Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:03, 10 December 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

India B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Archives

1 2

Article Carnatic music should be article of Carnatic music

Article Carnatic music should be article of Carnatic music not for article of modern artist. I found lot of and repeated images of same person. If any body would like please put images particular person's article. Other wise Quality of article should be Stub. I feel somebody trying to put some unfamiliar composers images to show they are very famous.

And I am afraid of the works of Mr Kris.

Rgds A4ay 11:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To All,

This is the article of Carnatic muisc not for modern artists. A4ay 05:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Images aren't a necessity for this article, and why some musicians get their images over others is also another issue. For now, until this is resolved, I shall delete the images.

If DKP's credit for being the first female to sing RTP on stage is ommitted, then descriptions of both MSS and Brinda, as well as Jon B Higgins will be deleted.

This is the only fair way to handle it. Ncmvocalist 06:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, this is article of Carnatic music not modern artists or Vocalist. A4ay 07:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess both the above are sock puppets of a single user. Destructive edits are reprehensible and people can get banned for not following wikipedia's policies. Kindly read WP:Vandalism and WP:3RR. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 12:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe you're now guilty of defamation. Ncmvocalist 06:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we need an admin to protect this page from edit-warring and destructive edits made by a few members. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 08:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I am guilty of defamation for thinking aloud that User:A4ay might be your sock puppet? ROTFL ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 09:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

To Admin/ All

User Kris misusing his power to edit in wikipedia. His comments is like the comments in stupid message boards. This kind of work have to stop. What I done for this article is that I removed some images, and external link from this article . Here each user trying to put images of some vocalist to show that they are famous. If it continues all users will put to show their friends and relatives who belong to carnatic music. So it will became the article of Vocalist. I found that the link I removed from the wikipedia may be the personal website of user Kris. And some images removed by me was also uploaded by him. That made him hatred against me. I have no relation with Ncmvocalist. And requesting to take action against user Kris by calling me sock puppet.

I suggesting is that wikipeida is not a private website of any users. by A4ay 05:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

READ before making further changes please

There are several issues that need to be discussed with respect to this article. These involve external links, modern artists, images and nature and learning of Carnatic music. Until consensus is reached on these topics, please avoid making edits (especially contestable ones) in those areas especially.

1) External links - the issue is of what is acceptable and what is not.

2) Modern artists - the issue is whether to include extra information about female yesteryear artists or not, and whether to include information on Jon Higgins. (if we do include this info, where do we draw the line? if we don't, are we just listing artists?)

3) Images - whether it is neutral, appropriate and relevant to include images of modern artists throughout the Carnatic music page. The pictures that were up:

a) MSS EMI Record Cover b) Ariyakudi c) DKP and DKJ with respect to RTP d) DK Pattammal e) Madurai Mani Iyer f) concert pics including mysore v and palghat, balamuralikrishna, and n.ramani g) Chembai h) Balamuralikrishna i) Jon B Higgins

Ncmvocalist 07:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

With respect to 1), see WP:External_links.

With respect to 3), pictures are avoidable altogether. There are so many composers and musicians to provide a netural point of view by just providing images of a few of them, exclusively, over others. Perhaps the only picture that is neutral in its inclusion is the tanpura - this I will leave up to someone else to insert, hopefully in the appropriate section of the article.

Ncmvocalist 02:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:IMAGE "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." In this context would you object to the use of some images located near relevant text? Addhoc 11:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I might, depending on the circumstances. Could you specify such circumstances?

My idea for the modern artists section was adding the image of the first artist mentioned per para. (considering Purandaradasar -first mentioned composer- was added in the composers section as opposed to the Trinity). A couple of people disagreed, one insisting I was undoing their painstaking work without remaining neutral. So all contentious images (which aren't a necessity for the article in the first place) have been removed unless/until consensus is reached to maintain WP:NPOV.

In the context of your quote however, it may be fair to insert an image of a faceless musician putting anudhrutham (tAlA) with their hands OR in the concerts sections (or shruti section) inserting an image of a tanpura....Ncmvocalist 01:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you have a look at the jazz and folk music articles to see how WP:IMAGE has been interpreted. Addhoc 12:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I can plainly say I have prior experience with certain users outside wikipedia, and they are upto no good. I would urge every serious editor to check the antecedents of users to find their nature of contributions and use it to understand them better. This is not a tirade on any particular user, but yes, it helps to identify trolls. I am sorry if this personally offends anyone, because that was not what I intended to do. Thanks ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 14:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of vernacular scripts

User Srkris unilaterally removed all the south Indian scripts from the article on 15 November (labelling it a 'minor edit!) without discussing his actions in the talk pages. As this a collaborative project any such actions need to be discussed and consensus reached in the talk pages. However there is an ongoing discussion at the Village pump regarding the usefulness of these vernacular scripts in an English language encyclopedia. Until this issue is resolved, and to maintain neutrality, I'm removing Sanskrit also from the article. This article is not about the Sanskrit term, rather it is about Carnatic music. Thanks Parthi 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Karnataka Sangeetham (both words) are sanskrit, so sanskrit's inclusion appears fine. However this is not an etymology 101 class to include the same thing in all vernaculars. This is not only 90% useless (being unreadable), its also like making the same thing said in several languages just to make it appear politically correct.

Secondly, I did not remove any content. I merely commented the relevant text out. The text is still there in the edit page and can be displayed once the comments are removed. Some people who probably hate sanskrit might have a problem including it without including their other favourite languages. Other than this, I dont think there's any purpose served by inclusion of all languages. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 19:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Carnatic music" and not Karnataka Sangeetham. Sanskrit is equally unreadable to 99.999999% of the population of this world. In this scale keeping Sanskrit is also useless. I am not in favour of any vernacular scripts in any English language article. They only lead to useless and non-productive arguments.

Whether you used the html hide tag or deleted the scripts is irrelevant to the outcome. You removed them from the article without discussion and marking the edit a minor one. I would recommend you not to make any unfounded assumptions about other editors' likes and dislikes. Keep the discussion to the subject in hand. Thanks

Parthi 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Parthi,

I am sorry that, I am a Keralaite, In Kerala we saying Karnataka Sangeetham , I know Sanskrit. In Sanskrit It also saying Karnataka Sangeetham . I think In Telugu Also it saying same as Karnataka Sangeetham. I an very neighbor to Tamil Nadu but I don't know how pronounce in Tamil Karnatka santham/ Carnatic music.

There was an spelling mistake in Sanskrit text. It was pronunce like Karnataka sangeeth (in Hindi)or "sangeetha" (in sanskrit). But I think that was mistake by some who know Hindi.

I know your Passion of Tamil Language. But we have to tolerate with all language. Carnatic music and Karnataka Sangeetham is same as Madras and Chennai. or Cochin and Kochi. Carnatic music is the colonial name of Karnataka Sangeetham.

A4ay 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A4ay, whether I have a passion for Tamil or not is irrelevant. I don't hate any language. the point under discussion is whether Sanskrit should remain in the article when the rest of the south Indian scripts were removed unilaterally. The name of the article is Carnatic music, which is a recognised English name. We don't need any script other than English on this page. Thanks- Parthi 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against Sanskrit, but I hate people 'piggybacking' Hindi on Sanskrit into many Hindu/Sanskrit related articles. I am sure that this is NOT the case on this article, but still, I am for either using all scripts or not using any vernacular script. IMO, the Devanagari script(not Sanskrit) is least representative of Carnatic music. Sarvagnya 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think, where possible, sticking to English (and no vernacular script) is the way to go. However, this bit doesn't bother me as most people skip it when reading - usually because they don't understand....Ncmvocalist 01:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is commonly called "karnataka sangeetham" by everyone who knows anything about carnatic music. Its a very common term, and is in fact the commonest term. Obviously English Misplaced Pages will have its article names in english, but that is no reason not to include the most common native term by which it is called. And it is in Sanskrit, so it is represented in its own script. I see no problems so far! Problems arise only when people find a need to push their own languages just because sanskrit happens to be there. I'm a tamil myself, and I feel nothing is wrong in having only sanskrit, and not having a pressing need to say the same thing in all vernacular scripts ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 15:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article says Carnatic music and that is sufficient. What it is known as in other languages need not appear in the lead paragraph. If you want you can insert an infobox with other scripts and transliterations. Again let me patiently recommend you not to assume anything on the likes and dislikes of other editors. Don't use words you may have to retract. - Parthi 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on in village pump, and the majority votes are to include the main native script relating to the Indian articles, neither to include many relevant scripts, nor to not include any script. As such, two or three minority users cant force their opinions on the rest like this! ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 14:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated addition of www.rasiakas.org in the EL section

According to WP:EL links to forum websites are to be avoided. WP:COI specifically forbids inclusion of websites owned by one of the editors of the article. The website in question breaks both these guidelines. Whether this website adds value to this article may be determined by the following guidelines:

1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

IMO the site does not meet any of this. I am a member of this forum and all I see is what happens in any forum. There are other reputed sources for carnatic music than a forum. - Parthi 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have told already, both personally and publicly to those concerned, that:

1. Misplaced Pages does not prohibit an editor's website from being included as an external link by a third party.
2. The website in question is not referenced in the article in any way to compromise NPOV
3. It is not a forum website. It is a website which also includes a forum, among other non-forum content. Again forum thread reference is not an issue here at all. Else all websites containing forums should be debarred?
4. None of the other policies of Misplaced Pages are broken by its inclusion.
5. What is a genuine or reliable website is anyone's lookout, its merely a perception, not an empirical fact. I dont think my website includes any propoganda material or illegal stuff.

Anyone can check that both the times it was included (and removed), it was not I who pushed for it or included it.

Removing the link therefore, appears to me to be motivated by other extraneous considerations not having anything to do with wikipedia's policies. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 19:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• But you are pushing for its reinclusion.
• It is irrelevant how this site is dressed up. The introductory page of this site defines itself as "This site is about discussions and sharing of knowledge about Indian music." - meaning this is a discussion forum. It also requires registration to participate.
• The website does not add any neutral information that is not already contained in the article. All the information contained in the site is discussion between members on the subject of music.
• The inclusion of the link breaks WP:EL, WP:COI

Parthi 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Parthi, according to WP:EL "use of Misplaced Pages to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against". Addhoc 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, rasikas is primarily a forum with other stuff running off it, which is quite the contrary when compared to a site like Carnatica. The other issue is with neutrality. At previous moments, and at this moment in time, I'm sorry to say that the link is inappropriate for this article. Ncmvocalist 01:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please note that pushing for its exclusion and pushing for its inclusion are both "pushing", and one is no better than the other. The only fact that remains is that it was twice added to EL by outsiders, and both times removed on flimsy grounds or misunderstanding.
• Words mean nothing, substance should be over form. The website contains non-forum content also. It is not a forum website, but a website on music that also happens to contain a forum. Merely because forum appears to be conspicous is not enough to call it a forum website.
• It is clear that the website is not a propoganda website, and it is also clear that external links exist mainly for content that cant be included on wikipedia due to various reasons.
• Any new user would immediately parrot wikipedia's guidelines without understanding the issue. We all know the guidelines. Its not I who put the link to my website in the first place. I am seeking objectivity and fairness. Its so easy to dismiss my views thinking "he's pushing for his website". It takes real objectivity to understand that I am asking for objectivity. Its a vicious circle. Some dont understand while some pretend to not understand ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As an interested party, your pushing for the reinclusion of the link is in violation of WP:COI. WP guidelines are not there to pick and choose. They are there to maintain the integrity of the project. Two members (myself and Vocalist) of the forum have openly stated here that it is simply a forum website and not a website containing a forum. Forums are to avoided because of the unreliable information that tend to be found there. Thanks - Parthi 19:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the link, it does appear to be a chat forum. Could you detail what useful information is contained? Addhoc 19:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's briefly see what this non-forum form website contains other than the forum:

• An events calendar
• An occasional blog by Srkris
• List of links

How is this relevant to the article? -Parthi 00:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In order to understand the background to this issue, it will be useful to highlight User:Srkris's past actions regarding this link. This user has a habit of inserting links to his websitesinto numerous articles. I have been watching his to see where else he inserts his links.

Regards Parthi 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User Venu, When you explain the background, do it properly. Interested users may see User Venu's contribution . Now It's been 1-2 months User venu with the support of an admin started his wiki-stalking against User:kris .User:venu should stop this and should keep wikipedia off his personal disputes.-Bharatveer 07:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User Bharatveer why don't you complain against me like your friend Srkris did? All can see how Srkris's complaint turned out here and here. - Parthi 09:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As a general note for all 3 concerned Wikipedians, I do wish this would be a place NOT for personal disputes. Please assume good faith and civility with other editors, at least from now. The URL in question is contestable from both sides, with some valid arguments on either side. As a general note, external links should be kept to a minimum. If someone (not anyone in particular!) wants to include rasikas.org without going into dispute resolution etc., then the next step is to specify the link further to the relevant material (eg;, rasikas.org/Purandaradasar or Carnatica.net/Music Handbook - IF SUCH LINKS EXISTED). Otherwise, such links will need to be deleted. The options are there. Take your pick. Ncmvocalist 10:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Venu62 is pushing for its exclusion since the very beginning and he does appear to have a vested interest against its inclusion, I have also in the past complained against his WP:STALK and harassment tactics, and I feel this is one way where he loves to play the devil's advocate against me. There seems to be a deliberate attempt to mask his perceived bad-faith actions by quoting wikipedia's guidelines out of their spirit. Ncmvocalist is long known to me as a member in the forum of the website under discussion and he is not in my good books, so there is no wonder he allies with Venu. A4ay's history on Misplaced Pages (as well as those of Ncmvocalist) are very clear from their contributions and talk pages, and I would urge Addhoc to see their history before treating all these editors as genuine folks.

Besides all this, the link being repeatedly removed does not violate any of wikipedia's policies, and stands on its own merits. I would request Addhoc to point at any violations and I can suitably convince him/her that there is no violation involved. I am not prepared to answer the others since each has an axe to grind against me. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, the consensus of editors determines whether the link should be included or not. As opposed to for instance, the burden of proof being on me to prove the link contravenes policy. Have a look at WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Addhoc 11:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Very true, 1000% true. Editors cannot decide by consensus to violate wikipedia policies, however. I'm saying nothing is wrong with the relevant external link or the way it was added here. I'm asking why should it not remain? I have read all the relevant guidelines, and I dont see any conflict of interest since I did not add the link. I am merely protesting against the link's repeated removal by the same editors by twisting the meaning of guidelines.

OK what does WP:EL say? It says forum websites cant be included, and that editors cant add their own websites since it would lead to conflict of interest. None of the two are applicable in the present case. I am not arguing that I have the authority to add my website. I am merely saying that third parties can add my website without having it deleted by another editor (provided the website satisfies other guidelines, which it apparently does). If you think I'm wrong, I'm asking you to say where I'm going wrong. If you convince me I'm wrong, I will remove the link myself.

If you think the onus is not on you to show that it violates wikipedia's policies, then what's the purpose of this discussion? ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 15:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest the consensus of editors on this page is the link should not be included. Addhoc 17:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

One can't convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. If one thinks that if someone disagrees with one then they are their enemies and 'in their bad books', then there is no convincing them. The link should not be included because of

• It is a forum website (plus an events calendar and a bunch of external links. Violates WP:EL
• Srkris has been pushing the inclusion of his sites (rasikas.org, chembai.com) in numerous articles. Violates WP:COI, WP:SPAM
• It does not add any further value to the article. Violates WP:EL
• Whether pushing for its inclusion or pushing for its reinclusion is still pushing. Violates WP:COI

Parthi 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Venu62, this isn't the place to talk about a policy violations of another Wikipedian (unless the violation is on this very talk page). Srkris, this isn't a place to talk about what another Wikipedian has/hasn't contributed, nor is it a place for personal attacks.

Please avoid making such remarks in the future as they appear to be in bad taste and are often (twisted to be or simply are) untrue. If there really is a problem, let these discussions be confined to your respective User Talk pages alone. Thanks. Ncmvocalist 05:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont take these editors as arbitrators on the issue since two of them make gross violations themselves, and three are newcomers who dont even have a good edit history or exhibit any knowledge of WP's policies. This discussion needs more representation and participation. And consensus means everyone agrees, not that someone agrees against someone else. I havent still found any logical discussion other than the mere quoting of Misplaced Pages guidelines, which are not violated anyway. If I ask where the violation has occured, no one is prepared to indicate, other than referring me again to WP:COI and WP:EL! This is not the way to approach a dispute or solve it. We need an honest discussion, even assuming that I'm the one who's wrong somewhere. This so-called consensus is just a joke. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 15:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hypocritical of you again, considering you have made more than 10 gross violations and clearly need to familiarise yourself with Misplaced Pages policies (evidenced by your failure to understand why 'consensus' was reached against the inclusion of the website in question). You are not in a position to decide who is an arbitrator and who is not. Try dispute resolution, if you must. However, whether it is now or later, this article shall NOT suffer as a result of your own prejudices, or anyone else's for that matter. Ncmvocalist 09:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes to capitalisation

Refer to Manual of Style - headings - capitalisation... Addhoc 15:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

Could I suggest this edit war is a waste of time. If there are two sides in a dispute, one side attempting to include several images and the other side hoping not to include any, eventually there is going to be a compromise of just including a few. Pretending otherwise and continuing the edit war is pointless. In this context, could we agree on an interim compromise of including two images? Addhoc 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.... Ncmvocalist 10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that some people simply remove images without seeking other longtime editors views, besides doing a lot of objectionable things here, and when they are taken to task for their actions, they pretend to suddenly act civil without realizing that they were once pushing for inclusion of other images which were equally irrelevant. Although I agree that relevant sections in the article should have corresponding images, I am amused to see crocodiles shedding tears. Having said that, I support addhoc and appreciate his help in his efforts to mediate a solution. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 14:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypocritical as always. Pushing for images that were irrelevant at one time, is in itself irrelevant. Perhaps you need to learn to assume good faith, rather than preaching it, and familiarise yourself with Misplaced Pages policy. If a Wikipedian changes his/her stance, then that is all that matters. By the way, your personal attacks will no longer go unreported. Ncmvocalist 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi All, I won't support user Kris. Because It is very easy to understand that his aim is that make Chembai as a great. Actually Chembai is great but his works will make hatred against him.

His first works in wikipeida was Uploading Chembai's image. Second is replacing trinity images with chembai's image. Third is Put URL of checmai's website. He also put not only chembai's but also a website rasika.org in almost all articles. And he edited about chembai lot of things in article Yesudas. These the first works of user Kris. It is sure either he is a fan or a relative of Chembai. What ever be any body have any doubt check his oldest works in History.You can see lot of Chembai's images in lot of article. Just look at Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer article , You can see the image of chembai again. What is the important of that iamge ? there with a big size.

Pluto.2006 15:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, I will check it. A4ay 19:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am developing the Chembai article. Do any of you have a problem with that? Some people in the past have tried to direct their grudge against me by targeting my work. It failed miserably. They are trying to do the same to this article. Please understand that all bad-faith edits made to give vent to your grudge against me will not work. Try creating a new article yourself, and you will understand the sacrifice and efforts put in by others here. I dont expect everyone to be knowledgable about wikipedia's policies or act sane all the time, but there's a limit to POV pushing.­ Just see your edit histories and check what major contributions you have yourself made to any article before decrying others efforts. ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 15:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kris,

You can create any article as your wish in your own website. But in wikipedia It is not possible. You edited lot of article which are belonged to Carnatic music to show that Chembai was a great musician. And It is clear that you are trying to put images of Chembai in the article of Carnatic music as in the article say eg: Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer and Yesudas. And putting a music website in carnatic article. I don't like to say more. I will never allow any partiality in this article. You can put any thing in chembai's article . But not in Carnatic music. A4ay 20:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A4ay and Pluto2006, I feel you are making a personal attack on me by pointing at me instead of my work. Please dont do it, its not I who will get in trouble as a consequence. Pluto2006 has already been warned for making personal attacks on me, and he's upto this again. I request both of you to remove your personal attacks above. Even Venu62 is making personal attacks by when he says that I "spammed" by including Chembai website link. I request all three of you to edit your own posts and remove the false accusations and personal attacks. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 15:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be difficult to prove A4ay has made a personal attack, as the only possible false allegation that has been made is "You edited lot of article which are belonged to Carnatic music to show that Chembai was a great musician." Ncmvocalist 08:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Unreasonable deletion of referenced passages

User:Srkris has been repetedly removing fully cited passages on the Ancient Tamil music. He has commented saying that these are fake references. This is preposterous. This user is incessantly pushing his POV in this article. I would like to remind this user that he does not own this article. Thanks Parthi 09:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The references are impertinent and false. They dont relate to the statements being referenced ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 10:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean impertinent? How do you know they don't relate to the statements? Parthi 10:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know because I can think, and it is clear that they are impertinent. I have read the book in question (hard copy) and I am aware that it is both impertinent and false as a reference. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 12:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove cited passages based on your opinion. It may be termed as POV pushing. Please donn't delete {{cn}} tags without giving appropriate citations. Thanks Parthi 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dont give {{cn}} tags as you please. You had littered this article with these tags sometime back. Perhaps you dont care, but this is not a dumping ground for citations, it spoils the look of the article. And try to learn the subject of the article before trying to make non-pertinent or fake citations. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 19:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:V, articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources and material not supported by reliable sources can be challeged and removed. For the avoidance of doubt, an individual editor's opinion on what looks better or whether he agrees with a reference doesn't over-rule policy. Addhoc 19:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I second User:Addhoc. Assume good faith and don't accuse of other editors of ignorance. It could be considered as a personal attack and may lead to your blocking. Thanks Parthi 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have now extensively cited the passage Srkris keeps deleting. This passage in now with the most citation in the article. Every sentese is cited. Please don't delete it again. Thanks Parthi 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly Addhoc, the pots are seemingly calling the kettles black. I am also asking for relevant citations only. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Some edits

I have edited the structure of this article so that there is flow. In this section, "Composers", the languages have been married into the mudra paragraph (or final paragraph). This is to avoid any linguistic tints. (The Kannada-Karnataka aspect is explained just prior to this section in origins and history.) This way, there is a WP:NPOV sustained throughout.

The tala parts have been edited to include material that another editor has worked so painstakingly on. The Tiruppugazh reference has been restored here too.

The kriti section has been handled impressively, however, I have readjusted it to be 'verses' rather than 'units' - this word isn't quite appropriate. However, if there is a better word than verses that is appropriate, feel free to add it in.

The Varnam section has been adjusted to include a bit of the previous material - this description is quite adaquate.

The external links are kept to a minimum. Commercial sites are not mentioned, as with forums etc.

Modern artists - an unfair emphasis has been put on vocalists, with a lot of unreferenced (let alone POV/biassed) material. So, this will be the way it stays to maintain neutrality among artists. If we are to be fair and neutral, then one image for each of the modern artists will flood the article. On the other hand, there will be a huge picture edit war if some are included over others in this section. So the only fair, neutral way of dealing with this issue, without wrecking the article, is to stick with the latter, no pics. Hopefully, people will respect this aspect, or they will be the cause for why this article will always remain in a B-class!

Hopefully, any further adjustments in content will not reflect POV - just factual content please. Thanks. Ncmvocalist 14:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• History should come before musical treatises for readers to gain an understanding of who wrote them or how they relate to the article.
• Purandara Dasa had many other pioneering contributions not only "such pioneering contributions" mentioned here, hence language is wrong, now corrected.
• IAST diacritics should be used where relevant since plain english does not make much sense for Sanskrit words and names.
• Language of each composer does not merit a mention since this is not a language article. A general reference would suffice, particularly for the trinity. Thyagaraja composed a lot in both Sanskrit and Telugu.
• A new reader who does not understand what a tala is cannot take all the technicalities mentioned, these should go in Tala article, and this article should give a general idea.
• It was I who mentioned Tiruppugazh's use of chanda talas, and it's I who removed it now since I found Thiruppugazh uses some but not many of the 108.
• Kriti structure is not made up of just 3 verses. Pallavi, Anupallavi and Charanam should be called "units" for better clarity.
• Difference between chittaswaras and muktayi swaras will be blurred when the nonsensical statement about their identicality is mentioned.
• RTP involves a lot more than mere pallavi and swaras, and the mathematics involved should be mentioned, that is its speciality.
• Instruments paragraph made little sense earlier, so I made changes.
• Photos were removed without discussion and against good faith. POV statements about female trinity were present.

-- All the above issues have now been dealt with appropriately. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that all the above issues were dealt with appropriately.

• • The structure is still clumsy in a lot of areas but that can be dealt with over time.
  • Absolutely no excuse for the POV in modern artists, and the inclusion of Chembai or Balamuralikirshna pictures over others has now been dealt with appropriately - no one may push for the inclusion of certain pictures over other pictures as established earlier. The issue is of neutrality - not relevance here.
  • Instrumentalist changes reflect POV again. This part has been removed, but previous version now makes sense.
  • Picture changes of Purandaradasar and Thyagaraja were made without discussion and has been reverted for now. The change would work if there was an image of the Trinity there (not one of the three), but someone else may bring up the issue of why Purandaradasar's image is not used first when it should be.
  • There is no reason to include the language of one composer over another so this has been reverted too - please assume WP:NPOV.
  • There is enough information given in the important musical treaties section to establish its relevance to the article - the flow of the article is not disrupted this way. However, placing it elsewhere so it doesn't disrupt the flow of the article may also be welcomed.

Ncmvocalist 00:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It was good enough until some people made it clumsy. Some people argue for everything, its an unfortunate reality. Some people vent their frustrations here. Hahaha. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fake?

Which citation is supposed to be fake: "The History of Tamil Music"or "The Story of Indian Music: Its Growth and Synthesis"? Addhoc 19:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

More than fake, both of them are totally impertinent. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can confirm "The Story of Indian Music: Its Growth and Synthesis" by O Gosvami - 1961, using Google books, however the only book I found called "The History of Tamil Music" is by Celam Es Ceyalacumi - 2003. Is there a ISBN reference for this book? Addhoc 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Some books published in India, especially by the University of Madras donot have ISBN allocated. The details of the book: The History of Tamil Music/Salem S. Jayalakshmi. Chennai, University of Madras, 2003, xvi, 235 p. See here. I have the book in pocession. Thanks Parthi 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Addhoc 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In light of this would you mind reverting back Srkris's reverts? thanks Parthi 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know he's been blocked for a week. Addhoc 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya has deleted the following paragraph:

Ancient Tamil works like Cilappatikaram, Tolkāppiyam and other Sangam literature works describe how a modal shift of tone (shifting the reference Shadja) from an existing scale can develop new scales.. Inscriptions dating back to the seventh century CE found in a cave at Kudimiyanmalai, Tamil Nadu, has an array of musical notation. The Tevarams from the eigth century CE contains more than twenty scales with Tamil names that are equivalent to the present system of Carnatic music. The rhythmic meters found in several sacred musical forms like Tevaram, Thiruppugazh, etc., resemble the talas that are in use today. These works also give Tamil names for the seven notes in the octave. The concept of Pann relates to the modern Raga in Ancient Tamil music. Due to this there is a belief that Tamil music has also influenced the development of Carnatic Music in its early years..

Every sentence in this passage has been cited as you can see. This user labels it "removing blatantly false and misleading half truths" in the edit summary. I want to know what is blatently false and misleading half truth in the aforementioned passage. Otherwise this deletion may be termed as vandalism and appropriate admin action needs to be taken against this user. Thanks Parthi 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

More: To User:Sarvagnya who keeps deleting the above paragraph left a long message in my talk page. He has however not answered my legitimate question on which of the seven sentences in the paragraph is false or misleading half truths.

• The paragraph in question does not claim that Carnatic music evolved from Ancient Tamil music
• All it points out, akin to the paragraphs above point to the Samaveda, the Upanishads, God and the epics as a possible source of Carnatic music, that the long tradition of music of the Tamils influenced the evolution of Carnatic music. It does not claim to be the sole source.
• Every sentence is cited, some from multiple sources, from published books by renowned musicologists such as Prof Sambamurthy and Selam S. Jayalakshmi, the current president of Madras Music College. Whereas many statements pointing to Natyasastra et al have no supporting citations.

In light of the above if User:Sarvagnya insista on his unreasonable deletion of the paragraph, I will seek admin help to stop this vandalism. Thanks Parthi 00:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A bit of history: The paragraph in question was first added by User:Ncmvocalist on 25 October 2006. User:Srkris began to unreasonably deleting this passage almost immediately without discussion. He gave up after a few reverts. Then on 5 November User:RaveenS changed the heading to Ancient South Indian music. Suddenly on 15 November User:Srkris deletes the entire section unilaterally. This is the background of this paragraph. I eventually revived the paragraph and added more citations to it. Now these users claim that suddenly the paragraph is 'misleading half-truths' with 'fake' citations. LOL Parthi 09:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• User:Parthi, first you said this(see your edit summary) . I/we have discussed/been discussing these edits/reverts at excruciating length on this page and you know it. These portions, regardless of the history/background you concoct for it above have always been disputed and were precisely the subject of the discussions on that page. In this light, you mouthing off on the edit summary that I was reverting without discussions is as ludicrous as it is false and I justifiably called it a lie(in the edit summary). You responded(in the edit summary) calling it a personal attack(!!) which was a bigger joke(note that I hadnt called you a liar).

• I can only see all this as a perverted attempt to malign me in the eyes of other editors/admins who werent party to those discussions. Stop playing to the gallery and stop crying wolf. And for heavens sake, stop lecturing me about etiquette, vandalism etc.,. You are the last person I'd want to take lessons in etiquette from. Sarvagnya 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Fake citations they are, regardless of who added them ~ Kris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.59.162 (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring a blocked editor's sneaky comments, calling an editor a 'liar' is a personal attack. If you don't stop it now I will seek admin help dealing with you. The discussion in the archive have nothing to do with the current paragraph. They were to do with the Tamil trinity and the appropriateness of including them in the history section. The paragraph is question has been paraphrased from the same article in carnatica.net from which the text about the Vedas and the divine being the possible orgins of Carnatic music. So your selectively questioning the Tamil contributions only shows your anti-Tamil POV Parthi 19:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I called you a liar?? Where? I only commented on content, not on the contributor. Pointing out that what you said was a lie isnt a personal attack except in your imagination. Whether you want to complain to an admin or the cops or to POTUS, I am in no position to stop you. Go ahead and do what you want.

The fact still remains that crying wolf or imagining personal attacks where there are none is juvenile at best or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent others' stands at worst. I, for one, though, generally dont assume malice where stupidity would suffice. Sarvagnya 19:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Ignoring the personal attacks (you said 'Venu62 is lying', which is a personal attack) however, you haven't answered my questions above. What in the paragraph is false and misleading untruths? Which citations are fake? Thanks Parthi 01:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

More 'fake' references:

• 'These ancient Tamil scales are comparable to the grama of Sanskrit musicology. But the Tamil authors usually mention five scales, while in the Natyasastra the scale is usually reduced to two'...'The term raga is not found in Natyasastra... was the first to define this concept... Tamil language has a similar term to define such a melodic device, namely pan...While the ancient Tamil poetics offers a detailed system of poetics offers a detailed system of poetics, musical and religious associations ... in Sanskrit musicological literature such complete sets only appear much later...' From Sangītaśiromani: a medieval handbook of Indian music By E.Wiersma-Te Nijenhuis, ISBN 9004094989 pp 38 - 39
• 'Most Tamil musical forms eventually merged into what came to be known as Carnatic music' From On Concepts and Classifications of Musical Instruments By Margaret J. Kartomi ISBN 0226425495 pp 67
• 'The musical system expounded in the thrid canto Arangetrukathai (Cilappatikaram) seems to be older than than that found in the Kudimiyamalai inscriptions' From Tamil literature By Kamil Zvelebil ISBN 9004041907 pp 8

Parthi 02:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A small sample to counter User:Venu62's ridiculous POV:

1. http://www.raaga.net/ 2. http://india.gov.in/knowindia/classical_music.php
3. http://www.khazana.com/et/music/gentle4.asp
4. http://www.omlinga.com/music.html
5. http://www.mandolinshrinivas.org/carnatic.htm#
6. http://www.fly.co.uk/fly/archives/asiapacific_features/appreciating_indian_classical.html
7. http://www.tifr.res.in/~aset/full_text/gkp-aset-06.ppt
8. http://www.bharatadesam.com/arts/carnatic_music.php
9. http://www.sawf.org/Newedit/edit04302001/musicarts2.asp
10. http://www.sawf.org/Newedit/edit09302002/musicarts2.asp
11. http://www.nrithyalaya.com/musiceng.htm
12. http://www.rhythmnraga.org/carnaticmusic.html
13. http://www.indianmirror.com/arts/arts5.html
14. http://www.indian-heritage.org/music/carnatic.htmhttp://www.indian-heritage.org/music/carnatic.htm
15. http://www.bharathanatyam.com/history.html
16. http://www.indiaheritage.org/perform/music/cim.htm
17. http://india.mapsofindia.com/culture/art-and-culture/carnatic-music.html
18. http://chandrakantha.com/articles/indian_music/carnatic_sangeet.html
19. http://www.indoclassical.com/indo/asp/history.asp
20. http://www.culturalindia.net/indian-music/carnatic-music.html
21. http://www.cosmopolis.ch/english/music/64/indian_classical_music.htm
22. http://travels.talash.com/india-culture/india-music.html
23. http://swamy_2.tripod.com/orig.htm
24. http://www.indialine.com/travel/knowindia/music.html
25. http://www.chowk.com/
show_article.cgi?aid=00003899&channel=gulberg&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1
26. http://www.hindustanlink.com/Destination/music.htm
27. http://minchu.ee.iisc.ernet.in/mirror/icm/sang4.html
28. http://www.ragatracks.com/raagas1.htm
29. http://www.biowaves.com/Music/IndianMusic/Peculiarities.php
30. http://www.keralaeducation.com/HTML/soul.htm
31. http://www.sarasvatibhavan.com/page3.html
32. http://www.radio-india.net/music.htm#south

So Ancient Tamil music has nothing to do with Carnatic Music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.59.162 (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The books Parthi is naming are published by Brill and University of Chicago Press. I think that Misplaced Pages's guidelines about what sources are reliable are given in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. According to these the books are more reliable than your websites. If you say that the books published by these respected publishing companies are fake then you must produce sources from respected scholars that say they are fake. Otherwise you are doing original research. I think the paragraph should be inserted again. -- Ponnampalam 15:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I put these webpages here just to show that Venu62 is merely pushing his minority POV here. The references he cited are totally irrelevant for the sentences for which they were cited. If the statement is "He is a man", you cant include a reference that says "She is a woman". Venu62 is a POV pusher and his POV pushing tactics are clear from the archives of this talk page. Even if the citations are reliable, they are nonrelevant when placed in context of the statements for which they are cited. By the way, what business of yours is it to support Venu62? Going by your user page, it seems you are also a Tamil POV pusher from Sri Lanka who is unlikely to know anything that is being discussed here about Carnatic Music. Are you Venu62's friend? Did he ask you to support him here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.59.162 (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I did not get such nasty replies even on controversial Sri Lanka / Eelam topics. For your knowledge, I used to teach Carnatic music in my country before I was made to leave, but you can assume I don't know anything about Carnatic Music if you want. I came to this page looking for information about chaturdandi and prabandha music. I was surprised that the History section did not mention it, so I came to the talk page to see if there was a reason and unfortunately I got caught in this discussion. Anyway, I don't have time to waste on such pointless discussions. Keep the article as you want it. Vanakkam. -- Ponnampalam 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ponnampalam, join the club of Tamil POV pushers! The above diatribe is from User:Srkris who is currently under a one week block for violating numerous policies. He hasn't been able to cite a single reliable source, incontrast to the number of academic references I have cited. Don't walk away. - Parthi 20:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If ATM had concepts akin to the raga and tala, it is totally incidental. It had no role to play in the evolution of the raga and tala in CM and HM, atleast not enough to justify a huge paragraph about it in the history section of this article. This info should go into the ATM article. Raga, tala and other concepts of CM developed independent of any ATM grammar. Bharata of NS or Sharngadeva of SR were not within 500 miles of tamil country nor did they have any CDs and cassettes of auvaiyar singing. And yet, they developed all the grammatical concepts independently. PD worked on these foundations and consolidated and gave it pretty much final shape(which has more or less survived 'as is' till today).

So, if there are any similarities between ATM and CM, we should only put it down to either Tamils plagiarising from other traditions or maybe reinventing the wheel. Neither can justify throwing in large paragraphs suggesting that ATM somehow had a greater role to play in the evolution of CM than it really did.

Citations and sources mean nothing when the content itself is irrelevant to the article. This is like Vaikunda Raja pushing for Ayyavazhi in all articles saying that he has cited college/university papers. This is going beyond ridiculous now. Sarvagnya 20:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Samaveda Carnatic music? Then the article says CM evolved from it. Is there any connection between the two in the contemporary context. Are all these academicians whom I have quoted simply lying as well? If you read the paragraph, all it does it attempts to give a NPOV picture of the evolution. It says, due to such and such reasons, 'some scholars claim that ATM contributed to the evolution of CM'. Why is this such a bad thing to remain in the article. There are seven sentences pointing out the similarities between CM and ATM. Why sould these seven sentences cause so much heartache in you two? Parthi 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the first line saying that karnataka means sweet to ears etc etc.First oof what are the fanatics trying to prove.It looks like they want to mislead people meaning of karnataka itself.

Karnataka is nothing but sanskritised form of kannada and if not the current day karnataka would have never kept it.Now fanatics may run and show some links or sources written by famous chennai Universities.Everyone outside Tamilnadu know what kind of Lies are cooked up there.

Karnataka word has been used in many literature works since 12th century.There has been reference of word called karnaTa in mahabharath also.Infact Tamil itself sanskritised form of word Dravida.

The word karnAta as a region is used to represent current day karnataka and few regions of Andhra from centuries.That does not include Tamil nadu which was referred as Dravida region since centuries.

All these fight and so much intrest in outsiders in trying to interpret the meaning of Karanataka and giving their own meanings is absoulutly ridicoulous

section for instruments

shouldnt we have a separate section for the instruments special to carnatic music? Chitra Veena, Flute, Gottuvadyam, Ghatam, Gayathri Veena, Jalatarangam, Kanjira, Mridangam, Nadaswaram, Veena and others? Also non-standard instruments that are used heavily such as Guitar, Keyboard, Electronic Organ, Mandolin, Saxophone and Violin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejas81 (talk • contribs)

I think we should. Do you want to add one? Also please sign you posts in the Talk pages with four tildes (~). Thanks Parthi 01:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry for not signing parthi, thanks for seconding. i have at best an amateur understanding of carnatic music itself, i was hoping someone else would note the comment, and write a knowledgeable section. --ti 05:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Karnataka is Just Sanskritised form of Sanksrit

According to linguist M.V. Seetharamaiah, the names of a few places referred to by Ptolemy (150 AD) in his geographical treatise are undoubtedly the ancient versions of present-day names of places in Karnataka (viz., Pounnata, Modougalla, Kaligeris and Banavoause). The word "Karnataka" and "Kuntala" that are mentioned in the Mahabharata and the grammar of Panini are a Sanskritised form of a Kannada word, which is according to many scholars "Karunadu," meaning large or an elevated country or black soil.

Sources
http://www.hindu.com/2006/10/31/stories/2006103108870500.htm http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=+karnataka+sanskritized+form+of+kannada&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nrupatunga (talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Origins and relation to Ancient Tamil music

I was requested to take a look at the conflict on this page. I think part of the conflict over the relation between Carnatic music and Ancient Tamil music stems from different uses of the term Carnatic music. Is Carnatic music an art form that has its origins over 2500 years ago (per introductory paragraph) or is it something that first became recognizable as such around the 1200's?

If the article discusses 2500 year old origins, if it discusses Rg Veda, etc. then I think it is appropriate to mention the research that connects Carnatic music with ancient Tamil music. To the extent that there are references to opposing views among experts, the connection to ancient Tamil music should be presented as one POV among experts. To the extent that there are no reliable sources with alternate POV's, the connections with ancient Tamil music should be voiced as the consensus view of experts.

On the other hand, the article could be written about Carnatic music from about the 1200's. References to origins in Rg Veda, 2500 year old origins etc. could be removed. In that case, the research, whether accurate or otherwise, connecting Carnatic music with ancient Tamil music, need not be mentioned, nor any opposing views.

That is my initial opinion of the conflict. Of course I welcome new information. Sincerely, --BostonMA 21:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BostonMA. It is exactly my point. When discussiing the origins goving back to the Vedic times, it is appropriate to mention varying POVs including published opinions of scholars regarding the influence of Tamil music. If the article is to be rewritten to merely reflect the modern Carnatic music, then there is no need to mention any of the influences. Thanks Parthi 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks also BostonMA. Addhoc 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me say as a matter of fact that there is no dispute about Vedic origins. See the 32 links (a small sample) which I have placed above. The dispute is only about Ancient Tamil Music, which does not have anything to do with Carnatic Music. It merely co-existed with ancient Indian Classcial Music and eventually seems to have died out. There are no historical practitioners of ATM that we know. Carnatic instruments like mridanga, veena, flute, tanpura etc are used throughout India (even in non-carnatic music forms), and definitely Carnatic Music split from Hindustani Music which was also descended from Ancient Indian classical music. There is no case for including the history of Ancient Tamil Music here. It is a minority POV, and Venu62 is a POV pusher, as he has always been (see the archives of this talk page)!!! 59.92.83.63 15:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)