| Revision as of 06:11, 27 January 2006 edit67.174.232.187 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:05, 7 November 2024 edit undo223.178.212.117 (talk) →padma not cover in this: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic |
| (343 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject India |importance=Top |karnataka=yes |karnataka-importance=High |tamilnadu=yes |tamilnadu-importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Dance|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Visual arts }} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 500K |
|
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Bharatanatyam/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Archive box|search=yes|auto=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== padma not cover in this == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
padma not cover in this ] (]) 18:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
==Tagging== |
|
|
The author is blatantly sticking to his cooked up theories and more cheeky, is accusing me of vandalism. I am new to wiki and didnt know of the talk page when i made my first few edits. Later I have discussed my concerns on the talk page too...but have met with stubborn silence. Hence tagging this page. |
|
|
|
|
|
Issue being discussed |
|
|
|
|
|
*the author provides spurious 'proof' in the name of two links to advance his baseless argument tha BN originated in TN. my concerns vis a vis this so called 'proof' or links which supposedly 'seal' the deal are somewhere below on this page. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===VANDALISM!!!==== |
|
|
|
|
|
STOP IT!!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! ****PROVE**** TO ME BN ORIGINATED IN TN...I DONT CARE FOR "ALL THE BOOKS" U READ!!! THE LINK YOU HAVE GIVEN IS BULLSHIT!!! YES BULLSHIT!!! WIKI IS NOT YOUR PRIVATE BATHROOM TO ATTRIBUTE EVERYTHING THAT IS GOOD TO TAMIL/TAMILIANS/TAMILNADU!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
THE LINK THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN AND WHICH YOU SAY 'SEALS' THE MATTER, DOESNT SPEAK A WORD ABOUT BN'S ORIGINS!!! I AM REVERTING THIS AND IF YOU TELL ME ITS VANDALISM AM GOING TO THE ADMINS!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
WHEN I CHANGED IT THE FIRS TIME U SAID I HAVE TO DISCUSS IT IN THE TALK PAGE BEFORE I REVERT....THEN I CAME AND POSTED IN THE TALK PAGE TOO. NO REPLY FROM YOU...THEN I CHANGED THE ARTICLE AND YOU COME AND TELL ME ITS VANDALISM!!! GO TAKE A JUMP!!'''''' |
|
|
|
|
|
==Common spellings== |
|
|
Here is a result of Google searches for common misspellings of the name. This will be useful if in future there's a debate on whether this article needs to be redirected to any other spelling. Also if any other titles need to be redirected to this article. Search done on Aug 6. ] 16:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
<table> |
|
|
<tr><td>"bharata natyam" <td align="right"> 20,100 |
|
|
<tr><td> bharatanatyam <td align="right"> 17,300 |
|
|
<tr><td> bharathanatyam <td align="right"> 8,520 |
|
|
<tr><td> bharatnatyam <td align="right"> 7,280 |
|
|
<tr><td>"bharat natyam" <td align="right"> 3,700 |
|
|
<tr><td>"bharatha natyam" <td align="right"> 3,210 |
|
|
<tr><td> bharathnatyam <td align="right"> 428 |
|
|
<tr><td>"bharata nathyam" <td align="right"> 94 |
|
|
<tr><td>"bharath natyam" <td align="right"> 89 |
|
|
<tr><td>"bharatha nathyam" <td align="right"> 38 |
|
|
<tr><td>"bharat nathyam" <td align="right"> 19 |
|
|
<tr><td> bharatanathyam <td align="right"> 14 |
|
|
<tr><td> bharathanathyam <td align="right"> 5 |
|
|
<tr><td> bharatnathyam <td align="right"> 4 |
|
|
</table> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
Yahoo search for |
|
|
<table> |
|
|
<tr><td> bharatnatyam <td align="right"> 54,600 |
|
|
<tr><td> "bharata natyam" <td align="right"> 35,600 |
|
|
<tr><td> bharatanatyam <td align="right"> 33,300 |
|
|
<tr><td> bharathanatyam <td align="right"> 26,400 |
|
|
</table> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Medha Hari == |
|
|
|
|
|
Never heard of this name. Also, why this ugly/advertising image is added here? --] 09:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Dear Rrjanbiah, |
|
|
:You need to learn more about the contemporary Bharatanatyam. And the picture is not at all ugly. -- 10:10, 8 Nov 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
But, it definitely looks like a ]. The content of the articles and the pages linked to it seems to confirm that. --] 07:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rrjanbiah,|Medha Hari web site pages provide non-commercial information for FREE |
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Rrjanbiah! I looked in major directories (Open Directory, Looksmart, etc) and Medha Hari is listed there. Keep yourself updated. |
|
|
] 04:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== From Tamil Nadu? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is Bharatanatyam orginated from Tamil Nadu? Someone at ] added so. --] 10:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Dear Rrjanbiah, |
|
|
:It appears that you are not familiar with Bharatanatyam at all - 10:07, 8 Nov 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
AFAIK, Bharathanatyam is a Telugu devadasi dance which was commercialized by brahmins like Rukmani Devi. But, neither this article nor any other artcile seems to say that it is Tamilians' dance. --] 07:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
BharatanATya is a dance form of Karnataka. the very fact that it is Karnatik Music to which this dance form is performed proves this fact. Karnataka music or Carnatic music was structured by Sri Purandara Dasa, the great saint from Karnataka. It is to this structured and sophisticated musical form that BharatanATya is performed. Anyway, there is ABSOLUTELY no proof to the claim that it originated in TamilNadu. Misplaced Pages is not your DinaMani or Dinamalar or Nakkeeran to print/type anything and everything you like. Keep all your self advancing theories to your tabloids and your textbooks. Changing it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Moreover, even history records the fact that the Kannada Hoysala queen, Shantala/Shantale was an acknowledged expert of this art long before Devadasis started performing in Andhra temples or Krishna and Rukmini brought it to the TN stage. |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
Partisan advertisement and promotional campaign on behalf of medha hari is clearly visible by the link and image of medha hari being put up on the page. In order that neutrality is attained such partisan publicity should not be overlooked. Is wikipedia an advertising platform ? ] 11:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
-- |
|
|
|
|
|
For Rrjanbiah: you are Telugu, aren't you? - there is no place for nationalism on Misplaced Pages |
|
|
|
|
|
For Water Fish: |
|
|
I do not perceive adding relevant content as SPAM. |
|
|
External links are supported for enriching elements (such as the multimedia content). |
|
|
Before deleting anything, you better think of the benefit of the reader: will the photo be a valuable illustration? Will external links be a valuable extention of Misplaced Pages? --] |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Ralph |
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Almost all the articles and books I have read say it is from Thanjavur in Tamil Nadu. A simple google search shows a number of pages. Have to revert. I think this article from The Hindu should seal it. |
|
|
http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mp/2003/06/25/stories/2003062500230100.htm |
|
|
Please stop reverting... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- ] 07:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
this article from Hindu seals *nothing*. It does not speak a single word about Bharatanatya's origins. And even if it did, the author of that article is far from the last word on the subject. STOP MAKING ARBITRARY CLAIMS AND PASSING OFF SPURIOUS LINKS AS PROOF!!. reverting it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
==Advertisement vandalism== |
|
|
|
|
|
*Hi, Water Fish and Rrjanbiah. I do not understand why you add external links to other Misplaced Pages articles but at the same time you are only so good as to indiscriminately erase all external links from the Bharatanatyam article. |
|
|
|
|
|
I personally added the Mudras. |
|
|
** It has nothing to with 'advertising' |
|
|
** It has nothing to do with Medha Hari and your hatred towards her |
|
|
|
|
|
I added the link because most mudras on that site are given short descriptions and photos. |
|
|
|
|
|
<tt>If you continue to erase all the external links indiscriminately (that's vandalism), I will complain to the admins.</tt> |
|
|
|
|
|
] 14:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, 219.65.124.*** also called as ], also called as ] also called as ]. It is incredible to make three user pages within a span of 24 hours. People in the wikipedia knows how vandals operate. One is allowed to have multiple id but not to lobby for their own views or advertisement. |
|
|
|
|
|
By definition, linking to webpages devoted to the promotion of a single dancer is spam. It is surely not helpful and is definitely advertisement. Moreover the wikipedia gives bibliography to textbooks dealing with topics. These <b>Reference textbooks</b> are not spam, they are treatise on a subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
listing on open directory or Looksmart page or Google and professional directories like Narthaki.com, can be done, it is never taken as a criterion to validate authenticity or to be listed on an encyclopaedia. Misplaced Pages is well aware of such acts by people to legitimise their personal views. |
|
|
|
|
|
Besides being featured 3 or more times in a newspaper or television is not a criterion to be on an encyclopedia. Many major newspapers and TV channels throughout the world promote young dancers by writing and presenting about them more than one time. if one was to make encyclopedia article about all of them, then they do not even qualify half as much as the virtuosos from conservatories around the world. But wikipedia does not entertain articles even about those virtuosos from great universities. |
|
|
|
|
|
Medha Hari is probably a young dancer, and definitely not a major dancer. If that is enough criterion to be written about on the wikipedia, then in that case every music student in ] and music conservatories and ballets would have to be written about, and that is definitely not meant for the wikipedia. ] 06:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deleting other users' comments is inappropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "linking to webpages devoted to the promotion of a single dancer is spam" |
|
|
|
|
|
I guess it is not "promotion": the first link gives an extended overview of the subject matter, and the second link provides the free video illustrations to the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
I welcome ] to list other 13-year-old Bharatanatyam "virtuosos from conservatories around the world" if he cares to find any: with the details info on their style and online videos. |
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to say that ] is not familiar with the topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''The classical dance column in the national newspaper the Hindu is similar to the Dance Magazine. Any 13-year-old dancer who is reviewed 3 times in the Dance Magazine would be worthy of being listed on Misplaced Pages.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''says who?? says who?? says who??''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] 09:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
There are several or should I say numerous young people far younger than age of 13 who are virtuosos. A lot of the students in ] are below 8 and 9 years old. Several articles about these kids come in the New York Times and other prominent newspapers around the world. To write article in an encyclopedia about a person, the person has not only to be a virtuoso but also stand the test of time. That is the reason one does not find articles written about just anybody who is famous. An encyclopedia article is written about a person who retains brilliance over a long time. If a young talent lasts for several decades with the same brilliance then an article could be written about that person. Just being a prodigy does not qualify. One needs to retain that virtuosity for decades before receiving lasting acclaim. |
|
|
|
|
|
The wikipedia has artilce about prodigies who retained brilliance over decades. Violinists like ] were prodigies. Infact Yehudi Menuhin gave his first performance when he was 7 years old. But his entry into an encyclopedia was made only after several decades of continious performance. ] 11:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Promoting young artists is good but refering to them as iconic dancers is Pov. If a picture of ones close ones is put up then it should only be described as a dancer without giving name and without presenting that person as a prominent artist, because that comes about after decades of consistent brilliance. ] 11:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*It is disputable whether "decades of consistent brilliance" are required for one to be recognized as a virtuoso and a prominent dancer. Dancers, after the "decades of consistent brilliance", usually leave the stage, and can no longer be referred to as dancers but as dance teachers and "past celebrities". |
|
|
**You cannot compare western ballet dancers with Bharatanatyam dancers. Bharatanatyam is a spiritual discipline, and has nothing to do with ballet, frankly speaking. |
|
|
**As for "a prominent artist", one has to look at the list of the artiste's awards, performances, and public recognition in general. If nobody can recognize the name of Yehudi Menuhin in India, likewise, very few may be familiar with the names of the Indian Bharatanatyam prominent artistes. |
|
|
***:'''says who?? says who?? says who??''' ...Medha Hari is not well known even in India. why well known, she is not even known as an artist. 99 out of 100 people wouldnt even have heard her name...this is nothing by cheap and blatant advertisement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] 04:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Comments moved from ]== |
|
|
Under attack from users Water Fish and Rrjanbiah who indiscriminately erase (but do not add anything) <b>all external links section<b>. The external links contain highly relevant, unique and valuable resources (text, photo and web video). ----] 20:27, 15 Nov 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
The so called <b>]</b> and <b>]</b> are advertisement and partisan promotion of a dancer named ]. Such spam cannot be used as a link in the wikipedia. The wikipedia is not a platform for advertisement and promotions. The purpose of these links is to promote the sales of cds and a young performer who is not even a major dancer. |
|
|
|
|
|
the ] has probably been created by the same author, it is very easy to create several links to a spam on the wikipedia. One should not be deceived by them. |
|
|
|
|
|
the user id ], ], ] ], ], ] were all created since 13th november 2004. It seems they are all created by the same person who has done considerable vandalism from 219.65.124.***; |
|
|
|
|
|
By definition, linking to webpages devoted to the promotion of a single dancer is spam. It is surely not helpful and is definitely advertisement. Moreover the wikipedia gives bibliography to textbooks dealing with topics. These <b>Reference textbooks</b> are not spam, they are treatise on a subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
listing on open directory or Looksmart page or Google and professional directories like Narthaki.com, can be done, it is never taken as a criterion to validate authenticity or to be listed on an encyclopaedia. Misplaced Pages is well aware of such acts by people to legitimise their personal views. ] 19:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
** |
|
|
Rrjanbiah/Water Fish, |
|
|
why do you delete wholesale <b>the whole secion<b> of the external links? <b>Most of these links |
|
|
have nothing to do with Medha Hari.<b> |
|
|
I personally added a link to the <b>Mudra's web site<b> that you erased. |
|
|
So, what is the point? |
|
|
The point is that Rrjanbiah-Water Fish erases everything wholesale. |
|
|
Myself, I never 'deleted the reference texts'. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 02:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{| |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| width=150px bgcolor=red|Hey, ],] || width=500px bgcolor=white|did you realize that 13th november was because normal people, who work on weekdays, may like to browse the Web on weekends???? |
|
|
|} |
|
|
] 04:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Graphics== |
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, my dear! Does anybody know when ] is going learn how to insert a picture without distorting the aspect ratio so that the picture looks rather ugly? :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
Or is he doing it on purpose? |
|
|
|
|
|
Does anybody find the other image (screenshot of thumbnails) to be appropriate here? |
|
|
|
|
|
I need a big magnifying glass to see anything! |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers! |
|
|
|
|
|
] 13:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, |
|
|
|
|
|
I edited this page, Medha Hari's picture is on this once, |
|
|
but I put photos of some well known dancers including Mahalakshmi and G.Narerndran. |
|
|
|
|
|
gitac2s |
|
|
|
|
|
== Neutral pov == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to work on moving this article to a neutral point of view. Any help is appreciated. ] 23:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== It IS from Tamil Nadu and here are the links == |
|
|
|
|
|
I hope the bbc and The Hindu websites are proof enough, and that this will seal the controversy. Before reverting PLEASE CITE YOUR SOURCE. I'm getting tired of this... |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mp/2003/06/25/stories/2003062500230100.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/features/2003/03/annapurna_dance_03.shtml#theorigin |
|
|
|
|
|
] 07:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
''like the other user says, the hindu article does not speak abou BN's origins at all. so dont cite that for reference. it does not mean anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
as for the bbc article, it only talks about some Lord Shiva/cosmic dance legend/mythology. Legend and mythology isnt exactly history and is far from a verifiable fact. India is a land of a zillion legends and unending mythology....every state/city/town/village has its own legends. So dont confuse issues to suit your convenience. |
|
|
|
|
|
also the bbc article only says that the original manual is *NOW* in tanjore. it doesnt mean it was written in tanjore. and even if a manual is written in tanjore doesnt mean the art form should have originated there. and there is not way to say if that was the only copy of the manual that ever was written or existed...several such manuals might have been written in different places across india and they might just have been lost. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Remove that claim.''' if you persist with your unsubstantiated claims that will give the licence to anybody to make any unsubstantiated claims...and when they do that if you complain of vandalism, that i should say is cheeky...not to mention, juvenile.'' |
|
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
