:Dineshkannambadi) are agreeing with me that this article is not about "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore." Yes, I did oppose the page name change, which took place in the middle of an FAR of the parent article Kingdom of Mysore. Here is the basic problem. You can choose to make the article about Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore or you can make it about Kannada literature in general. If you choose the former option, the literature will be limited by the spatial and temporal boundaries of the Kingdom; if you choose the latter option, you will be limited by the periodizations of the literature in the secondary sources. The problem is that there is no known periodization of Kannada literature that corresponds to 1600–1900. Scholars have unanimously regarded the end of the 18th century to be the end of late-medieval- or early-modern stage of Kannada literature, which means Modern Kannada literature begins around 1800. (See four sources here, including three published by India's National Academy of Letters which are liberally footnoted in this article.) This is in fact the convention adopted in the parent article Kannada literature and sister article Modern Kannada literature. If user:DK would like to change of the article to "Kannada literature, 1600–1800," I will have no objection (or call it late medieval/early-modern Kannada literature), but that's is a different article and a third of the present text will have to be removed. The problem with this article is that it was written to be "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore," but then towards the end of the writing (likely for many of the reasons I have given) was changed to another name, without significantly altering the content. Unfortunately, we are not free to do this at our own whim; we have to respect scholarly convention. user:Ruhrfisch's proposed title, "Kannada literature during the Kingdom of Mysore," has similar problems. For example, for the period, 1600–1760, why is the "Kingdom of Mysore" even important for Kannada literature? Mysore was a small principality which covered less than a third of the area of the Kannada-speaking region of southern India. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
   1. Reply to user:Dineshkannambadi's objections. This is far from the first time I have raised the issue of periodization. It was raised in this FAC on 24 February in my post 4 (above) and later moved to the talk page with link provided above. See link here. user:DK responded to post 4, with: "Sandy, could you please explain to Fowler that I am open and flexible regarding the name of the article. I am not willing to discuss about off topic issues such as Modern Kannada literature here." And that itself was not the first time the topic was raised in Wikipedia. It was raised in December 2008/January 2009 in the KingFAR. See here, for example. As for my views on what the title of the page should be, they have remained consistent and user:DK has again my misread my comments. When I said that the scope of the literature should be 1600 to 1947, I was addressing the scope within an article with title "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore" (for the reason that the Kingdom itself continued to exist until 1947). However, when I address the question of article title, I am not bound by any constraints; I choose the best name and scope for the article taking into account the consensus in the scholarly sources. According to this consensus late-medieval Kannada literature ends (and Modern Kannada literature begins) around 1800. To date, I have not seen a single survey article on Kannada literature that has scope 1600 to 1900. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Fowler&fowler's final assessment and recommendation

The article synthesizes disparate sources (especially, in its inclusion of Yakshagana and Sarvajna). It places undue emphasis on Yakshagana, giving it a primacy it has not hitherto enjoyed in all five existing surveys of Kannada literature (all of which have been liberally footnoted in the article except in the Yakshagana sections). The author—time and time again—inaccurately paraphrases the secondary sources. This remains a major problem. I have already given one example above, however, so confident do I feel about this that I am happy to undertake a similar exercise for any paragraph in the article chosen by any participant in the FAC. Some of the sources themselves remain a problem. The source which has been footnoted most often (37 times), Musical composers under the Wodeyar dynasty, is a Bangalore university Music Department dissertation, which was published locally in Bangalore, and has no ISBN information. To my knowledge, no scholarly article (written in English) on Kannada literature has cited this source. The article remains poorly written. My recommendation: Withdraw the article as an FAC. Re-write it as "Late-medieval Kannada literature" or "Early-modern Kannada literature" with scope 1600–1800, paying especial attention to sources used in scholarly writings about Kannada literature, to accurate paraphrasing of the sources, and to good writing. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

End of Fowler&fowler's posts

Replies by DK to F &f's post 1,2,3

• I have cited why the palace image is useful. It is the location of the royal archives, containing manuscripts and records about Mysore poets and composers under royal patronage, covering a period of over a century, their dates of appointments, their salary, promotions etc etc. I dont see any need to name poets.
• Regarding "poorly written", feel free to suggest prose improvements and I will incorporate it if necessary, considering every user has his/her own views. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 19:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• I have removed the image 'KRWIII.JPG' for now. Will add back if it remains undeleted. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 19:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Mysore palace image : Comment by Fowler - It is especially irrelevant, when the primary author is attempting to change the name of the article to "Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE". The name change is a suggestion I have put forward to reviewers, since Fowler reverted the article name to what it is today. Removing an image before the actual name change happens, is a hypotheical approach. If the name change seems to be popular among the reviewers, then we can revisit the issue. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

To Sandy Gerogia

Sandy, Fowler has deleted a piece of information I added (with citation from Kamath) calling it "false", that the Palace was the home of Kannada stage called Chandrasala since 1881. I dont want to revert this, but wanted you to know of this. Here is the full quote for your interest if you like: Quote:"Modern drama took shape with the founding of a stage called Chandrasala in the Mysore palace and organising the palace troupe in 1881". Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 22:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

DK's reply to F&f's post 4

Sandy, could you please explain to Fowler that I am open and flexible regarding the name of the article. I am not willing to discuss about off topic issues such as Modern Kannada literature here. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 23:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Ref comments -- Errors found with WP:REFTOOLS.

• Shiva Prakash (1997), p. 191 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
• Murthy (1992), p. 167 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
• Murthy (1992), p. 169 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
• Narasimhacharya (1988), p. 24 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
• Sahitya Akademi (1992), p. 3934 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
• Narasimhacharya (1988), p. 26 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
• Murthy (1992), p. 168 Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead-- TRU CO 22:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I guess I need to club citations calling upon a common referenced page. Will do . Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 23:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Done. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 01:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Reference formatting found up to speed.-- TRU CO 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I removed commentary from an anonymous IP for not addressing issues in the article. -- Moni3 ( talk) 02:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment from Moni3 on the direction of this FAC:

• I removed a comment about the above anonymous IP user and a peacock tag in the article. I'm going to distance myself from this FAC and make its goals very clear. I will remove any commentary that does not specifically address problems or merits of the article.
• Fowler&fowler and Dineshkannambadi, apparently there is some enmity between both of you that I was only vaguely aware of before jumping into this nomination. If neither of you are unable to see this article as an entity that is unrelated to your past interactions, then I advise you not to participate in this FAC. It can be archived until you are able to discuss the merits of the article unrelated to slights or misbehavior you have suffered in the past. Please do not use FAC as a battleground to score points or get back at each other.
• Fowler&fowler, I gather you have some experience in the topic. If you could please keep your comments strictly about the points in the article you think would be a detriment to an FA. Be specific, neutral, and please do not use hyperbole in your FAC commentary. Do not make comments about editors involved in the construction of this article, other reviewers, or make reference to issues outside of this FAC, please. I also ask that you keep all of your comments in one location in this nomination, as opposed to spreading them out among other reviewers' comments.
• Dineshkannambadi, your job here is to overcome objections from reviewers. I see the tag, which is a mis-tag and should be {{peacock term}}. It can be easily rectified by removing the "noted" from in front of the author's name. He is still an author and is inherently notable on the subject. It appears to be inevitable that you and Fowler&fowler will have some issues that may not be overcome. That does not mean that the article will not be promoted. If you come across an objection that you simply feel you are unable to be rectify, explain why please, for SandyGeorgia to read when she closes this nomination, in a simple statement that will read: SandyGeorgia, I am unable to overcome this objection because it is my experience that... Please base your comment on your experience researching the topic, not on Fowler&fowler's behavior. -- Moni3 ( talk) 14:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks Moni3. I am in the process of improving the wording for clarity, wherever "vague" tag was added. W.r.t the "sic" tag, which to me means the reviewer found some form of inaccuracy, I am trying to make it more accurate. If I find a tag that I feel is unjustified, I will mention it here. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I have gone through the list of "vague" and "sic" tags and made the content clearer and and more accurate. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 23:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Reply to F&F's post5

• Sentence 1: body of literature composed in the Kannada language- Says in what language the literature was written.

• Sentence 2: Available? Is that needed? - Removed available.

• Sentence 3: Many of the works of this literature are labeled Veerashaiva or Vaishnava (Fowler wrote-You make it sound that the faiths were charitable foundations). DK reply: I believe this was your input, not mine. Please see this [2]

• Sentence 4: clarified.

• Sentence 5: Secular themes dealing with a wide range of subjects were also written on. Fowler wrote: We were never told that V- and V- were sacred writings--Specified the Vaishnava and Veerashaiva writings were religious.

• Sentence 6:Organised Kannada literature flourished for a short while in the neighbouring kingdom of the Nayakas of Keladi--clarified it was written in the court and hence "organised". Improved wording. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 18:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Other comments by Fowler about Lead:

• Sentence 1:Not only were the court poets prolific writers-- Copied Fowler's example.

• Sentence 2: Wandering mendicant-poets wrote compositions meant for the country folk--Specified post-Vijayanagara period.

• Sentence 3:Sentence 3: "A wide range of metres, indigenous and Sanskritic--reduced list to just a few, to give the reader an idea about metrical forms. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 00:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Reply to later part of post5 regarding image and coverage of literature

• Please read the article before making oblique remarks about author intentions and such. The literature does cover upto 1949. No matter which title is eventually choosen, the period 1600-1947 is covered. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 00:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Reply to F &f's post 7

• Yakshagana has been touched upon briefly by both Narasimhacharya and Rice. Yakshagana is a folk theatrical literature combining poetry, dance, dialogue and costume, and I have included aleast 4 sources (including a Sahitya Akademi publication) which discusses it as such. I can point you to another dozen reliable sources but they are all available on google search anyway. I don't think there is a rule in wiki that every source book in the article should discuss every topic detailed in the article.
• I will replace the map Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 15:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• 1)There are no shortage of books that describe the importance of Yakshagana in the field of South Indian theatre. That is proof enough I think. example (Sahitya Akademi, vol 3):Quote":Yakshagana (Kannada) is a fascinating form of folk theatre now fostered in the coastal and hill tracts of Karnataka...."
• 3)You seem to have left out Shimoga district (Ikkeri, Keladi, Soraba and Nagara towns) as one of the places of evolution of Yakshagana in that very map. I am sure you are aware that Shimoga remained very much part of Kingdom of Mysore from 1799-1947. More over, North and South Kanara are very much needed for context, completion and well-roundedness of a FA. I did not read anywhere that Yakshagana went out of vogue during the period 1760-1799 when Haider Ali and Tipu (rulers of Mysore) captured the Kanara region. A Mysore king was a famous Yakshagana writer, Mysore was very much a hotbed of Yakshagana stage and troupes in the 18-19th century. Do I need to give more context that this? Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 00:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• 4)Narasimhacharya's personal views on Yakshagana are not important. Wikipedia gives importance to majority views. There are no shortage of sources that discuss the importance of Yakshagana in the genre of South Indian theatrical literature. The fact that Sahitya Akademi, an organisation supported and recognised by the Govt of India, has provided several pages of information on this is proof enough. I have rephrased that sentence you pointed out. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 00:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Fowler has it occured to you that these sources you are talking about may be focussing on "classical literature" only and not "folk literature". Any why should we limit ourselves to these sources. You mention that two of the sources whose work is published by Sahitya Akademi (Prabhu Prasad and Shiva Prakash) do not mention Yakshagana, but I have sourced other publications by Sahitya Akademi that dwell at length on Yakshagana. See vol 3 of "Encyclopaedia of Indian literature" I have referenced. Why should we limit ourselves to Narasimhacharya, Pollock and Shiva Prakash when it comes to Yakshagana.? Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 10:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• 5)Regarding Sarvajna: Fowler, you finally came to the point I had expected you to. Sarvajna is a drifter. Just every book, including Prabhu Prasad, Shiva Prakash and Naikar call him "poet of Karnataka". Not poet of North Karnataka or Poet of Dharwad. His impact is felt everywhere. Remember, you changed the name of the article which had no geographical limitations. Now you cant say "Gotcha". We come to wikipedia to build articles. Not "gotcha" the author and drown the article. If the article had been called Kannada literature, xyz, you could not have made this an issue. You changed the name of the article to what it was before my expansion of the article. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 10:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• 6)Fowler, you have been through this act of condemning my sources in other FAC's too without understanding what information those sources bring to the article. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 10:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

To Sandy

Fowler has moved my response to his post 6 to the talk page. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 15:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments by Ruhrfisch As noted I peer reviewed this and find that it has improved, but still has some places needing improvement. I am not an expert on India or any of its many cultures and their literatures. These are just points I found on a careful reading of the article that may need to be fixed (or may be my ignorance showing). Because of time constraints I will only comment on the Lead and Overview for now.

• Final comment - I have pointed out or corrected all the places needing attention that I could find. I have read and in some cases reviewed the other Kannada literature articles - the ones for a particular period are also organized by a particular kingdom or empire, so I think the title and scope covered here is fine. I also know Jainism experienced a general decline in this time period, so it seems reasonable to me to expect that were fewer notable Jain authors and works in this era. I hope my comments help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• I am leaning towards support, but want to reread the article and perhaps do some more copyedits first. However, I will have to wait until tomorrow to do that. I did look at the lead just now and have two comments. First, could the sentence The writings date from around 1600 CE to the mid-20th century. also talk about the kingdom, so perhaps The writings date from the Kingdom of Mysore, which existed from around 1600 CE to the establishment of modern India in 1947. I think it would tie the literature into the title better. Second, per WP:LEAD a lead is supposed to summarize an article and give an idea of the broad themes and trends in it, without too much detail. I found the four tags which are now in the first paragraph of the lead (ambiguous, vague (twice), and off topic) to be unnecessary and unhelpful. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Thanks to Laser brain for the copyedit (I did not do any more copyedits). I find the article is well written and nicely illustrated. There are many references and to my eye they appear to be used correctly and from reliable sources. I take Fowler&fowler's critiques seriously, but it also seems to me that at least part of the problem is different perceptions as to what should and should not be in the article. It seems to me that there are at least two ways to look at Kannada literature: time and space. When I peer reviewed this article, the title was soemthing like "Kannada literature from 1600-1900", which was only limited in time. Fowler&fowler was the loudest voice insisting the title be reverted to the current version. The problem is that doing so can be seem as limiting the scope of the article only to literature composed within the Kingdom (limited to space), which seems to be much of Fowler&fowler's criticism. I see the article as covering all literature written in Kannada, during the time of the Kingdom of Mysore (limited to the time period 1600 to 1947, limited in space only to southern India). If this is correct, it seems to render much of Fowler&fowler's critiques moot. I wonder if both Fowler&fowler Dineshkannambadi could please comment on this? If my understanding is correct, then perhaps if the title were something like "Kannada literature during the Kingdom of Mysore" this would be less contentious? If I have understood the article correctly and this title would be better, then there are other places where this emphasis could be made clearer / more explicit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with Ruhrfisch. Fowler's revert of the article's name is a primary problem here. Though not the author of the article, he reverted the name hence limiting the scope to Mysore only, when the intention of the author (myself) was never to limit the scope of the literature within any geographical constraints. This is why I brought up the issue in the nomination. I agree that the article's name should be moved to a more inclusive one. Wikipedia is about concensus and Fowler can't dictate the "title" and the "content". Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 10:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

DK Reply to Ruhrfisch

Thank you for your review. I will pay close attention to your comments starting tonight. regards Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 21:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Glad to help - these are pretty nitpicky, one reason why I stopped was so that if a problem can be fixed throughout the article (or if I did not understand something), then I do not have to mention it again in later sections, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Ongoing Corrections based on Ruhrfisch comments

• Removed Vachana since it was mentioned twice in lead. Replaced with Sanskritic Shatpadi metre.
• Removed Hadugabba (song-poem). This is an ancient native form. Nothing to do with Vachanas though some Vachana poets are known to have popularised singing the Vachanas (which are written as rythemic prose-poems).
• Seperated Gadya prose from list of metres.
• Clarified what is Veerashaivism and Vaishnavism
• Trimmed title of first section after lead per WP:HEAD
• Added suggested [which], corrected lit, to lit. Will find other examples and correct them. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 01:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Made composition styles all lower case for consistancy. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 02:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Wikilinked and corrected suggested word
• Wikilinked
• Added suggsted word
• Fixed image caption
• I normally use italics for metres, genres, other composition styles, names of Writings, Honorifics, Titles in vernacular. "Yakshagana Tenkutittu", "Yakshagana Badagatittu Bayalaata" and "Nagamandalam" dont come under any of these categories. They are local names. But I will make it italics any. I will keep Yakshagana as is without italics because it is a borad term like the English word "Stage".
• Specified poet names

Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 02:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Created inline note for inconsistant citation.
• Added missing word
• Reduced over usage of "poet" in two sentences
• Fixed sentence on Kaivalya literature
• Added missing "and"
• Fixed tense.

I have started to and will continue to read the article for similar errors and make necessary corrections. Thanks again. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 03:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Corrections based on Ruhrfisch comments on 17th century writings

• Corrected sentence per example
• Specified earliest available from Mysore period
• Ashwashastra, Hayasara Samucchaya and Brahmottra Kanda-- I will try to find more information on these works.
  • Corrected wording. Multiple sources concur that Chamarajokti was written by the king himself, but the the three mentioned above were written "during" his reign but does not say who wrote it and about what it was. I will remove it for now, if it is sticking out. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 20:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Added missing word
• Last paragraph of "Transition from Vijayanagara"--I have specified 17th century for works whose exact dates I don't have. Will look for them in more sources though. Same w.r.t brief information on content of writing. If the exact dates are not available, the patron king's ruling years would give the idea. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 19:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Actully the 30 verse poems is Chikkadevaraya binappa. Improved wording.
• Problem sentence--Improved sentence. Removed italics for Sanchi to reduce complexity, reworded for clarity. Please see if this reads okay.
• Added "king" few more times. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Provided citation. Modified to avoid speculation by source. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 20:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Improvements based on Ruhrfisch's comments dated March 1st

• Provided inline refs
• Simplified sentence regarding musical instruments
• Will look for a date of discovery at Chennai (in the sentence fourteen Yakshagana compositions)
• Corrected spelling
• Thank you for you comment on the decline of Jain literature and the title of the article. As I have mentioned earlier, I am flexible with the title, so long as the content of the article is "intact". Again, thank you for your decent and patient review. Whether this article becomes a FA or not, Kannada will remain a classical language, something the Govt of India has recognised on Nov 1, 2008. It's wealth and contribution to Indian culture can't be diminished by the success or failure of this article at FAC.Regards, Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 00:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• I have changed the sentence in the lead per your advice. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 02:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The article is biased in that there is a deliberate attempt in it to downplay the Jain literary heritage. "Despite a gradual decline in the popularity of Jainism, authors devoted to the faith produced some works of merit." This statement doesn't go well with the rest of the article which mentions many Jain writers as notable and the single author (Bhattakalanka Deva) most elaborated upon in the article is a Jain.

The intro itself is poorly written. "During an age of revival and innovation, some Mysore court poets brought back the classical champu (a composition in prose-verse) form of writing." When did this age happen? Throughout the period of several centuries which spans the scope of this article? It is vague. I have added a citation-needed tag in the intro, too. 59.91.253.126 ( talk) 03:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

To Sandy and Moni3

Sandy, The above IP appears to be that of a banned user I had mentioned earlier. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 14:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC) earlier. reply

Dineshkannambadi, I removed the previous IP comment because it was a vague generalization, barely civil, and not helpful. This is different, and I will allow it to stay. If you cannot overcome the IP's objection, state why so Sandy can take this into account when she closes the FAC. -- Moni3 ( talk) 14:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Reply to IP:No, the article is not biased. It is accepted widely that Jain writings in Kannada declined, a decline that began in the 13-14th century itself. Just claiming bias means nothing. True, I have mentioned some Jain writers, but the number of Veerashaiva and Vaishnava writers is far many more. However, if you can bring reliable citations from scholars to prove that Jain writers were equal in number to the other faiths, I would be glad to accomodate it. I have added a few citations, of which there is no shortage.
• The earlier period when champu form of writing dominated was 9th-12th century. Some champu's are available from 13th century also, but the decline is clear. Will provide more citations if necessary. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 15:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comments, leaning toward support. This is quite good, and I think it's close to ready. I don't see any evidence of bias and it appears quite neutral. I did find a lot of minor prose issues, most of which I fixed as I went along. Those I couldn't sort out (or didn't have time) are listed below. Great work - there is an impressive amount of research and writing represented here. I just have to note that I love the Sarvajna verse about the tongue living amongst the teeth.
  • Why are we placing tags in the text instead of commenting here? It is difficult to track feedback in two different places. I simply do not see any reason why these tags are warranted; they should be removed.
  • Normally citations are not required in the lead unless a statement is particularly controversial - why are they present?
  • You are not consistently writing "best-known" and "best known"; there are more of these than I care to look for and fix. Choose one.
  • You aren't consistent with serial commas in lists. I fixed what I saw but please check throughout.
  • "This literature saw a revival in the 18th and 19th centuries." Please revise this... living things "see", literature doesn't.
  • "The work differs from the original in that the god Krishna and his Gopikas' are the protagonists of the play instead of Krishna and his consort Radha." I couldn't sort out why there is an apostrophe after "Gopikas". That's plural, not possessive.
  • When I saw them, I removed the word "town" written after city names. This doesn't seem to be an English-language standard, but please correct me if there is a good reason.
  • "The first half of the 18th century saw Mysore's independence delicately balanced ..." Same comment about "saw" as above.

-- Laser brain (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I will look into your concerns carefully today and address them. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 12:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Response to Laser Brain

• I have removed the tags based on comments by Ruhrfisch and yourself.
• Regarding the citations in the lead, this came about in earlier FAC's on literature articles, where the reviewers requested it. So I have just continued the habit here. I am not sure how to proceed on this. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 00:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Took care of a few more best-known and well-known types issues. Will continue to be on the look out. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 00:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Removed "saw", made it "literature was revived".
• Removed apostrophe in Gopikas.
• The use of "town" after the name is a habit that came from other articles where reviewers insisted on it. I will remove it in this article. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 01:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• removed several occurances of the word "town" after town name. More later Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 01:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Removed re-occuring "saw". Reworded. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 01:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• That Sarvajna poem is my favourite one too. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 01:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose. Sorry, this important article needs to be written to high standards because (i) it's an FAC, and (ii) it's on a literary topic. Nothing less than fine writing is required to do justice to Kannada literature.

• Opening repetitions and winding pathway: "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore is a body of literature composed in the Kannada language, a Dravidian language spoken in the historical Kingdom of Mysore in Southern India and written in the Kannada script." Literature/literature/language/language/written/script. Phew. Rather than circular statements (literature is literature) and redundancies ("composed", "the" and "language"), rationalise it and rob something from the subsequent sentences (time-range?). It's a very unengaging opening for what should be a fascinating topic. "of merit" is POV in this context; anyway, it's damning with faint praise. Leave the judgements until we read about it in greater detail below.
• "Secular themes dealing with a wide range of subjects were also written on." Clunky sentence, in which there's not much content for the number of words. Ouch.
• Comma after "Keladi", which is not a person, so "whose" is better avoided.

This needs the attention of copy-editors; it's not an easy task, since just about every sentence needs fixing throughout. Do you know how to find the right assistance? I suggest you "WRR" (withdraw, re-edit and resubmit, probably as a plainer-sailing FAC. Tony (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks Tony. I will try my best to have it copy edited. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 12:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

To all reviewers regarding earlier expansion of article

Fowlers claim that the article's name was changed without much addition to the article is false. The expansion began on Nov 7th 2008. On Dec 16th, after significant expansion I changed the name of the article, by which time, the article had virtually doubled in content and citations. Please see the edit summary when I moved the title . [3]. Also, I dont see why the title should cover the period 1600-1800 only, requiring a third of the article to be removed, when Fowler himself had voiced "why not 1600-20th century" multiple times in this FAC. Please see F &f's posts 4 [4]and 5. Why the switch? The intent is to protect well cited content and bring the info to the people. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 12:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid that description does match the record. On the 13th of December 2008, user:DK was "pondering" changing the name of the article and left this post on user:Michael Devore's talk page, (See talk page post of 13 December, 2008) which began with: "I have been pondering over changing the name of the article to something that is more inclusive of a new section I want to introduce. This new section will deal with poetry written in the Northern Karnataka region, outside the Mysore kingdom, for completeness. But so keep in mind that most of the literary production that is documented and available today is from the Mysore court." Until then, no indication was given anywhere that a page name change was anticipated. The above post, moreover, was made several days after the Kingdom of Mysore FAR (involving KLKM article's parent article) had begun, but only three days before the page name was changed (for which the usual Wikipedia protocols for controversial page moves were not observed). I have replied to user:DK's other points in my post 7 above. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I am afraid it does not. Am I supposed to tell everyone on wiki what I have been pondering over, from when and how long?. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 23:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Some observations on F &f's post7.7

I would like to point out a contradition in Fowler's statement. Fowler wrote:For example, for the period, 1600–1760, why is the "Kingdom of Mysore" even important for Kannada literature? Mysore was a small principality which covered less than a third of the area of the Kannada-speaking region of southern India.

• All along, Fowler insisted that the title of the article should be "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore". But now Mysore has become a small principality between 1600-1760 whose contribution to Kannada literature is being questioned. How does the area of Mysore matter to literature?. And just above, in the same paragraph, Fowler wrote If user:DK would like to change of the article to "Kannada literature, 1600–1800," I will have no objection (or call it late medieval/early-modern Kannada literature), but that's is a different article and a third of the present text will have to be removed. These are contradictions within contradictions. Let me quote Fowler's favourite author D.R. Nagaraj (page 377) whom he has quoted above with regards to Yakshagana:
• Quote:"At least two courts have been mentioned earlier, Keladi (1500-1763) and Mysore (1610-1947)—had organised around themselves a cultural intelligentsia capable of writing on diverse subjects". I can provide another 20 quotes easily why Mysore is important. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 13:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Comments by Regent Spark

My main concern with the article is the excessive number of references. I know that sounds odd, but, when I see an article where almost every sentence is referenced, I have to wonder about the degree of synthesis or original research. However, without reading the citations, I'm not sure I can confidently state that the article is a reasonably accurate representation of what is known about Kannada Literature (in or out of the Kingdom of Mysore) or whether this is a view about that subject that is available only on wikipedia so I'll point out a few obvious examples of this synthesis (perhaps the principal author can fix them), but will leave it to others to decide whether the text is encyclopedic or interesting but original research.

1. Overview. First para. The article states that Kannada literature was influenced by three important socio-religious developments and cites two different texts as support for the three developments leading me to conclude that the three influences are conclusions drawn by the editor rather than by scholars. If there are three important influences, there should be one clear reference that says that this is so.
2. Genres. In many cases, it is not clear whether the literature genres are generally accepted ones or whether they are the editor's own groupings. For example, the sections entitled "Court and monastic literature' and 'Folk and didactic literature' do not explicitly reference an established scholarly work that identifies these as historical genres. For an example of what would be ideal, the sub-section Haridasa literature starts with a clear definition of the genre that is properly referenced.
3. Golden age. The section entitled Golden age makes no reference to any scholar who identifies it as being a golden age. Ideally, the first sentence of the section should read "the period blah-blah has been identified as the golden age for Kannada literature.{cite1, cite 2, cite3}" (BTW, a minor point, but there seem to be two golden ages - one in the 17th/18th centuries, and another in the mid-20th century - see the last para of the article.) (Or, do you mean golden age of the kingdom?)
4. I'm a little stuck for time these days and can't actually look up the references, but the one that I did has been (mildly) mis-characterized. Para 2 of the article states: During an age of revival and innovation, some Mysore court poets brought back the classical champu (a composition in prose-verse), a form of writing that had prevailed in Kannada prior to 13th century. However, the quoted reference (Shipley) identifies this period only as an 'age of revival' (no mention of innovation), mentions this period only briefly and uses the words efforts were made to revive (Campu) without actually saying if these efforts were more or less successful.

(I'll try and add more constructive comments later.-- Regent Spark ( crackle and burn) 20:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)) reply

Other comments

1. Main article link to Kannada literature in 'prior to 16th century section. 'main article' should be used if the subject of the section is also the subject of another, more detailed, article. In this case, Kannada lit. is much broader. (Perhaps the intention was to place the link under overview?)
2. I'm not sure what 'contemporary developments' refers to. Contemporary to what? The way I read it, the entire text under contemporary developments provides an overview of the different historical genres of Kannada lit. and covers the entire period that the article covers. In that case, the section title is misleading.
3. Under 'Court and monastic lit.' the section starts with a reference to the center of Kannada lit moving away from the Vijayanagar empire to the kingdoms. However, there is no prior reference to this. Typically, you want the article to summarize the state of the lit. in the period before the article, describe in detail the state of the lit. during the period of interest, and summarize what went on in the period after. However, you do want connected themes. Perhaps the prior to 16th century section should include a brief description of Kannada lit in the Vijayanagar empire.
4. Where you say "The Mysore court became the inheritor of the Vijayanagara literary legacy", do you mean inheritor of the Kannada literary legacy or all lit. leg. (incl., Sanskrit, Tamil, etc.)?
5. Belonged to the 'Pampa' tradition... You should (briefly) tell the reader what this tradition is.

-- Regent Spark ( crackle and burn) 22:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Regent Spark's responses to Dineshkannambadi's replies

1. Meaning of literature genres are generally accepted and do not explicitly reference an established scholarly work. This is fairly straightforward. When writing an encyclopedia article, care must be taken that the editor does not 'create knowledge' but faithfully reports what others have created. If the editor identifies a group of literary works as belonging to 'court and monastic literature' then that grouping should have been done by an established scholar in the field elsewhere first. Thus, for the article to be encyclopedic, the grouping must be anchored with a reference to the established scholarly work that groups the works that way. If no established scholarly work has grouped the works that way, then we should not do so on wikipedia.
2. Golden age. From your response, I'm afraid this sounds like WP:OR to me. What you're saying is that you've collected information from 9 distinct works to describe a period of work that you've identified as important and, because no scholar has given the same importance to that period, you have to come up with a name for it on your own. Such naming is best left to scholarly work that can be peer reviewed. If a single clear reference exists, you should summarize its contents and not have to resort to using 22 citations from 9 works to describe the period and then have to come up with a name. A good rule of thumb is 'do not use a term that has not been used elsewhere'.
3. Thanks for fixing the main article, contemporary definition, and vijayanagar reference. All make for better reading. I'll try to reread Shipley tomorrow and see what the appropriate wording should be but, in general, it is better not to put loaded words in the mouths of the referred work and innovation is a loaded word.

-- Regent Spark ( crackle and burn) 03:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I will answer your questions and concerns tonight. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 21:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Replies to RegensPark concerns

I would like to thank you for dropping in with your concerns.

• 1)Quote:"Kannada poets may be roughly classified as Jains, Virashaivas and Brahmanas. There are also authors of other sects, but their number is comparatively small. The earliest cultivators of the language for literary purposes were the Jains and down to the 12th century, we have with very few exceptions, only Jain authors. For about three centuries after that period, we have along with them a few Brahmana writers and a pretty large number of Virashaiva authors, and from about the 15th century date numerous brahminical writers and Virashaiva works. There are, however during these later periods, some compositions by Jains, but most of the literature of later times originated from other sects." (Narasimhacharya p. 17).

Some scholars (like E.P. Rice, p 15–16) use Vaishnava in place of Brahamanas. Brahmin is a Hindu caste, they follow the Vaishanva faith. The other citation I have provided, from Shiva Prakash, goes into more detail specifically on Virashaiva (also spelt Veerashaiva) and Vaishanva writings. Sometimes I give multiple citations to provide more information to the interesed reader. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• 2)Genres: Here, in the two sections you mention, "court and monastic" and "Folk and didactic" literature, there are three genres discussed, broadly speaking: Vaishnava, Veerashaiva and Yakshagana. I have referenced eight sources in all, in these two sections. It would help me to better answer your question if you can clarify what you mean by literature genres are generally accepted ones and do not explicitly reference an established scholarly work. Are you suggesting the genres (one or more) are not historically important, or that the historically important genres are not properly studied, or the referenced scholars are not scholarly enough. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 00:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• 3)Golden age:Quote:"A remarkable development of literature took place in the latter part of the century during the rule of Chikkadevaraja Odeyar (1672-1704), one of the most distinguished kings of Mysore"..... (Narasimhacharya p.23). Odeyar is an alternate spelling for Wodeyar. Quote:"He was a great patron of poets and scholars.....It was a period of great literary activity in Kannada." (with reference to Chikkadevaraja Wodeyar's reign, Kamath, p. 230);Quote:"Chika Deva Raya's reign (1672-1704) calls for special mention in Kanarese literature." (E.P. Rice, pp. 89-90). I felt titling a section "Remarkable age" or "Great age" or "Special age" would be awkward. So I called it "Golden age". Do you want me to change "Golden age" to something else?. I can go on providing references, ofcourse, but then it could be considered synthesis. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 23:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• 4)Actually, the innovation part was explained later in 17th century and 18th century sections. I have now added the innovative part to the lead which Shipley describes in the very next sentence. He uses the word "initiated" and I felt it would awkward to say "in a period of revival and initiation". Regarding efforts were made to revive (Campu), he also says "Sadaksari is a Virashaiva poet with extraordinary fancy, and a mastery over classical Kannada". Champu (or Campu) writings fall under "classical Kannada". Sadaksari's (or Shadaksharadeva) three champu classics have been described in 17th century section. I did not write "revivied to the height of glory", just that it was "revivied" during that period. If I had written "attempted to revive", a reviewer may have asked me "did the Mysore poets try to revive and give up half way". Regarding mentions this period only briefly , Shipley describes the whole of 1500 years of Kannada literature (including earliest metrical passages from 500 CE) in 3 1/2 pages. The fact that the period of revivial is even mentioned, goes to show its importance. If you dont like the word "innovation", please give me an alternate word and I will gladly accomodate it. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 01:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• I will answer your other concerns later. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 01:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Other responses to RegentsPark

• Corrected loc of main article
• Changed contemporary to 17th century
• Gave context to Vijayanagara empire
• Gave context to Vijayanagara empire in 16th century section
• The Pampa tradition is actually explained when I wrote classical. I will add one more word to it for clarity. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I will be responding to concerns twice a day (morn/night) and try to clean up issues the best I can. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Apropos of Regent Spark's post, I have now created a subpage, Accuracy of sourcing in Kannada literature in KM FAC, where I have collated what I believe is definitive evidence both of the inaccuracy of paraphrasing in the article and of synthesis. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose, 1c. I did list some prose issue above and have found more since, but after carefully reviewing Fowler&fowler's points, I have grave concerns about the sourcing. I am particularly troubled by the heavy use of Pranesh, a locally-published dissertation I can't access and whose authority is highly questionable. Since this paper is seemingly not published in any peer-reviewed academic journals, we have no way of knowing its reliability or even its content. I'll need to see examples (that I can verify through a scholarly database) that reliable, academic sources consider Pranesh to be authoritative. -- Laser brain (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Lean oppose - the structure is causing me a concern. There are many headings immediately followed by subheadings. Level 5 subheadings? You have left hand images under many of these subheadings which goes against WP:ACCESS. Then your types of charts vary in a large way, which causes a lack of formatting unity. I think you need to unify sections more instead of having a lot of tiny subsections. There are some other problems, as with those mentioned above. Ottava Rima ( talk) 17:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC) reply

SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.