Talk:Kingdom of Mysore/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Tippusflag.gif

Image:Tippusflag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiries

Some comments:

Lot of images that are creating a few blank gaps.

DK Reply I will try to solve this.Dineshkannambadi 01:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come there is no history or military history sub-articles? I found some bits very intresting that I would want expanded upon such as the apparent "pitched battle" Shivaji refused.

DK Reply My source does not give details. As such, the overallsize of the article also makes it prohibitive to add all that info in the main article. However, that bit a detail could be dug up and added to a page created for the specific king. I have added see also article for Anglo-Mysore wars, Tipu Sultan and Haider Ali.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some questions about the history section, if you wish I would be glad to look over the rest of the article.

I'm a little puzzled as to what was happening in the region before the Wodeyar family. Did the kingdom start of as a village or it was an already established region when the family came to power? I think a sentence worth mention of the state this kingodom was in when it was administered by/conquered by/joined (another point of uncertainty) the Vijayanagara Empire.

DK Reply The Mysore region was entirely under the Vijayanagara Empire, with Srirangapatna as the governing centre. The nearby Mysore region had its own chieftain, who also was under the Vijayanagara Empire, when Vijayanagara Empire fell in 1565. This is already mentioned in the history section. Details about how big Mysore territory may have been in the 1560 time frame is mentioned in the Origin of Kingdom of Mysore. In the main article, the sentence goes like this The first mention of the Wodeyar family is in 16th century Kannada literature from the time of the Vijayanagara king Achyuta Deva Raya, while the Mysore kingdom's own earliest available inscription is from the rule of the petty chief Timmaraja II in 1551.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The origin of the brothers" you're talking about their birthplace right?

DK Reply Yes Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"prompting claims that he was the most important of Mysore's early rulers" claims by historians?

DK Reply yes. the citation is from "Kamath (2001), p228".Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the king gave him the title "Nawab Haider Ali Khan Bahadur"" the title means?

DK Reply The term Nawab generally equates to "royalty". Bahadur means "brave".Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"like their immediate predecessors, were kings in title only" meaning? Pardon me if this is explained previously in the section.

DK Reply Meaning they held the title of king and were officially coronated, but the real power was in the hands of Haider Ali, who most sources say "usurped" power.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the paragraph devoted to Haider Ali as I understood he became king, although I'm not sure it is stated.

DK Reply Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan were never officially the kings of Mysore. They were never coronated. In fact, from 1796-1799, when Chamaraja Wodeyar VIII died in 1796, the thrown was empty and Tipu kept it empty. As a Muslim in a predominantly Hindu Kingdom, he would have found it difficult to obtain legitimacy, despite his achievements.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The kingdom role in the Indian independence?

Thank you, and if you don't mind me asking, any plans of taking the subarticles to FAC? 74.13.100.91 22:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply By 1900's, Mysore did become one of the centres of independence movement. But due to article size constraints, I have not been able to dwell on this topic. The kingdoms role in independence can be covered as a seperate subarticle as such. Each sub-article that exists can be made into a FA, time permitting. I plan to create a FA at some point on the "Architecture of the Kingdom of Mysore", since that would be more eye catching.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Thanks for your comments. I will answer your quesions in detail, but please do log in. That really helps.Dineshkannambadi 00:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Hope I have answered your questions. If you have more concerns, please post them next week on the FAC discussion page.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nehru not Head of State

Nehru (first Prime Minister of India) doesn't really belong at the bottom of the list of Kings of Mysore; they were heads of state, sometimes in a more or less ceremonial capacity. He was a head of government. If you must put a modern Indian politician on the list, you should list the first President of India, Rajendra Prasad, or, to be even more historically precise, the first Governor-General of independent India, C. Rajagopalachari. Writtenright 23:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Writtenright[reply]

I will change it to Rajgopalachari, the first Governor General. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just stop with the last king?--Blacksun 10:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Governor General only to be consistent with other articles of same category.Dineshkannambadi 15:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language not displaying

I have a shiny new Mac which can (and has) display possibly every language in this entire world including Hebrew which flows in reverse. BUT I SEE ?????????? on this page and I am in disbelief assuming its Sanskrit that my mac cannot display it? I think there needs to be a language box indicating what kind of language is being displayed so that people can click on how to make your web browser work. There is a Chinese box for example for every page that has that kind of text in it on WP. But the fact that I and apparently I just checked another friend cannot display this language at first load is a bit troublesome. Perhaps the encoding is incorrect. .:DavuMaya:. 23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which exact text (in terms of location in the article) you are see as ?????. Or are you seeing the whole article as ????? ?

Please let us know. We can try correcting it. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 00:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:SirMV.png

The image Image:SirMV.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

Image:T Chowdiah.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious issues of inaccuracy and bias

I just took a quick look at this page as a part of working on some Colonial India related pages. I'm confused by a number of things:

What evidence is there that Mysore was a "kingdom" between 1399 and 1761? —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
- What evidence do you have that it was not a kingdom. All my sources call it "kingdom".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan referred to as de factor rulers? I mean what evidence is there (by a preponderance of secondary sources) for this usage? I have seen some references to Haidar Ali as "de facto" among some early 19th century British historians; I've never heard of Tipu Sultan as "de facto." —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
- They are referred to as de-facto because neither were coronated officially. If you can prove that Tipu was coronated, then we can consider a change and cal him "king" or perhaps "ruler".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the British governance of the princely state between 1831 and 1881 not shown in the infobox of rulers, and indeed more visibly in the lead? After all it was the institutions established during those 50 years that resulted in Mysore's 20th century reputation as a model princely state. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
- The lead clearly explains that Mysore was a princely state under British rule from 1799. The History section, Princely state subsection explains the direct rule from 1831 to 1881. Perhaps a box adjustment could be made to accomodate this, though I hardly think it would matter, considering the explicit nature in which their control over Mysore state has been clearly explained in the LEAD.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the Wodeyars hyped-up in this article? They were chieftains until 1610, governed a principality between 1610 and 1730; lost power to the prime minister between 1730 and 1761. Lost all power between 1761 and 1799. Five-year old Wodeyar was reinstated by the British under the strategy of subsidiary alliance in 1799, but the state governed by former Diwan; then Wodeyar rule lasted from 1811 to 1830, when the British took it back. Wodeyars, then "ruled" Mysore from 1881 to 1947, although it is really governed by the able chief ministers like Mirza Ismail etc. Why is it that in a standard history of India, if you look in the index, the only names that appear under "Mysore" are Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan, and not Wodeyar, Wadiar, or Wadiyar? —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
- Can you prove that the Wodeyar's have been hyped up? Also, it depends on what viewpoint you look at Mysore kingdom from, narrow or broad. If you consider its political history ONLY, naturally most of the emphasis would be on Tipu and Haider, and I believe they have been given their due here wih a seperate subsection. However, here, this article brings out a 500 years rule, independent or otherwise, its achievements in culture, music, religion, literature, architecture, painting etc; very little of which can be attributed to Tipu or Haider. If you can prove that Tipu and Haider played a greater part in the "cultural development" of Mysore than the Wodeyars, then we can possible entertain this discussion further. If you can prove that Tipu and Haider played a role in the political development of Mysore before 1760, then we can continue this discussion. I suggest you think with a slightly borader viewpoint. BTW, The achievements of Sir MV, Sir Mirza Ismail and other important Diwans etc have been dealth with in summary in the Governance/Administration section.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are two or three unremarkable sources (Kamath, Sastri (1950), and a book on music) used over and over again for one of the most widely written topics of Indian history? —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
- Wow! Do we have an expert here. Unremarkable to you. Ofcourse, you would have to prove your statement.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain by way of sources why this page shouldn't be three articles: a "Principality of Mysore" for the period 1610 to 1761, a "Kingdom of Mysore" for the period 1761 to 1799, and a princely state, "Mysore state", for the period 1799 to 1947? Page names are not decided by a ruling family but rather by nature of the political system. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
- Please explain by way of sources why you think it should be in three articles and not in one.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to answer my questions carefully. I know what sources are available. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please think very carefully before you answer my questions. I know what sources are available too.thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's exactly 139 citations in the article. Look in them, you might get a clue. Sarvagnya 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't speak in generalities; otherwise, I'll have to collect evidence on the quality of citations on this page, which I have so far desisted doing. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more attempt

Since you don't seem to be answering my questions, I will make an attempt one more time, and make the questions simpler:

What sources do you have (please cite page number) that refer to Tipu Sultan as a "de facto ruler." Wikipedia's usage of a term is not based on first-principles interpretation of "de facto," but rather by usage in the secondary sources.

What sources do you have (with page number) that refer to Mysore during the period 1399 to 1610, as "Kingdom of Mysore." Again, please don't throw back the question at me. If you do not satisfactorily reply to these questions I will be forced to request an FAR. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler's concerns and sources

I have nominated this article for a Featured Article Review (see here). I had originally gathered information pertinent to the FAR here. Since the talk page is becoming long, I am moving all the evidence to my subpage. However, since much discussion in the FAR is linked here, I am preserving the sub-section headers below (along with links to the evidence). I have listed what I consider are inadequacies in meeting the Featured Article Criteria in the section My concerns below. (Added Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I came across this article (again) while working on some Colonial India-related articles on Monday. (I realized the next day that I had made a few edits to it in March 2008.)

Mysore is variously a city, a district, and a larger historical region in southern India. In its last manifestation, it is also a major topic of historical study.

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

Please see Kingdom of Mysore FAR: Sources for Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan as rulers from 1761 to 1799 (without "de facto")

Wodeyar "rule" in princely state 1799 to 1947

Please see Wodeyar "rule" in princely state 1799 to 1947

Neologism and Other Princely States

Please see Kingdom of Mysore FAR: Neologism and Other Princely States

Sources for some ideological issues related to this topic

Please see Kingdom of Mysore FAR: Sources for some ideological issues related to this topic

My assessment of the sources in the current version of the article

Please see My assessment of the sources in the current version of the article

Comments by others

Fowler, why don't you look for opinions about Harrison and Allchin from other scholars and let us see where the buck stops. BTW, what do you mean by facsimile copy.? I own the book :History of Kannada literature and Narasimhacharya is one of the authorities on Kannada literature.Regards.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Mr. Sastri didn't contest the reviews, both published in reputable journals. Authors usually respond if they disagree with the reviewer's assessment. Looking for "opinions" about a reviewer is not useful for Wikipedia's purposes. You will need to find a source that specifically disputes the review. After all, I didn't produce here a review of Mr. Sastri's other works, only of the book (now over 50 years old) that was used in this article. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh's sources

I am having a rather difficult time typing out some 700 sources that use the term "Kingdom of Mysore", though generally, the term is used to denote its height of military prowess under Haider and Tipu. The period from 1399-1760 is dealt with in one subsection. The period, 1760-1799 has been dealt with quite well, in its own subsection. So also the period from 1799-1947. Claiming that I have given undue weightage to the Hindu kings is baseless. As in the case of all kingdoms, their is a period of initial growth as a chiefdom/minor kingdom, height of power as a real Kingdom and a period of demise. Tipu's and Haider's contributions to administration and economy has also been dealt with well, in a summary style. Please do a google search and you will see how many scholarly sources exist, that use the term "Kingdom of Mysore" broadly. There are no shortage of sources that use that term even prior to Haider's rule. There are no shortage of sources that use the term after 1799, when the British took control. I really dont think your selective sources that support your claim is going to hold water. I will reply to you second question later tommorow.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh please WP:DENY. There's a reason there is a References section. Sarvagnya 01:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please produce 5 sources that refer to the Chieftainship of the Wodeyars between 1399 and 1610 as the Kingdom of Mysore. Don't worry about the remaining 695. And please produce 3 that refer to Tipu Sultan as the "de facto ruler of Mysore." Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk»

If you want to call the page, Kingdom of Mysore it can't begin before the mid-17th century and most of it will need to focus on Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan (i.e. politically, economically, and administratively). Furthermore, the post-1799 period will have to be a separate page "Mysore state." If, however, you change the name of the page to "Mysore state," it could conceivably cover the period mid-seventeenth century to 1947, with clear explanation in the lead of the various rulers. However, the period 1399 to mid-seventeenth century cannot be a part of this page. There is no evidence that the Wodeyars (of which there were many concurrent ones) had control over anything more than a handful of villages. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I dont accept your theories. Articles cant be re-invented just to please your fancy. The whole period, 1399-1947 is one entity. Initial feudalism (1399-1565), independence (1565-1799), and re-subordination (1799-1947) during the British rule. Regards.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, if you want to insist that these are my theories, then produce some sources that contradict mine. I have produced credible sources consisting of books or papers by some of the foremost historians of the day, that say clearly that Mysore was not only not a kingdom before 1610, it was not even a principality; it was at best a chieftancy, of which there were many in the area, many wodeyars. So, far I have seen nothing that contradicts my sources. As I have stated before, if you insist, I will forced to pursue an FAR. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just realized that what objectivity there is in the lead about the princely state, is because of my previous edits, which I had completely forgotten about. See here and the following four or five edits! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your previous inputs.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify the timeline

very interesting. I see huge divergence between how history of Mysore (just the timeline) is being perceived by both Dinesh and Fowler. That was just an attempt for myself to understand it better. wow.

Dinesh	Fowler
1399-1565: Feudalism	1610-1761: Principality of Mysore
1565-1799: Independence	1761-1799: Kingdom of Mysore
1799-1947: British rule	1799-1947:Mysore state

Docku: What up? 01:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you have my version correct. I think in this article even the post 1799 entity was being described as a Kingdom until I made the edits in March 2008 referred to above. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I have restored the first paragraph of the lead to the original, stable version. "The Kingdom of Mysore (Kannada: ಮೈಸೂರು ಸಾಮ್ರಾಜ್ಯ) was both a kingdom (xxxx–xxxx) and a princely state (xxxx–xxx) in southern India." reads plain ugly and confused and there is no need for us to hasten so early in the lead (its still the first sentence for heavens' sakes) to pander to misinformed grouses. The first paragraph as it is now is more succinct and none of the reviewers in the FAC had any problems with it. Discuss here before making any changes. Sarvagnya 01:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the change. But what your assertion of authority fails to notice is that the article is re-reviewed now. Docku: What up? 01:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate Lead Paragraph

I have made the lead paragraph more accurate. I am reproducing it here for wider viewing and discussion:

Please see Kingdom of Mysore FAR: Accurate Lead Paragraph

Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Refactored actual quote to subpage. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already shown you that the word "kingdom" is used quite commonly across all periods and by sources across the spectrum.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is not meant to go into Nagara rebellion and stuff. These are meant for other sections such as administration/governance.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the consensus usage is "Mysore state" for the period 1799 to 1947. Why don't you reproduce your references here again with exact quotation, and publication details? Would you like to go for a Wikipedia mediation about whether Mysore state or Princely State of Mysore is not the consensus usage in the literature? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Chiefdom of Mysore" is blatant OR. None of the sources call it the "Chiefdom of Mysore". I have reverted it. Discuss here before trying to change long standing text. Sarvagnya 20:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge Sarvagnya to try not to be so derogatory to those who post here, as it drives away those who wish to express an alternate opinion. Just because you do not agree does not mean you need to use phrases like "blatant OR", as that is your opinion only. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Really, user:Sarvagnya, no one calls it chiefdom? What is:

this:Stein, Burton (1987), Vijayanagara (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 156, ISBN 0521266939 Quote: "Odeyars (or 'wodeyars,' to add the Dravidian phonological glide) of Mysore arose as minor chiefs during the Vijaynagara times; ... Chamaraja's domain began as a handful of villages along the Kaveri ... The first inscriptions of these modest chiefs came in the time of Timmaraja Wodeyar, in 1551. By the 1570s the chieftaincy had expanded to thirty-three villages protected by a force of 300 soldiers, and in 1610, the last of the Vijayanagara agents at Srirangapatanam sold the fortress to Raja Wodeyar (1578–1617) under whom the chiefdom expanded into a major principality. (page 81)" and
Ramusack, Barbara (2004), The Indian Princes and their States (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 324, ISBN 0521039894 Quote:"(p.28) Located in peninsular India, the rulers of Mysore were petty chieftains in the Vijayanagara state where the ruler held ritual sovereignty over little kings (known to the British as poligars) who collected the revenue and maintained law and order. " and
this: Manor, James (1975), "Princely Mysore before the Storm: The State-Level Political System of India's Model State, 1920-1936", Modern Asian Studies, 9 (1): 31–58 Quote:"(p.33) The Wadiyar family, ancestors of the Maharajas of Mysore, may be found among these chieftains and had at times claimed control over the southern and eastern parts of this area. But it was not until the time of Haidar Ali-a usurper who rose from the military service of the Wadiyars-and his son, Tipu Sultan, that the integration of these little kingdoms under supra-local authority began in earnest."?

What do you call a realm whose head is a Chief, and a minor one at that? A "Kingdom" (with a capital K)? An "Empire" (with a capital E)? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under Construction?

I just noticed that user:Sarvagnya has added an Underconstruction template to the article. The template informs us that the article is now "in the middle of a major expansion or revamping." Since this is a featured article, which, moreover, is undergoing a Featured Article Review, shouldn't posts be made both here and on WP:FAR#Kingdom of Mysore about what precisely is being planned and in response to whom (in the FAR). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child or Teenage Royals?

I believe that 70 per cent of the time from 1714 to 1904 a Wodeyar was not in control of the "Kingdom of Mysore." See here for evidence.

So when did the Wodeyars really govern? In the 17th century? If so, why is it not acknowledged more explicitly in the article?
But, more importantly, don't you think the governing that was done 70 percent of the time between 1714 and 1904, by Prime Ministers, and British Commissioners, not to speak of the nannies and pediatricians, is all too anonymous (in this article)? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Updated and refactored evidence to sub-page. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

very informative and certainly encyclopedic. But, Why did you choose between 1714 to 1904? From 1761 till 1947, the kingdom was ruled by either by Tippu and Haider or British. The child-rule between 1565-1761 (supposedly souvereign time) would have been more pertinent. If there were able British administrators equally or more notable than Wodeyars during the British time, could be mentioned as well. Docku: What up? 01:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure the primary authors of the article have agreed with your statement that "from 1761 to 1947, the kingdom was ruled by either by Tippu and Haider or British." The goal of the above post is to encourage them to acknowledge the less stringent statement, "from 1714 to 1904, Mysore was governed no more than 30% of the time by Wodeyar rulers." The word "governed" suggests active control of the kingdom, control that is difficult to exercise when the ruler's Mysore gaddi is placed in the play-pen or the jail. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the spirit and essence of your argument and agree with you. I also think the child rule is "lead" worthy. I am just not sure of the time frame yet. The years sound arbitrary. For me, child rule between 1399-1947 or 1399-1565 or 1565-1761 or 1761-1799 or 1799-1947 or all would have been more meaningful.

Why do you say that the authors havent acknowledged Tippu, Haider or British. They have made two sections named Under Tippu and Haider and Princeley state. While they have dedicated sufficient text to discuss Haider and Tippu under the appropriate header, there is a lot of Wodeyar discussion in Princely state. I dont see much discussion of British in that section.

Is it possible that the authors are unaware of the extant of British role during that time? Well, One solution I can think of is someone create a new article titled Princely state of Mysore and summarise the article and put it back in here. Docku: What up? 20:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a stub Princely State of Mysore and request all your help in expanding the article. Docku: What up? 22:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea, Docku. I will add some material to it when I can find some time. As for your other questions, I will post a short history of the evolution of this article below. I just discovered something very interesting: before user:Dineshkannambadi commenced working on it, the article was ideologically more balanced, even if it was short and had no references. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now to comment on your other points. The various problems that beset this page will not be remedied by simply creating a new subpage, Princely state of Mysore. One reason is that user:Dineshkannambadi has consistently refused to tell us whether this page is about a Dynasty (i.e. should really be named, "House of Wodeyar" or "Wodeyar Dynasty") although he keeps mentioning the dynasty in many replies. If the page is about a dynasty, then what are Tipu Sultan and the British doing in the page? If the page is not about a dynasty, then what is it about? Is it about a region called Mysore? If so, what region is it, the region in 1783 (at the peak of its geographical extent) or in 1800 (when it was down-sized to a princely state), or in 1755, when is was mostly southern regions of present-day Karnataka and some bordering regions in current-day Tamil Nadu? If it is about a region and its governance, then why are so many Wodeyars mentioned in it? Indeed why does it show Wodeyars in the infobox, when most of the ruling of the region was done by others (and I don't just mean Tipu and the British, but also other chieftains who ruled over region in northern-, northwestern-, northestern-Mysore in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries)? In other words, the page will require a major overhaul. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the complexity. Since the main author does not seem to understand and acknowledge these issues, we will probably end up being stuck in this stage for eternity unless something sensible happens at FAR. My suggestion to create princely State of Mysore and summarise and put it back in here was a proposed solution to only that section, not to the whole article. Besides, If the main author is not willing to rewrite, someone else has to do it. Maybe, one has to rewrite this whole article in a sandbox and present it to the FAR for comparison. Well, I know we, volunteers, dont have that much time to undertake such time-consuming activities correcting biased articles in wikipedia, let us see. Docku: What up? 15:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I didn't mean to imply at all that your page is not a good idea. I think, if nothing else, we will at least be able to create an unbiased article for the Princely State, which, in any case, is my only area of interest, and in fact was the reason, why the entire FAR began. So, yes, I will be editing the page and adding up-to-date scholarly content. A fair amount of that is already in the third sources section I created above and probably more in the Google Books links therein. Since I have access to academic databases, I am happy to email you pdfs of some of the journal articles there should you need them. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

awesome offer. will certainly write to u. Thank you. Docku: What up? 13:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Anatomy of a Revision

Until late August 2007, the Kingdom of Mysore page was a short article and it had no references; however, it was ideologically more balanced and more in consonance with the work of scholars who have worked on Mysore. I believe that most of the current ideological slant of the article (or POV in Wikispeak) was introduced in a series of edits made by user:Dineshkannambadi between 14:25 16 September 2007 and 23:53 16 September 2007. See here for evidence. Could user:Dineshkannambadi care to explain why the sources he has used are not representative of the modern scholarly opinion on the subject of early-modern and modern Mysore? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Refactored evidence to subpage. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of History Section

If the primary authors don't mind, I will be revising the History section using more sources. I don't have much time; so I will do the revision in bits and pieces here and there. Please don't revert my edits right away; let me complete them and let's then talk about what is good and what is not. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I am supposed to take permission and do discussion before changing the name of a sub-article, you are also supposed to discuss before adding new sections to a FA. If you revert my revert, it will be considered content dispute and handled accordingly.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just gave me a brilliant idea. No problem, I'm happy to create the page I want on a subpage of mine. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

at first look, sounds legitimate and interesting. wonder what is wrong with the edit other than it was not discussed before. unreliable source? Docku: What up? 01:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, on Dec23rd, Fowler removed an entire section on "origin" without discussion. Discussion is basic FAR etiquette. I have reverted this as well. Please discuss and find concensus with primary authors first. This is how a FAR is conducted. I have left a message for SandyGeorgia about this. Best regardsDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, you may be right about discussing first. What was your rationale to remove the following content other than it wasnt discussed first.

“

There is very little contemporaneous documentation of the pre-1760 period of Mysore's history, especially the last century of that period. According to (Subrahmanyam 1989, p. 206), the 18th-century Wodeyar rulers of Mysore—in contrast to their contemporaries in Rajputana, Central India, Maratha Deccan, and Tanjavur—left little or no record of their administrations.

A Wodeyar dynasty genealogy, the Maisüru Mahardjara Vamsävali of Tirumalarya, was composed in Kannada during the period 1710–1715, and was claimed to be based on all the then-extant inscriptions in the region.[1] Another genealogy, Kalale Doregala Vamgdvati, of the Delvoys, the near-hereditary chief ministers of Mysore, was composed around the turn of the 19th century.[1] However, neither manuscript provides information about administration, economy or military capability.[1] The ruling dynasty's origins, especially as expounded in later palace genealogies, are also of doubtful accuracy; this is, in part, because the Wodeyars, who were reinstated by the British on the Mysore gaddi in 1799, to preside over a fragile sovereignty,[2] "obsessively" attempted to demonstrate their "unbroken" royal lineage,[3] to bolster their then uncertain status.[4]

The earliest manuscript offering clues to governance and military conflict in the pre-1760 Mysore, seems to be (Dias 1725), an annual letter written in Portuguese by a Mysore-based Jesuit missionary, Joachim Dias, and addressed to his Provincial superior.[5

”

Thanks. --Docku: What's up? 03:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one, this is a WP:SS article covering more than just "History" and a "Sources and historiography" section simply does not belong on this article. It belongs at best on History of Wodeyars or Mysore studies or some such. If that is so difficult to understand, a cursory look at other comparable FAs should reveal that most, if any, do not have such a section. And rightly so. Additionally, there are such things as WP:TONE, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV etc.,. Of course, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Sarvagnya 21:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Apparently it is OK, after my "sources and historiography" section is removed for the primary authors to add their own "sources" section under Origin. I glad to see that the primary authors have seen the light from my list of authors, and now seem to be hurriedly paraphrasing one paper of Sanjay Subrahmanyam. Remember though that the paper is a little longer than what is available on Google books. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]