Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rashtrakuta Dynasty

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 promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

---

Rashtrakuta Dynasty

The Rashtrakuta dynasty is an important dynasty in the History of India. Their contributions to South Indian History, literature in Kannada and Sanskrit, their achievements in the realm of architecture and their imperial conquests makes this an important topic of Indian History. The article has been through several rounds of copy edit, a peer review (without any comments) and follows the correct citation and reference usage as in other recent India History related articles.Please provide constructive feedback on the format, grammar, content etc., to help make this article a FA.Dineshkannambadi 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Wow, that's a great piece of work Dineshkannambadi! Excellent article.Although, is there any way you could make that lead a little bit more digestible. Those two large paragraphs are quite daunting, perhaps splitting them into four paragraphs would help for a start.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  Reply Sure. I will make it easier.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  Hey Matisse had the same thoughts as me and split them whilst I was writing the above. Great minds think alike!-- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  Done. Is it ok now?Dineshkannambadi 02:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks, Dineshkannambadi. That makes the lead much easier on my eyes. Good work.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comments

1. "Scholars claim that the early Rashtrakutas belonged to one of many ethnic groups, the Rajputs, the Kannadiga, Reddi, the Maratha, or the Punjabi." However, in the last sentence of the next paragraph, "Though these Rashtrakutas were Kannadigas, they may have been conversant in a northern Deccan language as well." If the ethnicity is not sure, how come so surely the Rashtrakutas become Kannadigas in the next paragraph?

Reply->The controversy about language and etnicity is about the 6th-7th century Rashtrakutas only. There is no scholar that I can quote (from all the sources I have) who deny that the Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta (who are the main subject of study here) were locals/had become locals of Gulbarga region and hence Kannadigas by language. (As an example, The Pallavas of Kanchi are popularly known to be immigrants from Iraq who made their way thru the subcontinent finally creating a famous kingdom from Kanchi, Tamil Nadu. Every historian considers theirs a Tamil Empire and them Tamils by language because of their patronage to Tamil language, irrespective of their ancestral origin. Similarly the Sena Dynasty of Bengal. Their inscriptions call them Karnatak Kshatriyas, indicating their Kannada origin-Kamath 2001 and Karnatas of Mithila-Thapar 2003. Yet the world and historians all accept the Senas as Bengalis because they patronised Bengali language). Indian is and has always been a dynamic country. In fact the "Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty" goes into these details. Kannada according to many scholars (P.B.Desai, Kamath, Altekar, Vaidya, etc, all cited) was the popular language from Kaveri up to Godavari (Nasik region). The definition of a Kannadiga is one who is a native speaker of Kannada anyhere, not just Karnataka. In fact Several Rashtrakuta kings of this dynasty even had non-Sanskrit Kannada names from inscriptions (Krishna II and III were called Kannara, Govinda IV was called Gojjiga- Reu (1931).Dineshkannambadi 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the terms "Rajput", "Maratha", "Reddi" denote castes, not any particular language. There are Rajputs, Marathas and Reddies in Karnataka, Maharashtra, Andhra etc just as there are Naidus, Kurubas etc. A reading of "Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty" will be well worth it. I suspect though that the scholars who call them Rajputs may have meant speakers of a contemporeneous Rajput language from the N.W. regions of India. Similarly the other ethnic groups.Dineshkannambadi 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Having said this, this citation was put in at the advice of user:Nichalp in order to satisfy a user who was banned from wikipedia. So I let it be. In fact the citation is not even complete and does not provide the full page number, publication, author etc. In the larger interest of history, I am glad you brought this topic. If you want me to remove the sentence, I would be happy to oblige. I can however, quite easily replace it with a citation from one of my other sources where I can give full cited info. Nowhere in my sources is a "northern deccan language" mentioned, though.Dineshkannambadi 12:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Slight difficulty understanding the fall of the dynasty. Was Manyakheta totally destroyed by the invading Paramaras? Tailapa II became independent (and started what is known as Western Chalukya Empire — understood this after reading relevant portions of the article on the Western Chalukyas). What happened to the rest of the vast rashtrakuta empire? (apart from "several branches of Rashtrakutas had established themselves in North India" and "the Rashtrakutas created several related kingdoms that either ruled during the reign of the parent empire or for centuries after the its fall", anything else? Any other unrelated dynasties captured Rashtrakuta lands?)

More comments later. Could read only upto the end of "History". Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply-->No, Manyakheta was not completely destroyed. In fact Chalukya Tailapa II made it his capital from 973 untill 1040 (approx) when Somesvara I moved it to near by Basavakalyan (or Kalyani). The Paramara's (who were untill then a feudatory of Rashtrakutas) had only raided Manyakheta and did not occupy it. The vast Rashtrakuta empire split in several smaller kingdoms like it normally happens, including the W. Chalukyas in North Karnataka, Silharas in Konkan, Paramara's in Malwa, Gangas in South Karnataka. The Eastern Chalukyas in Andhra and Cholas in Tamil regions had been suppressed by the Rashtrakutas earlier on and were only too happy to see them go. But within a few decades, the western Chalukyas consolidated much of the region between Tungabhadra and Narmada rivers. The annals of South Indian and Deccan history between 1000-1150 is essentially the fight for domination between the Western Chalukyas and Cholas. Hence the only real successors of the Rashtrakuta heartland were the W.Chalukyas. Some of the Rashtrakuta families in far off extremes of their empire like Rathodas of Rajasthan etc simply became independent minor kingdoms. In fact historians feel the Rashtrakutas were very decentralised in maintaining or expecting alligiance from their far flung kith and kin. Other feudatories like the Rattas of Saundatti, Kadambas of Hanagal, Alupas, Gangas etc., all in Karnataka region became feudatories and were absorbed into the W. chalukya empire. Even the Paramara were intermittently a W.Chalukya feudatory after several victories of the W.chalukyas in the Dhara region.Dineshkannambadi 12:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Reply to reply Ok. No problem with the first point (Kannadiga etc). Regarding the fall of the empire, you can add a liitle bit of the split (what you have elucidated here in the FAC) in the article. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply No problem. I will elucidate the split tonight.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Well-researched, notable, and well-written.Bakaman 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In the society section: Intercaste marriages were uncommon except between highly placed Kshatriya girls and Brahmin boys, but was relatively frequent among other castes. The second part seems contradictory to the first. The first part says Female-Kshatriya with Male Brahmins was the only common occurence of intercaste marriage. But the second part states intermarriage happened between the other castes, ie. Vaishya and Shudra. Am I wrong or should the first part state that the only type of intermarriage between the higher castes was Kshatriya girls and Brahmin boys. Gizza^{Chat ©} 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply I will correct the contradiction.thanks Dineshkannambadi 01:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "...a Vishaya (district) overseen by a Vishayapathi and under that was a Grama (taluk) overseen by Gramakuta." But soon, "Below the Vishaya was Nadu looked after by Nadugowda or Nadugavunda..." What was the hierarchy? Vishaya->Nadu->Grama? Please clarify.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Corrected mistake. Its Rashtra-->Vishaya-->Nadu-->Grama.Dineshkannambadi 22:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comments
• Please correct the wikilink Thana in "Economy". At present, it leads to a disambiguation page.

DoneDineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• What are "Gadyana" and "Ctharna"?

Coins. Gadyana may be another name for Gadyanka mentioned in Administration. Ctharna may be a small silver coin.Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Income tax included taxes on crown land, wasteland, specific types of trees considered valuable to economy, mines, salt, treasures unearthed by prospectors"— seems as if no income tax was levied on cultivable land, though later paragraph clarifies land taxes based on produce.

mentioned in citation #74. Land tax here includes tax on cultivable land.Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• "The concept of following one religious tradition exclusively was rare in medieval India..."— Do you mean following (patronage) by the monarchs, or following of religion by individuals? Please provide citation.

Done provided citation, reduced sentence in length.Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikilinked Sanjan to Sanjan (Gujarat). Please see if it is correct.

I believe its correct. None of the other links make sense. This area was always under Rashtrakuta control anyway.Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• "The famous Kailasnatha temple at Ellora and other rock-cut caves attributed to them show that the Vedic religion was flourishing"— What is meant by Vedic religion? Historical Vedic religion, Hinduism, or Śrauta, or something else?

Reply unfortunately that is not clarified. But I suppose the author meant Hinduism in general and I prefer not to make a guess. So I have correctd it to Hinduism. I will read Keay's book and see what he says.Dineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Once more (like in a previous FAC), "They built secular temples as well...". Why called "secular"? Now that you explained to me, I understand here secular means temples that did not belong to the main religion/sect patronised by the empire, right? However, it would be better to rephrase the sentence so that anyone can understand at one go.

DoneDineshkannambadi 02:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Read upto religion. More comments later. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply will take a close look at this tonight.Dineshkannambadi 14:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. 'Art critics have written that some of the sculptures such as Nataraja and Sadashiva excel in beauty and craftmanship even that of the Ellora sculptures -- who are the art critics? Refs needed.

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1. 25 feet tall --> metric equivalent needed. use the {{tl|convert}] template (see Climate of India)

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1. been studied by historians -- sounds odd

could not find this. Please indicate where this statement is.Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1. The architectural style used was dravidian -- Isn't Dravidian a proper noun?

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1. but common --> more common

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Intercaste functions were unusual --> unusal -> rare

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1. An emergency tax was also imposed occasionally --> choppy, merge with following sentence

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Whatever the lineage of the early Rashtrakutas --> odd reading

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1. It is said that the drums of the Deccan -- who said it? WP:AWT, WP:APT

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1. empire now spread over -- the word now reads odd

DOne Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

1. once again consolidated the empire --> remove once again, redundant. The remainder of the sentence should be split. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

DoneDineshkannambadi 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment From the map, it appears the dynasty ruled parts of what are now Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, besides Karnataka. My question is, in "Language", only Kannada and Sanskrit have been mentioned. What about Telugu? Or Marathi? IMO, Marathi was at nascent stage during that time, right? May be some primitive form was in use. However, Telugu should have been present, and Tamil in southern portions of the dynasty. The section "lanuage" should mention the languages used by the common people, if any, in addition to those patronised by the kings and used as official language. Reagrds.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Reply Depending upon the context of that section, it makes sense to mention only the languages that are widely used in literature and administration. Per the inscriptions in the references mentioned, Kannada and Sanskrit were used as the administrative language. The second paragraph talks about literature and inscriptions. Again, the languages that have been extensively used in the literature are Kannada and Sanskrit, per all the sources mentioned. In the section, no where it is depicted as Kannada and Sanskrit were the only two languages used in spoken form. Also, taking Chola dynasty as a precedence, it not even mentions a language section, still the area covered by the empire including most part of Karnataka, entire Andhra Pradash, most part of Orissa, Sri Lanka, and several South-East regions of Asia continent. Considering these facts, I believe, the existing text in "Languages" section of Rashtrakuta article is fine. - KNM ^Talk 19:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply The box is meant to recognise the Official languages as proven by epigraphy and popular literature. By the 9th century, just about every language spoken in India today was already spoken at that time. Mentioning Telugu, Tamil and Marathi just because the Rashtrakuta empire covered those areas would also require that Tulu, Konkani, Kodava (Coorgi), Various versions of Prakrit, Rajasthani, Marwari, Gondi, various dialects of commonly spoken tribal languages in MP etc, etc would also have to be mentioned, leaving no room for anything else. This is why consistantly in all the FA's I have mentioned only those languages used predominantly in Inscriptions and literature. This is how the "official languages of India" in the present day context also works. Only those languages that are official are mentioned, that too based on context. Further, none of my sources even mention the other language names in an official context.

As an example, lets consider the Chola Dynasty, which is a FA. They also conquered southern Karnataka ( and rule for ~100 years), Andhra Pradesh (ruled for ~150 years), Orissa, Bengal, parts of South east Asia and Sri Lanka. I have citations for several hundred Chola inscriptions in "Kannada" (from Nanjagud, Mysore, Kolar etc). Yet all the spoken languages in those territories they captured / governed have been left out simply using "Tamil" as their official language. The same goes for Chalukyas, Marathas, Palas, Prathiharas etc, all large empires.

Emperor Ashoka ruled most of India and historians have discovered several Kannada words in Ashokan inscriptions from the Karnataka region indicating Kannada was a fully spoken language in the 2nd c. BCE. Yet historians only account for "Prakrit" as their official language. Same with the later Satavahanas. If we start recording spoken languages, there is not end to it. Dineshkannambadi 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Apart from Spoken languages, there is no shortage of citations for Maratha inscriptions in Kannada, Tamil and Telugu. Similarly Eastern Chalukyas (of Andhra) in Kannada and Tamil, Pallava inscriptions in Kannada and Telugu. What I am trying to get at is , going into spoken languages or even minor inscriptional languages will open up a bee-hive of edit wars and contradictions for many many articles with no end to it.Dineshkannambadi 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact the box should be modified to say "official languages" to avoid conflict. In my two years on wikipedia, no issue has been more contentious than the language issue. The more clear we are about what we are conveying, the better.Dineshkannambadi 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

I think it is a good article, but several vague statements are made to give the impression that it is an empire under one dyansty and that it is a Kannadiga dynasty. If this is the case I would be quite happy to accept it, but the evidences are not there, I'm afarid. Can somebody explain the first para in the history?! What is that reference to Asoka ??--Aadal 20:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply:Aadal, Your objections seem to be a bit vague. Please pin point where there is ambiguity and I will be happy to explain. subarticle Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty explains about the possible connection to ancestors during Ashoka's time as explained by some historians.Dineshkannambadi 22:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the tags you have added to the article, all the info is cited elsewhere in the article if you read the article in its entirety. Please dont put tags in the LEAD section because per wiki FA standards, I am not supposed to provide citations in the LEAD section. Also you have tagged those sentences that have been cited multiple times in the immedietly following sentence.Dineshkannambadi 22:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations that satisfy Aadals tag

1. Scholars however concur that the kings of the imperial dynasty in the eighth to tenth century made the Kannada language as important as Sanskrit -->citation #14,15,16,17,18 19, 120, 121, 143, 145, 146. I can provide more if necessary. If any more info needs clarification, please feel free to ask on the FAC page.Dineshkannambadi 00:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

2.There is uncertainty about the location of the early capital of the Rashtrakutas at this time.

Reply-->You can tag an uncited statement, not a citation itself. Please remove the tag. However, citations 30 (itself), 35, 36, 37 provide the needed verification.Dineshkannambadi 01:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Anwar's objections

1. The Kanauj Triangle SVG map is inappropriate. I am unable to download and view it without installing additional software. Why is the map showing the territories of other dynasties anyway? How come these overlap? Does that imply those are no man's lands and subject to frequent warfare? Also, the map ignores the great Chola expansion along the eastern coast then in the same time period. Where are the Chalukyas?
2. There are plenty of wild claims about the dates of reign. I have tagged some. Architecture reached a pinnacle in the dravidian style... - this is too much! Anyone from south knows the Golden Age of Dravidian Architecture began under Cholas (after 1000 AD) and has nothing to do with Rashtrakutas. Elephanta Caves are not remotely Dravidian examples. I think the author has confused all Shivaite temples to be Dravidian.
3. The History section must be urgently restructured chronologically to make a sane reading of dynastic reign by each ruler. Rashtrakutas appear to be a federation or commonwealth rather than a dynasty. The word feudatory jumps at the reader so many times.
4. His military exploits have been compared to those of Alexander the Great and Pandava Arjuna of Mahabharata.< ref name="arjuna">Keay (2000), p199</ref > - This link is unverifiable. There are over hundred "links" in this style. Please give a screenshot of a hardcopy or a ISBN.
5. The Rashtrakutas empire now spread over the areas from Cape Comorin...numerous horseman... - there are plenty of malformed sentences like these.
6. There is no need for a separate detailed economy section when there is a separate article on the subject.
7. land tax may have been as high as 20%...private mineral prospecting and the quarrying business may have been active...Amoghavarsha may have taken up Jainsim in his old age... - are samples of wild speculation and original research.
8. Kayalpattinam and Nagore did not come under the jurisdiction of Rashtrakuta dynasty. Earliest records of those towns date back to 16th century, not 9th century.
9. The Society section wanders away fom the gist of the article and discusses about the the general situation prevailing in India then, rather than the peculiar customs of the Rashtrakuta lands.
10. How can sati be voluntary (!?) if arranged marriage system was strictly enforced at early age and remarriages being rare?
11. The article seems to imply Kannada was the official language of western India in 9th century. What happened to Marathi then? Incase you are unaware, Kannada is the daughter of Telugu and grand daughter of Tamil.
12. The article frequently states according to inscriptions... as proof. Were those inscriptions in Kannada or Sanskrit?
13. Prose works in Sanskrit was prolific during this era as well... contradicts with ...This period effectively marked the end of the classical Prakrit and Sanskrit era... - Which is true?
14. Is this a southern or northern kingdom? The article begins with the impression that you are going to read about a northern kingdom but by the time you complete reading, you are bombarded with so many details (without proof) about southern culture.
15. This article desperately needs recomposition, expert attention and pass GA first after subject to rigorous peer review (with comments). I recommend immediate withdrawal from FAC.

Anwar 14:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Replies

1. dont be so sure of yourself. no special software needs to be installed to view that map. Sarvagnya
2. Okay. If you think that Dravidian architecture has nothing to do with the Rashtrakutas and that it belongs to and was followed solely by the Cholas, I can only allow you to wallow in your own ignorance, but I will be removing any related tags. You need to read some books on history and ancient Indian architecture before you can be so sure of yourself. And oh.. btw, I am from the 'south'. Sarvagnya
3. The word "feudatory" will 'jump' at a reader even in books written by professional historians. And Dinesh(and Matisse) have done a professional job. Sarvagnya
4. O boy! havent you seen a 'citation' before! Are you new to wikipedia? Stop being so sure of yourself. Sarvagnya
5. Not really sure what you mean.... but you seem to be talking about a grammar or style issue. Feel free to fix it or help fix it. Sarvagnya 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

dinesh has addressed the rest below.

Anwar's objections(replies by Dk)

• Object. The Kanauj Triangle SVG map is inappropriate. I am unable to download and view it without installing additional software. Why is the map showing the territories of other dynasties anyway? How come these overlap? Does that imply those are no man's lands and subject to frequent warfare? Also, the map ignores the great Chola expansion along the eastern coast then in the same time period. Where are the Chalukyas?

Reply-->The overlap area is the Kannauj Triangle, if you study the history of Rashtrakuta in the 9th-10th century. This is the area that the three empires - Rashtrakutas, Palas and Pratiharas fought over. This is why it overlaps. The map simply shows the peak territories of the three empires at different times in the 9th-10th century when the three empires were warring with each other. None of the three empires held Kannauj permanently as explained in the history section. The "great" Chola expansion happened from the very end of the 10th century, after the fall of the Rashtrkutas and begining of the 11th century with the defeat of the Western Ganga Dynasty, a Rashtrakuta subordinate at the hands of the Cholas. Dont mix up dates. The Cholas were not such a "great" empire in the 9th and 10th century. Please read up on the Chola history carefully. By Chalukyas, if you mean the Eastern Chalukyas, they were constantly at strife with the Rashtrakutas, coming under their control periodically, but gaining freedom often like under Gunaga Vijayaditya in the middle of 9th century when Amoghavarsha treated him as an ally. I can provide more details if you wish.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The map is unsuitable at the lead. Perhaps you can display later in the article. The Kannauj is referred in the article, but for most readers, it would not be clear where it is. Prominently marking it on the map would help. The display of the three overalapping is certainly very confusing and I would recommend removing it. I agree with DK's comments about Cholas. Medieval Cholas rose to power later. --Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply-->The map is where it should be as in the case of all other FA's. I have commented on how the map could be redrawn, without changing the Rashtrakuta territory.Dineshkannambadi 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of wild claims about the dates of reign. I have tagged some. Architecture reached a pinnacle in the dravidian style... - this is too much! Anyone from south knows the Golden Age of Dravidian Architecture began under Cholas (after 1000 AD) and has nothing to do with Rashtrakutas. Elephanta Caves are not remotely Dravidian examples. I think the author has confused all Shivaite temples to be Dravidian.

Reply-->None of the claims are wild. All dates if reign are accurate. Dravidian architecture is not a term that is limited to Cholas. Please dont make your views so "Chola Centric". The authors here are well known historians like Kamath, Percy Brown, James Fergusseon, John Keay, Soundar Rajan etc. Are you claiming these scholars are confused? If you notice the very first paragraph, even a mention of Pandyan influence is mentioned. The Kailasanatha temple was modelled after the Virupaksha temple at Pattadakal, which itself is in Dravidian style. This is the view of historians, not mine. The word "Peak" is a relative term. No where is it claimed that the Dravidian architecture went further than or lesser than Chola architecture.Its is only a relative term. The Rashtrakutas were masters of rock cut architecture, the Cholas of stand alone architecture. There are several terms used in architecture and one must not confuse these terms. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

DK's reply is correct I think, and Virupaksha temple at Pattadakal is one of the finest and few ever would dispute the Kailasanatha temple. I wonder whether DK can answer whether some of the artisans for these temples came from Tamil Nadu. There are rock cut temples in Tamil temples in Tamil Nadu, but I don't think they are comparable to Kailasanatha temple.--Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The History section must be urgently restructured chronologically to make a sane reading of dynastic reign by each ruler. Rashtrakutas appear to be a federation or commonwealth rather than a dynasty. The word feudatory jumps at the reader so many times.

His military exploits have been compared to those of Alexander the Great and Pandava Arjuna of Mahabharata.< ref name="arjuna">Keay (2000), p199</ref > - This link is unverifiable. There are over hundred "links" in this style. Please give a screenshot of a hardcopy or a ISBN.

Reply-->All these statements come with citations. If you have counter evidence to disprove my citations we can examine it. All ISBN's/OCLC's are at the bottom in the reference section. The Rashtrakutas like all other large empires had many feudatories or subordinates who owed them nominal support in times of war, distress etc and frequently paid tribute. There is no surprise here.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

DK has not addressed the point. Are Rashtrakutas comparable to Alexander the great?! Alexander was one great warrior ('Rashtrakuta' the way it is described in the article is a conglomoration of some clans?? perhaps a confedaracy?)The claims in the article are way out of bound. It is one thing to say that they were a great power but to project them the way it is done in the article is pure exaggeration. I'll verify the statements in the book, but facts don't support the claims. Is there a single warrior in the Rashtrakuta line who is comparable to Alexander the great? I agree with the comment that Rashtrakuta is more like a commonwealth than a dynasty. --Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply The History section clearly says that Govinda III is compared to Alexander the great and Arjuna.Dineshkannambadi 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Rashtrakutas empire now spread over the areas from Cape Comorin...numerous horseman... - there are plenty of malformed sentences like these.

Reply I have more than 3 books to prove this statement, covering roughly the same area.Dineshkannambadi 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply -->This statement is cited. If you are claiming the sentnce is wrong, please find a citation as a counter argument to disprove it.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The extent of the empire defintely seems to be over-blown. Let me check with some references and get back to you. From Cape Comorin ?!

Reply -->nothing is overblown. All citations are open to examination.Dineshkannambadi 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for a separate detailed economy section when there is a separate article on the subject.

Reply-->The economy section is a reduced version of the subarticle. The intention is to create subarticles that can later be enlarged if necessary. This is consistant with other India History related articles.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

land tax may have been as high as 20%...private mineral prospecting and the quarrying business may have been active...Amoghavarsha may have taken up Jainsim in his old age... - are samples of wild speculation and original research.

Reply-->Firstly I think the objections are vague and not clear what the reviewer wants clarified. These are citations from books by Reu, Kamath, Altekar etc. Statements coming from scholars are not speculative, especially when the matter appears in publised books and are generally accepted by historians. If you think these are speculative, please find other authors who call it speculative or argue against it.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

These are all weasel statements. Just because it is said in a book one need not accept. They have to provide supportive material. History is not an exact sicence, but still some evidences will have to be provided for thos kinds of speculations. --Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

History is certianly not an exact science. But then the same would hold good for all history articles. All statements from historians could be called Weasel statements though they come from examination of inscriptions and other epigraphal material. We have to believe our historians, or we have to believe none.Dineshkannambadi 23:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Kayalpattinam and Nagore did not come under the jurisdiction of Rashtrakuta dynasty. Earliest records of those towns date back to 16th century, not 9th century.

Reply-->The northern portion of Tamil Country was firmly under Rashtrakuta rule. Even the Pandyas of deep south and Kings of Ceylon paid tribute at times. I am only reporting what I read. If you dont like the statement, please find a counter citation that disproves it. Even if the recorded names of these towns are from 16th century, I am sure these towns had some name in the 9th century. The author may have been just using the most recent name. Again this is a cited sentence.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to look into your citations, but many of them appear pretty far-fetched.--Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Society section wanders away fom the gist of the article and discusses about the the general situation prevailing in India then, rather than the peculiar customs of the Rashtrakuta lands.

Reply-->The society and customs in the Rashtrakuta kingdom in many ways was no different from its neighbours. There are bound to be overlaps in customs. No surprise here. Any historian with knowledge will attest to this. Again, I am reporting what I am reading. If you feel its incorrect, please find citations that disprove mine, then we can add it as counter arguement.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How can sati be voluntary (!?) if arranged marriage system was strictly enforced at early age and remarriages being rare?

Reply-->again I am writing what I read. If you have a citation that says "Sati was not voluntary but forced" in the Rashtrakuta empire, bring it to the table and we can include it. Let us not be the ones to decide how sati was voluntary but not arranged marraige.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to imply Kannada was the official language of western India in 9th century. What happened to Marathi then? Incase you are unaware, Kannada is the daughter of Telugu and grand daughter of Tamil.

Reply Lets give an opportunity to the historians to decide which language is the grandmother, which is the mother and which is the daughter. They need to earn their living too, right? If you have a verifiable citation(s) to prove your claim, bring it to the table and we can examine it. If you can prove that Kannada was not their language of administration or literature, we can surely include it as a counter argument.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Anwar, Kannada is not grand daughter of Tamil. Kannada is considered a branch of Tamil-Kannada, but unlike the understanding of my kannadiga friends, it is Kannada that sprung up or branched off from the presumed 'parent' tongue and not Tamil. Tamil is a much older langauge than Kannada, for sure. Perhaps because of this you say it is a grand daughter in the sense of age, but not in the genetic relations sense. --Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply I think both the question and answer are irrelevant in this topic.Dineshkannambadi 23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The article frequently states according to inscriptions... as proof. Were those inscriptions in Kannada or Sanskrit?

Reply Both. Please read the History section and Language section. Again I am reporting what I read. If you can prove with citations that Kannada was not their official language, bring it to the table and we can examine it.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Inscriptions are not always reliable and there are instances where exactly contradictory claims are made. But we have to go by something and refine as we go along. So, it is fine to cite inscriptions. --Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply We are not experts to decide which inscription is valid and which is not. Let us allow our historians to decide that. You have not indicated which claims are contradictory. please be more specific.Dineshkannambadi 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Prose works in Sanskrit was prolific during this era as well... contradicts with ...This period effectively marked the end of the classical Prakrit and Sanskrit era... - Which is true?

Reply This is a relative statement. There is no black and white here. All trends wane away slowly. The Prakrit era was defnitely true, though Sanskrit epics tottered to a close during this time and perhaps a few centuries later. Again this statement comes with a citation.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this a southern or northern kingdom? The article begins with the impression that you are going to read about a northern kingdom but by the time you complete reading, you are bombarded with so many details (without proof) about southern culture.

Good Question. I have explained very explicitly in the first few paragraphs of "History" and also in the subarticle Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty how the early medieval Rashtrakuta kingdoms prior to 8th century eventually resulted in the Rashtrakuta Empire from Manyakheta and then their northern Expansion in the 9th and 10th century creating more kingdoms there. The Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta were a Deccan Empire who brought together many facets of Southern and Northern regions and culture. This is exactly what the Deccan culture is, be it in architecture, literature, sculpture. I can suggest some books for more reading. Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This article desperately needs recomposition, expert attention and pass GA first after subject to rigorous peer review (with comments). I recommend immediate withdrawal from FAC.

Anwar 14:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply Feel free to bring in more scrutiny. I have the books to prove myself though, if you are interested.Dineshkannambadi 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This article should be made an FA, but it should be improved and in many places toned down. My first questions are about the nature of the 'dynasty' (whether it is one - or whether it is a commonwealth type of arrangement); the extent of the control.--Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply I have replied below in Aadal's comments and DK's replies

DK's Answers to Anwar's tags-->I have removed your tags for the following reasons. 1. citations should not be in the LEAD. 2. I have the citations for your tags. Please place them elsewhere in the article and I shall provide the citations.

regarding Hinduism and Jainism.-->Citations #88/89. I can provide more if you like.
regarding Earliest inscription-->Reu (1933), p47
regarding Dravidian (South Indian) architecture-->

• The Kailasa temple in its general plan bears a certian resemblence to the Virupaksha temple at Pattadakal.....The culmination of the rock cut architecture came in the monolithic temple of Kailasa which stands in a class by itself in which an entire structural temple is carved out of living rock. It is here that its designers rose to their greatest heights (Percy Brown in Sastri 1955, p409-411)
  
• The rock cut Kailasanatha Temple, in the centre of the group, is a fine example of the south Indian architectural style promoted by the Rashtrakutas.(Takeyo Kamiya, Architecture of Indian Subcontinent,)[1]
  
• This project was started by Krishna I (757- 773) of the Rashtrakuta dynasty. His rule had also spread to southern India, hence this temple was excavated in the prevailing style. Its builders modelled it on the lines of the Virupaksha Temple in Pattadakal. Being a south Indian style temple, it does not have a shikhara common to north Indian temples. [2]
  
• I have provided a citation for the Elephanta cave monuments in the main article itself.Dineshkannambadi 20:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Aadal's comments and DK's replies

This article should be made an FA, but it should be improved and in many places toned down. My first questions are about the nature of the 'dynasty' (whether it is one - or whether it is a commonwealth type of arrangement); the extent of the control.--Aadal 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dk's reply

Regarding the map, There are two maps, one showing their core area (Kamath) and another their peak area (Keay). The map can be modified to better show Manyakheta, Kannauj. We can remove the Pala and Pratihara territory if its confusing. In fact I had requested the person who drew the map to do just that, except he drew it exactly the way it was in the book.

Done map is less confusing. Shows territories "conquered and held" by Rashtrakutas.Dineshkannambadi 19:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding span of the empire in territory, if it comes down to it, I am more than willing to scan or fax all info on the extent of the empire. Toning down is subject to examination of citations (with inscriptional evidence and literary evidence) and pages that are provided for the same.

Regarding a confedaration, I have not read such a word in my books, but anyone who knows history well understands that the larger the empire, the more de-centralised the government was. Again any modification of this content is subject to examination of citations and pages.Dineshkannambadi 22:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fresh citations

I have added some 20 citations, mostly in the History section, to further strengthen the contents of this article. If anyone has any doubts about the citations or the claims made by historians, please feel free to accurately list the citations which are of concern (without combining multiple issues into one) with clarity and I shall make the page available for study by a neutral party(s). If not, please delete the objections so the FAC can proceed smoothly.Dineshkannambadi 20:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Overall a very well written article with an impressive research work from several sources. However, some quick comments.

• I see the spellings Kannauj and Kanauj. Are both these correct? or is it a typo? Nevertheless, it would be good if the name is used consistently, through out the article.

Reply-->Done. Kannauj is the spelling in wiki. So I made it consistant.Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty lengthy sentence. A copyedit would help re-writing this.
  

“ The origin of Rashtrakuta dynasty has been a controversial topic with such unresolved issues regarding the origins of the earliest ancestors of the Rashtrakutas during the time of Emperor Ashoka in the second century BCE, the connection between the several different Rashtrakuta dynasties that ruled small kingdoms in northern and central India and the Deccan between the sixth and seventh centuries, and the relationship of these medieval Rashtrakutas to the most famous dynasty, the Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta (present day Malkhed in the Gulbarga district, Karnataka state), who ruled between the eighth and tenth centuries. ”

Reply-->Done. chopped it into three sentence for easy reading.Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• contemporaneous Kannada literature such as Kavirajamarga
  

Would be more appropriate to link Kannada literature as it exists.

Done linked to Kannada literature.Dineshkannambadi 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• One linking, for the first time in the section, is generally recommended. Some of the commonly used words seem to have been linked repeatedly.

For example, in History section words such as Karnataka, Maharashtra are linked more than once. Some other common words to be looked into are, Kannada, Sanskrit, Manyakheta.

DoneDineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Is it Amravathi District or Amaravathi District, in Maharashtra?

corrected. Its spelled Amravati district in Maharashtra. There are multiple districts in India with that name but slightly different spelling.Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• His successor, Amoghavarsha I, made Manyakheta his capital ..
  

Two his referring to two different persons? Flow doesn't seem proper. Also, since this sentence being the first in the paragraph, the first "His" should be replaced with the proper noun, that is, the name.

Done corrected sentence begining.Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Inscriptions and other records show the Rashtrakutas selected the crown prince based on heredity.
  

What are the other records? If it can be mentioned in the article its fine, even otherwise it is fine by me. But I'm just curious. Could be Coins? or some other form of literature?

Done-->Literary documentsDineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• both of which are UNSECO World Heritage sites.
  

Should be UNESCO, and probably linked to UNESCO. - KNM ^Talk 03:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. I dont see the phrase in italics anywhere. Also linked UNESCO.Dineshkannambadi 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The phrase is present in Rashtrakuta_Dynasty#Architecture section. I see that, it has been corrected now and linked. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Strong Support - All the issues I had seen have been addressed. The article is very well-sourced and well structured. Impressive coverage of the information on Rashtrakutas. Would make a great FA. Thanks - KNM ^Talk 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support - Well written and detailed article. Great job as usual by Dinesh(and Matisse). Sarvagnya 02:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article, especially "History", needs some reduction in size. Giving some examples —

Reply Reduced by atleast 6-8 lines overall in the History section, especially in the first 5 paras for clarity.Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• The third paragraph of History (in this version) is almost totally unnecessary. The equal importance of Sanskrit and Kannada, the style of architecture have again been discussed in relevant sections (Language, Literature, Architecture etc). So why again in History repeating the same stuff? It's tiresome to read.

Reply I have removed the architecture part. Let me justify why I have maintained the language/literature part and hopefully you wont mind. The earlier statement says that the early Rashtrakutas may have belonged to one of several ethnic groups (Rajput, Kannadiga, Reddi...). When an impatient reader sees this (and does not see the succeeding para explaining that the 8th-10th century kings gave importance to Kannada and Sanskrit), the first question that would come to his mind when he gets to the literature and Language section is "who can believe that Rajputs or Marathas or Reddies or Punjabis would give importance to Kannada/Sanskrit literature. This is incorrect info". He/She may simply not have the patience to understand that irrespective of what the kings spoke or gave importance to in the 6th century, they could change to other languages in the 8-10th century. Most readers who read Indian history, see history from todays point of view. Even this morning, after your comment, a vandal created a "single use account" and tagged the language section as "advertisement" and added the word "Marathi" in choice places to his convinience with scant regard for the historical information and citations. He also tried to disrupt this FAC by using abuse (which was later deleted by another user). This is why I request that these few lines on language and literature be maintained to give continuity.Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• "The origin of Rashtrakuta dynasty has been a controversial topic with some unresolved issues"— Well, the last 4 words are not needed. Controversial implies presence of unresolved issues.

Reply-->done

• "The dynasty's history has been studied through the examination of numerous sources, including..."—Can be changed to "Sources for Rashtrakuta history include...".

Reply_->done and reduced.Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• "The Samangadh copper plate grant (753) confirms that the feudatory king Dantidurga, with a small army, defeated the Vallabha Kirtivarman II of Badami in 753, humbling the great Karnatik army (referring to the army of the Badami Chalukyas) which had earlier won victories over the kings of Kanchi, Kerela, Chola, Pandya, as well as King Harsha of Kannauj and Vajrata. As a Chalukya feudatory, Dantidurga had possibly ruled from his seat of power in modern Elichpur (ancient Achalapura in Berar), Amravati district in modern Maharashtra.[26] With his family based in modern Gulbarga, Dantidurga took control of the northern areas of the Chalukya empire ..." — Can be shortened to exclude details. For example, "...confirms that the feudatory king Dantidurga, who probably ruled from modern Elichpur (ancient Achalapura in Berar), Amravati district in modern Maharashtra, defeated the great Karnatic army (referring to the army of the Badami Chalukyas) of Vallabha Kirtivarman II of Badami in 753, and took control of..."

Reply-->done and reducedDineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of this examples may seem nitpicking. However, this would probably make the article easier to read. In fact, most of the article is easier to read than the previous few Indian history FAs. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply I deeply appreciate your keen interest in these articles.Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• More comment "The most important position under the king was the Chief Minister (Mahasandhivigrahi) whose position came with an insignia commensurate with his position namely, a flag, a conch, a fan, a white umbrella, a large drum and five musical instruments called Panchamahashabdas"—Could not understand. Did "position" of Chief Minister vary? I mean, one Chief Minister might have a conch as an insignia, while another a large drum?--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply corrected meaning.Dineshkannambadi 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply-->I will take a close look at these issue tonight.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 11:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support - Well sourced and well written article - Naveen ^(talk) 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support - Very nice job at tackling a challenging project. I particularly like how the early origin parts is written. Thumbs up. --Blacksun 09:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support- Excellent article, with all the issues addressed this should become a FA. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Meets criteria. Issues raised were satisfactorily addressed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support. - Well written article with lot of information. Gnanapiti 16:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Origin

The origin of Rastrakutas is debatable. This is clearly written in second para of history section. I quote

Scholars debate over which of the many ethnic groups the early Rashtrakutas belonged, the Rajputs,[8] the Kannadiga,[9][10][11] Reddi,[12][13] the Maratha,[14][15] or the Punjabi.[16]

But this information is changed in third para to assert that Rastrakutas are 'Kannadigas' (Kannads). I quote

Though these Rashtrakutas were Kannadigas,[23][24][4] they were conversant in a northern Deccan language as well.[25]

Could anybody explain this? thanks Praveen 21:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There were three lineages(so to speak) which called themselves Rashtrakutas(or some variant of that which some historians have loosely interpreted as Rashtrakutas). One dates back to the days of Ashoka. The others are scattered across India in the pre-R of Manyakheta days. The third is the R of Manyakheta, the imperial dynasty. Of the three, it is the R of M that is meant when the word Rashtrakuta is used(unless specified otherwise). Even this article deals mainly with the Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta who were Kannadigas. The origins of the other two and their relationship to the R of Manyakheta and between themselves is what is debated. The other two are mentioned only for completeness and encyclopedic sake. That R of M were Kannadigas is well attested. Hope Dinesh can add more or correct any chinks in my reply. Sarvagnya 21:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

DK's reply to Praveen

Please take time to read about Origin of Rashtrakutas article which is attached because this will help a lot. Let me give a brief idea what the debate is all about.

1. A few historians (like Hultsczh, Fleet) propose some tribes (it is not clear whether they were aryan or non-aryan and this is specified) were the ancestors of the medieval Rashtrakutas (6th-7th century). These are only theories based on a few words in inscriptions (such as Rathika, Ristika (Rashtrika) or Lathika) from Emperor Ashoka's time (2nd century BC). Most modern books dont bother to discuss this as the theory drags the history back to a very early period with no clarity. It was added for historical completion.

2. The history of the medieval Rashtrakutas becomes more clear from 6th-7th century, when they ruled as minor kingdoms with the availability of a few inscriptions. The Elichpur family (Berar) was a feudatory to the Badami Chalukyas (Kamath, Altekar, Reu....). This is attested to by inscriptions. It is not clear if the Manpur family and Kannauj family were feudatories too or not. The relationship between these medieval Rashtrakuta families and whether they were natives of central India or arrived there from the north or south is debated. Consequently Scholars have also debated whether their ancestors were originally Rajputs, Marathas, Reddies, Kannadigas or residents of Punjab region going back several centuries. However some scholars (Altekar, Karmakar, Kamath, Desai etc) claim the Elichpur family were Kannadigas and not natives of Central India (Berar) or north India, but natives of Karnataka region as mentioned in the Origin... article. This is because right from the begining of their independent rule (after overthrowing the Chalukyas in 753) they encouraged Kannada in administration, literature. Also, many of their inscriptions in central India are signed in Kannada even as far as Gujarat. So it is claimed that Kannada speaking commanders were despatched to rule the far corners of the Chalukya empire and later overcame their own overlords in Badami. Similarly, It is also known that the Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi were from the Badami family.

3. Irrespective of who the early Rashtrakutas were or where they came from, Dantidurga's family from Elichpur (who became the Manyakheta family of the 8-10th centuries) were ardent supporters of Kannada language. There is not a single scholar that I know of who denies this. So irrespective of their early lineage (which has been added for historical completeness), the Manyakheta family encouraged Kannada. In fact Altekar (who is a Maharashtrian) claims there is proof that the locality where the Elichpur family lived in the 6-7th century was a Kannada speaking locality based on inscriptions. He is one of the ardent supporters of their Kannadiga origin. Karmarkar further claims they were Dravidian Kannadigas originally.

I am not surprised that this question came up. Generally we tend to see history from todays point of view. We see Kannada spoken in Karnataka, Marathi spoken in Maharashtra and so on. But these linguistic boundaries are present day boundaries. Language distributions were quite different in the medieval times and have been constantly changing and will continue to change. Even if the early Rashtrakutas were not Kannadigas in the 6-7th century time frame (no scholar that I know of has claimed they were not Kannadigas), it does not mean they cannot become Kannadigas in the later centuries by migration and settlement. The citations are from historians who claim they were originally Kannadigas.

I have included all these three tiers of their history for completeness and historical fairness. If the article were titled Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta, I would not have bothered to write about the early medieval Rashtrakutas or the earliest "proposed" ancestors. But when you say Rashtrakutas, one normally means Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta as they are the most famous. I have not come across any books written specifically about their direct ancestors and other Rashtrakuta minor familes as they were petty kingdoms.

I hope this answers your question.Dineshkannambadi 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good thing that you have written such a long reply. But, I feel you have not answered the question. Rastrakutas supporting Kannada does not mean they are Kannads. Or does it? I agree that Rastrakutas might most probably be Kannads. But there is uncertainty about that as shown by the 2nd para. You are claiming that Rastrakutas can become Kannads by migration & settlement. After 200 years, an Indian family settled in US does not become ethnic Americans. My proposal would be alter the sentence to "Even though Rastrakutas (of manyaketa) supported Kannada, Rastrakutas were also conversant in a northern Deccan language". But if you insist on the later Rastrakuta theory, at least make it clear (I can help) between 2nd & 3rd paras.

And yes I agree with you fully that people tend to see long standing issues in today's perspective and get confused by today's boundaries (an apt example for this would be if some morons believe that a river originating from certain region (in present day boundaries) belong only to people from that region. What about the right of people in downstream who used it for thousands of years?)

Praveen, I have provided 3 citations from historians to attest the Rashtrakutas were originally Kannadigas. I am not sure why it has to be reworded to an ambiguous "support". In history, we its important not to "split hairs". Even People who support Kannada to such a large extent (literature/administration) are Kannadigas. Your comment "After 200 years, an Indian family settled in US does not become ethnic Americans" is passing your own view. We should leave it to the concerned family to decide that. As another example, today you are Tamil and I a Kannadiga. What conclusive evidence can we give that our own ancestors were Tamils and Kannadigas respectively 200 years back? Yet you consider yourself a Tamilian and I a Kannadiga. Even the word "ethnic" is flexible in Indian history. What surety can a historian give that the Cholas were Tamils in 300BC? Maybe they were aryans who took up Tamil?. This is the reason I have not tried to emphasise (on the main article) what language the Rashtrakutas spoke prior to the 8th century, just to be fair. This is the reason I have specifically written "Though these Rashtrakutas were Kannadigas"(with citations). I have tried not to inflict myself on other earlier Rashtrakutas for fairness. There is no barrier as to when someone becomes a Kannadiga and upto when one remains outside its realm. Hope this helps.Dineshkannambadi 12:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the wording to match your web page citation exactly. However, one needs to understand the content in context of Geography. The sentence "They spoke Kannada but also knew the northern Deccan language" in the web page indicates the nature of the culture in the transition zone between Dravidian and Aryan languages. Knowing a northern deccan language does not make them any less Kannadiga.ThanksDineshkannambadi 13:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dinesh, please dont feed trolls. Sarvagnya 18:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Its amazing how some trolls do not know that they are the actual trolls. Praveen 00:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

DK, I am wondering why you need to say "conversant in a northern Deccan language". What is that northern Deccan language? And how do we know thta they were conversant in that language? I remember to have read somewhere in K.V. Ramesh's book, that Amogavarsha had some marital relations with Western Gangas who was a descendant of Chola princess. Finally what does Kamath's 'dravidian kannadiga' mean? --Aadal 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what the "northern deccan language" is. That citation was brought in by your friend Praveen. please ask him. Marital relations have existed between Southern, Deccan and Northern families for a long time. I dont know about Amoghavarsha's marital relations with Western Gangas, though I am aware that Amoghavarsha's daughter married Pallava Narasimhavarman and their son also called Nrupatunga succeeded his father and became a Pallava king. Ofcourse I have citations for all this. Regarding "dravidian Kannadiga" I am not sure, though I think the author whose name you got wrong may have meant speakers of dravidian language Kannada, but feel free to research it.Dineshkannambadi 22:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

When I started editing, the "northern Deccan language" sentence was there already, albeit in a misleading manner [3]. The citation states that the Rastrakutas spoke Kannada & north Deccan language. But the editor (whoever written that sentence) misleadingly wrote that the Rastrakutas were Kannadigas. I modified the sentence to reflect the citation & brought the web citation (Encyclopedia Brittanica) in place of book citation since the web citation is easy to access and verify. Praveen 00:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the reference to the northern deccan language can be removed unless we can find a source which can detail it in unambiguous terms. Just because a reliable source is ambiguous shouldnt be any reason why we should be reproducing the ambiguity on wikipedia. Especially given how well sourced this article is, I dont think there is any dearth of reliable sources. Sarvagnya 00:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rastrakutas spoke Kannada & North Deccan language. This statement is in agreement with the ambiguity in Rastrakutas' origin as recorded in 2nd para. Praveen 00:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Praveen, the ambiguity in para 2 has little to do with your web citation. Its the Geography. Since Manyakheta is generally at the transition zone of Aryan and Dravidian languages, they were conversant with another language in addition to their native tongue Kannada, Just like todays people in Karnataka bordering Tamil Nadu call Kannada their native language, but may also be conversant in Tamil. web citation or not, their historical patronage for Kannada language and literature cant be altered. This is what the world sees at large.Dineshkannambadi 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the web page may not say Kannadiga (just spoke Kannada) but my three authors do. Its a waste of time fishing around.Dineshkannambadi 00:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.