Talk:Vijayanagara

Lakshmi Narasinha Statue

I have added information that is based on an Archeological department signboard outside the statue.59.92.135.153 (User Prksh1) 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Underground Shiva Temple

I have added information that is based on an Archeological department signboard outside the temple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prksh1 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 59.92.135.153 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"georef added"...

I've put in a link to the GoogleEarth location of Vijayanagara: very tough finding the place on any map, even for folks familiar with the history -- this link connects directly to the map, moreover, if the software is installed locally, whereas other georef links connect to confusing "explanatory pages" or get messed up in user security software and downloading problems.

The GoogleEarth software now is a free download to any user, Apple/Mac or Wintel -- from earth.google.com -- so I personally believe it's the most politically-correct GIS to use for this purpose, at the moment anyway. It's also wildly-exciting, to be able to hop around southern India virtually-visiting all the "sights", online...

--Kessler 16:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Putting the Telugu Script

I understand that Vijaynagar is situated in modern Karnataka. However, akin to the Krishnadevaraya article, the Telugu script for Vijaynagar should be put after the Kannada one in the introduction.

No, the place is in Karnataka, so the language should be limited to the one language of the region. Otherwise we could go on forever including every relevant language - e.g. Persian/Hindustani/Urdu, since Muslims probably speaking one of these languages conquered it at at least one time. For the Vijayanagara Empire article however (and to figures such as Krishnadevaraya), both Kannada and Telugu are appropriate. Imc 14:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I support adding Telugu since Kannada and Telugu were two major administrative languages. Tamil and the rest were administered mostly by feudatories.

~rAGU (talk)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vijayanagar or Vijayanagara

Sources use those two names pell-mell. What's the correct one and the most common spelling? The same goes for the Vijayanagara Empire. --Wester (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Vijayanagara

Vijayanagara city was the largest in the world. It was also the wealthiest in the world. Wikipedia is the most pathetic excuse for an encyclopedia that I have ever come across. When such mind boggling nonsense ends up on an "encyclopedia", it makes me wonder if humans are devolving! Unbelievable. Realfacts123 (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

According to the cited source, Urban World History: An Economic and Geographical Perspective, "Around 1500, the city of Vijaynaagar, whose name means the 'city of victory' had about 500, 000 inhabitants, and it was probably the second largest city of the world after Peking-Beijing." If you have another, or better, source that says otherwise, we can discuss it here. Barring that please do not change cited facts and introduce factual errors in wikipedia articles. 12:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140227041506/http://www.penn.museum/sites/VRP/index.shtml to http://www.penn.museum/sites/VRP/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Strange edit summary

MonsterHunter32: Re your edit summary, which edit are you referring to, and what is in it that you recovered? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

map

The map of the Vijayanagar empire suggests that the Malabar area was part of it. Vijayanagar did send armies in the area, but the rajas of Malabar seem to have stayed independent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:4691:A900:A5A7:A0ED:A059:EDF7 (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

My reversion

I just reverted a series of edits at Vijayanagara since the intermediate edits included addition of POV content that misrepresented the cited source (by Caegleam) and (an apparently good faith) effort to re-organize the article that, however, introduced stubby sections and also rewrote the article lede to be less compliant with WP:LEDE. It is possible though that my revert deleted some desirable content/sources that were recently added. So can the editors involved review the article and see if any of those changes need to be re-introduced (it would be best to do so in piecemeal fashion though so that the edits are more easily reviewed individually). Abecedare (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Abecadare, the page that I had reorganized see here organized the text which had several duplicates, had mixed references to the ancient, medieval and modern vijayanagar city, the current page gives undue importance to the way the city was destroyed rather than the city during its existence. Can we create a consensus poll instead? Jaykul72 (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jaykul72: As I indicated above, I didn't evaluate the content/sources that you changed in your previous edits, thoroughly (it was hard to make out the exact changes looking at especially this diff). What I was mainly objecting to was the reorganization, since the sections you introduced were both stubby and didn't seem to follow any clear line-of-thought. That said, the current organization is not ideal either with the intended purpose of Description section, which essentially contains two lengthy quotes, being unclear and the Area section being unsourced. Secondly, the tone of a couple of your edits was tending towards [[WP:NPOV|awestruck rather than encyclopedic], although this is easily dealt with through regular editing.

My suggestion:

• Please go ahead and (re-)add sources/content that you think appropriate and if there is any objection, the particular change can be discussed here. It would be best to split the changes over multiple edits so that any problem with an individual source or addition can be dealt with separately.
• As for the reorganization: perhaps you can propose what you had in mind here on the talkpage so that we can discuss and iterate on the proposal.

Content issues on wikipedia are not usually decided through polling. Lets just discuss among ourselves (and, other interested editors may chime in) and see how best to improve the article. Cheers. 14:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Undoing on the sentence that 500000 Hindus killed by Bahmani ruler

Abecedare, I see that you have undone an edit by Zoozaz1 [diff] on the 500,000 Hindus being killed by Bahmani ruler. There is a citation to that, Robert Sewell page 24 quotes Ferishta about this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaykul72 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That content was originally added by Glowanisittiha and their various socks, and only moved from the lede to the article body by Zoozaz1 (in good faith).

That aside, the problem is that the content misrepresents the cited source. The book by Lars Tore Flåten, "examines the new textbooks which were introduced [by NCERT in circa 2002], considering them to be integral to the BJP’s political agenda" and argues that they present a decontextualized version of history that pays "scarce attention to social, geographical and temporal contexts in their approaches to Indian history". In this context, the Flåten paraphrases the disputed textbook's content as,

"On the following pages the textbook outlines brutal warfare on both sides. Accordingly, the Hindu ruler Bukka put an entire garrison excluding one man, 'to sword'. The textbook continues by stating that the Bahmani Sultan's answer to this was to massacre half a million inhabitants around the city of Vijaynagar,"

So the sock's edit cherry-picked one part of a claim made by a contentious source (the NCERT textbook) and then ascribed it to a reliable source (the Flåten book), whose very thesis is that the original source is ideologically motivated history and untrustworthy!

By the way, Robert Sewell's 1900 book (as well as earlier works by Mark Wilks and Colin Mackenzie) are not good or usable sources from this article either. As Burton Stein notes in his 1989 The New Cambridge History of India volume on Vijaynagara:

These Britons at opposite ends of the nineteenth century sought to devise an historical past not for the sake of pure knowing, but for the purpose of controlling a subject people whose past was to be so constructed as to make British rule a necessity as well as a virtue. This intention is exemplified in the only popular work publishedby Sewell in 1900, Forgotten Empire (Vijayanagar)...

It would be good to check what Stein and other modern, academic histories say about the alleged massacre and then add that with proper context to the article body. Abecedare (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't need both Hampi and Vijayanagara, covering the same thing

This was raised a bit in the section now at the top of the page. The old town of Hampi was renamed Vijayanagara at the start of the Vijayanagara Empire, then deserted when that fell. Hampi now seems to be the normal term. Hampi (town) covers the modern settlement (pop. under 3,000).

Hampi and Vijayanagara both cover the history and the monuments, & should be merged. Thoughts? Please comment only at the other page. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that they should not cover the same thing. But Vijayanagara is/was famous as a major city in southern India in the Middle Ages. In the context of the present day, we should use Hampi. In the context of the ruined city, we should use Vijayanagara, and they should be separate articles.

There is a huge problem with "improvers" who copy stuff from article to article in the believe that they are making things better. Their efforts need reverting.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand this - I don't see, given there is only a 200-year period we know much about, how this would work. The ruined city seems today firmly called "Hampi", by UNESCO and others. What is "the context of the present day", other than the ruins? Johnbod (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this will explain:

• Verulamium (ancient ruined city)
• St Albans (medieval town and modern city)

Of course, Verulamium was never as important a place as Vijayanagara was in the middle ages.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm copying all this to the other page, where the discussion is supposed to be. No more here please! Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)