Talk:Krishnadevaraya

Krishnadevaraya’s Origin

There has been an ongoing edit war w.r.t Krishna Devaraya’s origin. The source D.N Yogeeswarappa [1] pushing for the Bunt origin is an unpublished minor research project and not a high quality one. Reputed historians like K.A.N Sastri and Sheldon Pollock have only stated that Krishnadevaraya is a Tuluva, and haven’t mentioned his caste. Request the admins to remove edits pushing for a Bunt origin without a reliable source. Bitterpill99 (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I’ve added the reference and citation for the possible Bunt caste origin [[2]] The reference is M. H Rama Sharma. According to historian M. H Rāma Sharma, he could possibly belong to the Bunt caste. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Bitterpill99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly vandalising the page and removing multiple sourced content to push P.O.V and hence being issued the first warning. Crowned467 (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Crowned467, I have looked at your edit here [3]. Among your ‘multiple’ sources 2 are the same source M. H Sharma (Reference number 2 and 10). Reference number 3 doesn’t yield any results for the word “Bunt” or “Bant”. And reference number 10 is again Yogeshwarappa who’s work is unpublished, and worst of all, you’ve not provided page numbers or citations for any of your references, please provide references in the Wikipedia proper format.

In this edit it is clearly mentioned that Krishnadevaraya could have a possible Bunt origin. [4]. I don’t see why you’re reverting that.

I’m reverting the edit now. If you vandalise it one more time, I’ll have to involve the admins. Bitterpill99 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Bitterpill99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) yes kindly involve the admins, it had been accepted by the admins in the past as well,and now i have added one more source from a book published in 1910, This is a strong testimony to his origin and hence for repeatedly removing sourced content you are being issued the second warning. Crowned467 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Another admin here had quoted the page no. 101 accurately. Crowned467 (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

User Crowned467 is being dense he is providing the page number of one source MH Sharma [5] which was already added in the last best version [6]. He’s trying to POV push for the bunt caste when the historian

M.H Sharma  has clearly stated that Bunt is a ‘possible’ origin.  

Bitterpill99 (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Please don't make requests with personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Neither is M. H. Rama a reputed historian nor is Popular Prakashan a reputed academic press. The lone review is damning. I have removed the line since WP:DUE has not been met. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Grammatical Errors and Lack of Citation for "Tamil literature"

Under "Art and Literature", and under "Tamil Literature" specifically, the grammar is incorrect and quite difficult to understand. It also lacks citation for some claims. When I read that, I could barely understand what it was meant to say. Æternus Caryopium (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I too agree that there are grammatical mistakes, which makes interpretation of the text in the "Tamil literature" section very difficult.

For instance, it says:

"But in his rule, In Tamil also Tuluva people there were originally born. But that's not from Telugu or Kannada. He was a biggest and deepest patriotic emotions in Tamil language."

This does NOT make sense, with the addition of grammatical errors.

Also, the section of the page includes a CONTROVERSIAL statement WITHOUT any citations. It states:

"Tamil is also considered as a very oldest language from all the other languages in India."

There is controversy about whether the oldest language in India is Tamil or Sanskrit.

I believe that this sentence must be omitted, because Wikipedia is a NEUTRAL encyclopædic website, and so, controversial topics must be avoided as far as possible.

I do not have permission to edit the page, so I kindly request the concerned sysops or authorities to rectify the errors which have been pointed out by me and by Æternus.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Felixdor (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2023

As proposed by Æternus Caryopium on 1 September 2023, and myself on 15 September 2023, changes need to be made to the "Tamil literature" section of "Krishnadevaraya".

Please change:

Krishnadevaraya patronised the Tamil poet Haridasa, and Tamil literature soon began to flourish as the years passed by. After his rule the languages get separated. Before it's called as Chennai pattanam where all the languages were lived and officially separated as different state as such as Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu and Kannada. But in his rule, In Tamil also Tuluva people there were originally born. But that's not from Telugu or Kannada. Tamil is also considered as a very oldest language from all the other languages in India. He was a biggest and deepest patriotic emotions in Tamil language.

to:

Krishnadevareya was not a Tamil speaker. However, he patronised a number of Tamil scholars, who made a lot of contributions to Tamil literature. Krishnadevaraya patronized a Tamil poet named Harihara, who is referred to as Haridāsa in the famous Severappoondi Krishnadevaraya Inscription. Harihara was a great poet and composed a number of works including the "Irusamaya Vilakkam" ("An Exposition on Shaivism and Vaishnavism"). The Tamil language, thus, flourished under Krishnadevaraya's rule.

Krishnadevaraya's successors continued the tradition of patronizing Tamil scholars, such as Aruṇagirināthar, Svarūpānanda Dēśika, Tattuvarāya, Jñānaprakāśar, Śivācāryar and the Iraṭṭaippulavar twins (Ilañjūriyar and his twin brother). Some of these poets, including Aruṇagirināthar, belonged to a group of Sanskrit poets called the Ḍiṇḍima kavis or Ḍiṇḍima poets. These poets contributed to the bulk of Tamil literature composed during the Vijayanagara Empire.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Felixdor (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The page ranges from the requested text include no less than 55 pages. Surely the requesting editor does not expect the reviewer to read 55 pages of text in order to verify these claims.  Spintendo  23:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, Spintendo, I shall remove the first two references from the original request, and then I will renew my request.

Thank you for informing me about the same.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Felixdor (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The current source only supports the very last sentence. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound a bit rude but there are some things to be made clear here. I do not wish to make any personal attacks, but looks like I am forced to do so.

@Spintendo Please check the Tamil literature section of the page. The reference given there verbatim is:

Dr. S.U. Kamat, Concise history of Karnataka, pp. 157–189, History of South India, pp. 331–354, Prof. K.A.N. Sastri

If you notice, the number of pages in the given reference is 55. So, the already existing reference has 55 pages and this is part of the page.

The reference as it is now was added on 20 October 2006 at 18:00 UTC by Dineshkannambadi. Before this, the reference cited 32 pages, which was added by the same user on 13 October 2006 at 02:01 UTC.

From 2006 to 2023, the reference had 55 pages, and nobody bothered to change it for 17 years. Now we have even stepped into 2024.

I suppose Felixdor might have taken their references from this itself, based on the number of pages.

You are pointing out this fault of the requesting editor, as though it is their mistake.

I agree it was wrong of Felixdor to have taken an already existing reference without verifying, if they did so, but you too must read the page.

As a Master Editor, who has been on Wikipedia for nearly 17 years, please understand that you need to read the section which is linked, before making sharp comments.

The reference has been on Wikipedia for as long as you have, so you might have as well changed it at some point of time.

Also, the section was vandalised by DSLallu on 27 and 28 May 2023. The vandalised part was pointed out by Felixdor on 15 September 2023, as mentioned in his request.

@ARandomName123 It seems that a part of the the request by Felixdor was taken from the section Tamil from the page Vijayanagara literature. If you refuse to add the content due to lack of reliable sources, then please remove the content from the section I just mentioned.

Also please remove the vandalised part, or, if appropriate, the whole section itself. Because, it seems that the section makes no sense whatsoever. The only thing that seems to make a little sense is Felixdor's request, so, if you disapprove of that, please remove the Tamil literature section itself, rather than getting into further conflict.

The comment of Spintendo applies to @Dineshkannambadi.

Also a warning must be issued to @DSLallu to not vandalise pages.

I am surprised how this vandalism, which was carried out in May last year, went out of the notice of many admins, even when the page was protected.

Had one of my friends not pointed out the existing reference, this injustice would have continued.

I hope this is not repeated in such a prestigious site as Wikipedia.

Please do not take my criticism as a personal affront.

Hoping all goes good, 122.172.86.213 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the additions by @DSLallu due to lack of sourcing. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much ARandomName123, for rectifying the errors which had been pointed out on 1st and 15th September 2023 by myself and Æternus Caryopium.

I also thank 122.172.86.213, for supporting me.

It is good that the vandalism done by DSLallu has been reverted after 7 months, within 3½ to 4 months of rectification alerts and 6 days of semi-protected edit requests from users.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

 Felixdor  (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh god I just brought that to notice and proceeded to do absolutely nothing, thank you @Felixdor for actually doing something and @ARandomName123 for changing it! Regards, Æternus. (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2024

citation for Kannada as court language in Art and Literature, which was removed Sathyashraya (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done --Ferien (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)