Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 08:42, 20 May 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Joelr31 03:08, 23 January 2009 .

Kingdom of Mysore

Review commentary

Notified Dineshkannambadi, Sarvagnya, WP:INDIA, WP:HISTORY, WP:HOI,WP:INKN, WP:WPFC, WP:MA

This article was promoted on November 4, 2007. I am aware that a lot of hard work went into the article, however, I feel that the article has some issues of inaccuracy and bias. I'm not implying, even remotely, that the bias was intended, but it nonetheless needs to be remedied. In particular, I feel the article violates three feature article criteria. These criteria are:

• 1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
• 1(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations.
• 1(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;

I have described the specifics in my post, My concerns (also on the article talk page). If you have more time to devote to this, you may also want to read Information,Summary Style, and Hagiography. Needless to say, this is very much my version of events and reality. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Note I am restarting this FAR since it is impossible to make sense of it. All previous information will be moved to the Kingdom of Mysore FAR talk page. Joelito (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Sarvagnya

Content - Apart from the numbing pedantry, semantic pettifoggery and mischievous misrepresentation of facts on user:Fowler & fowler's part, I'd like to know if there is any specific, actionable instance in the article where the information is at odds with a given WP:RS source. If there are any such instances, I'd like to know.

Sources - Sources are only expected to abide by WP:RS - whether it is a FA or GA or stub. This is Misplaced Pages. We have our FA standards and nowhere in those standards is it required that editors should refer to every monograph and book or RS ever written on the subject. In fact, on summary articles, it is safest and a good practice to use standard histories and textbooks which are neither overly narrow in their focus nor overly broad and have stood the test of time. Recent theses and monographs which deal with the details can certainly be used to vet and build-upon/fill-in on the information gleaned from standard histories.

As far as I can see, User:F&f does not raise any specific instance where what the article says is at odds with what his sources (overly narrow or overly broad as many of them are in their focus) claim . If there are any such instances, let's cut to the chase and list out the exact sentences and let what's wrong with them be pointed out on the article's talk page instead of soap boxing endlessly and expecting people to read it.

Article title - Finally, just because the name of the article is "Kingdom of Mysore" does not mean that it has to deal solely with the period when it became a "Kingdom". Pretty much every kingdom in history has had humble beginnings and less than flattering ends and the Kingdom of Mysore is no exception.

The 'entity' which was ruled and 'entities' that ruled between 1399 and 1947 are historically contiguous and it makes perfect sense to have a WP:SS article about it. If it is felt that the article can be titled more aptly, then by all means bring it up on the talk page and build consensus for a move. There however, can be no question of muscling in changes to an article.. certainly not a Featured one.

Hype - I read and re-read the article and I find the claim that the Wodeyars are being hyped is baseless and unsubstantiated. While Haider and Tipu have a section dedicated to them, none of the Wodeyars are afforded any such treatment (including the ones who were the titular heads under Haider and Tipu) and are treated in summary style. Again, if there are specific, actionable instances of "hype", list them out and it can be worked upon.

Abuse of process - Finally, all these issues should be brought up succinctly and in dedicated sections on the talk page. Using FAR to discuss issues which ought to be discussed on the talk page and to try and muscle in changes for which there is no consensus on the talk page is disruptive and an abuse of process. Sarvagnya 20:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Note Refrain from personal attacks in FAR. Consider this my only warning in this matter. Joelito (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have a question about the accuracy of the dates of some of the sources, which I am sure can easily be fixed. Some examples:

• The book by Kamath is listed as year=2001, but the oclc and LCCN dates are 1980.
• The book by Shastri is listed as year=2002 but the isbn dates it as 1976.
• The book by Aiyagar is listed as year=2004 but the isbn indicates it was first published in 1911 and a Facsimile edition in 2004.
• The book by Raman is listed as year=2003 but the isbn dates it as 1994.

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Raman--->corrected the mistake. In the case of other references, if you open the ref section in edit mode, you will see that I have specified both the original print date and the current reprint which I am using. But for some reason, only the current reprint year shows up. The syntax goes like this: "|origyear=|year=|". If you know how to fix this, please do so. Or I will search around for the correct syntax.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious problem and is impacting many different articles. Five parameters including origyear were removed from the cite template on 30 Nov. A discussion about this is here. User:Smith609 is working on restoring it so don't change anything yet. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I believe you should use the original date, unless the new date of printing is a Revised Edition, that is, the text has been updated to reflect the newer date. The date of a reprint is irrelevant, unless there are changes from the original. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. The Kamath book is a revised edition. The Shastri book says 1955 is the first edition, 2003 and 2005 are later "impressions", which I suspect means reprint. So now the citations and their references are ok.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Addressed to all The article as such seems fine. It is well referenced. By far, my biggest concern is related to the souvereignity and status of the "kings" who ruled the state between 1565 till 1761. This concern is amplified by the type of sources used by Dinesh, references 7-17, Shama Rao in Kamath (2001), Pranesh (2003), Kamath (2001) and Sethu Madhava Rao in Kamath (2001). Stein, Burton (1987) was not added by Dinesh. 3 out of 4 books are written by or related to Kamath. — Docku — continues after insertion below

Docku, let me clarify that I have only one book by Kamath. If I cited like this, "Sethu Madhava Rao in Kamath", it means that I am reporting what Kamath reported about the views of Sethu Madhava Rao. This is how accurate citations are provided. I can't claim a view to be Kamath's, when they are actually from someone else. Hope this clarifies.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How would one expect a person such as Kamath to write a balanced, neutral and un-biased history of Karnataka, being criticised by a respected magazine "Frontline" for introducing slanted and mis-oriented text books in his home state of Karnataka (the state in India where Kingdom of Mysore originally was) and having such simplistic and biased opinion about complex issues such as "Aryan race" and "Sarasvathi river" and having minimal academic reputation exemplified by lack of publications in respected international journals? I, coming from India, can assure you that Government job in India or being member of academic commitees dont necessarily go hand in hand with being a respected and established scientist or historian . It is unfortunate, his book among few others are one of the few extensively used in the article. — Docku — continues after insertion below

Thanks for your comments. However, I dont think this article has to do with Aryan race and Sarawathi river and the historians views about those topics. Let us please stay on the topic.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is totally off-topic in content but not in establishing reliability of sources used in this article by you. BTW, I am not concluding (can I?) anything, I am just raising questions in the reader's mind. Docku: What up? 00:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not like we are restriced only to these sources. Therefore, unless, the main editor cooperates with others to incorporate multiple views to bring out a balanced article, I dont see how this article can stay Featured. — Docku — continues after insertion below

I agree with you that there are other sources. If you can once again, for the sake of this FAR, very briefly state what those views are that you would like to see implemented, then we can surely proceed ahead with amicable discussions. We can put forward the views of many scholars and see how to balance their opinions. However, this article is a WP:Summary style article, closely modelled on the lines of numerous other FA's on kingdoms/Empires/Dynasties. This summary style covering various aspects of the entity including History/Governance/Economy/Architecture/Literature/Society/Religion should not be compromised, for the sake of consistancy. Then everything else becomes a matter of "wording".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions to Fowler: The above post by Fowler generally raises questions related to reliability of the sources used. Even in circumstances when the sources used may not be "totally" reliable, it could still be used for attributing to well known non-controversial facts and therefore I would encourage him or anyone to raise more specific concerns in order for us to move forward. I know he has raised some specific concerns in the article talk page and I wonder if it should be repeated here as well. I would also like to know how Fowler knows for sure that Kamath's book is Indian college text book? If this can be confirmed, I would strongly recommend not using that book at all in this article or any other article as I know Indian college books dont go through any international peer-review and can be very biased. Docku: What up? 23:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• To Docku - Could you clarify which remarks above are yours and which are the interruptions by the post of another editor? I believe there is a template {{interrupted}} or — Docku — continues after insertion below - something like that to make clear who is saying what. Thanks —Mattisse (Talk) 00:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of breaking the conversation, we could rather address to a specific person, else, we will lose coherency soon again. Docku: What up? 00:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer to Docku, Fowler did raise his talk page concerns in his link above Talk:Kingdom_of_Mysore#My_concerns. This is a way of raising concerns without bloating the FAR with a long post. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer to Docku : Its not uncommon for a famous historian to be controversial. The celebrated Romila Thapar is one such example. But this does not stop her books from being referenced extensively. Often, controversy and fame tend to go hand-in-hand. We just need to balace their opinions.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Dinesh - That is interesting about Romila Thapar. From that wikipedia article on her, she sounds like she is on the opposite side of the fence than Kamath, for example. How about referencing both sides equally, instead of so much reliance on Kamath, who, from googling him, seems extremely controversial? It would be interest if you would describe what the controversy is, and perhaps frame the article in that light. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The controversies regarding Thapar has nothing to do with the topic on hand, the same case as Kamath.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But it has to do with how to frame the history of India, how to present India's past. They both have forceful but opposite opinions, some of which touch on the time period of this article and earlier. I found some strong quotes by Kamath on the subject - very strong. And Thapar has published widely. Should I list some of their articles/interviews that would be relevant to this article? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Fowler&fowler Post2: I'm afraid, in contrast to Kamath's contributions, detailed above, Romila Thapar has many scholarly publications, has been cited by many more, and received wide international recognition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC) This is a distilled refactored version. Please see Original Post 2, to which user:Sarvagnya has replied below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me - but why is this discussion being taken off on a tangent here? And precisely where in this - Mis-oriented textbooks article does Kamath's name come up? I did a ctrl-F for "kamath" on all those articles and nowhere is Kamath's name mentioned! And since when did Frontline become an authority on who our sources on wikipedia should be? For that matter, The Hindu - Frontline's sister publication itself reports here that Kamath had nothing to do with the errors. Also, Kamath is affiliated with many academic institutions, has been the Director of the Raja Ram Mohan Roy library, headed the Karnataka State Gazeteer (under a Congress govt., for that matter) and is referred to as "...one of the foremost historians of Karnataka." by Kamat.com - which has behind it Dr. Jyotsna Kamat and which, as it declares on its FAQ page, is anything but sympathetic of the "so-called 'Aryan Invasion Theory'" and holds the likes of A. L. Basham and Max Mueller in high regard.

Coming back to the main point, why all this pussyfooting? Why don't the doubting Thomases simply come up with a citation from Romila Thapar or whoever it is which contradicts anything that is claimed in the article? Do it or drop it. Sarvagnya 17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(Fowler&fowler Post 3) In response to the Frontline coverage, Kamath wrote a letter to the magazine's editors titled, The Saraswati river, and signed "Chairman of the Editorial Committee," Social Studies textbooks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Refactored version of original F&F post 3. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(Fowler&fowler Post 4) Kamath has also publicly voiced support for the role of Hindu nationalist organizations in moral pedagogy: "The volunteers of organizations such as RSS need to rise to occasion to influence young minds into greater values of life." In contrast, scholars of Mysore, such as James Manor, who consider the Wodeyars to be Chieftains (rather than Kings) have been left out entirely. Please include them. That's actionable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Refactored version of original F&f Post 4.

The architecture section does not go into details of the architectural concepts. Just a bare minimum information on each structure. The travel books gave me just what I needed and I dont see anything wrong in using it. My idea was to later write a detailed article on architecture of Mysore kingdom (a sub-article) with books that really described the concepts in detail. I can look into the other citations web/newspaper and see if they can be improved. If I can't find anything better, then we could decide to keep that portion or remove it. Give me a day or two. As such, the information from the web page and newspaper article is not on in any way controversial. Just some basic information on structures.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler Post 7

Under Construction?

I just noticed that user:Sarvagnya has added an Underconstruction template to the article. The template informs us that the article is now "in the middle of a major expansion or revamping." Since this is a featured article, which, moreover, is undergoing a Featured Article Review, shouldn't posts be made both here and on Talk:Kingdom of Mysore about what precisely is being planned and in response to whom (in the FAR). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the web citations in the architecture section with book citations.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

the underlying assumption being books are reliable and not websites? Docku: What up? 02:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Fowler: Published books from reliable sources giving basic information on architecure should be enough. This is not a detailed treatment on architecture, just the bare minimum information.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement, except for travel guides which Misplaced Pages does not consider reliable sources of information on subjects such as architecture. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Travel guides on web pages are considered risky. Not published books.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all "published books" are considered reliable by Misplaced Pages. It depends on the publishers reputation for publishing reputably sourced and edited books, as well as the date of publication. For travel guides, the authors of specific sections are often not given. The information may be obtained from local travel bureaus or official promotional offices of tourist sites and may be no more accurate than travel web sites. Every published book must be evaluated according to WP:RS. The fact it is published is not enough. Travel guides in general are not good sources, except perhaps for milage between points or other easily corroborated information, except if they are written by known, vetted authorites on the subject. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To Dinesh If you read the histroy section of Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples, you will see "The general public mostly gets its history from novels, films, TV shows, or tour guides at various sites. These sources are full of rumor and gossip and false or exaggerated tales. They tend to present rosy-colored histories in which the well-known names are portrayed heroically. Almost always editors can find much more authoritative sources." I know you are going to tell me that that sentence discusses about "website" and you have used a "book". well. Docku: What up? 21:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(Fowler&fowler Post 10) PS I just noticed that user:Dineshkannambadi changed the name of the mother article of the literature subsection from Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore to Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE without any notice anywhere on the talk page and with the "minor edit" box checked in the edit summary. This mother article is apparently also simultaneously undergoing a peer review in preparation for an FA drive. Since this change is not uncontroversial, and very much concerns not only the name "Kingdom of Mysore" on the anvil here, but also a subsection of an article in an FAR. I would like to request user:Dineshkannambadi to make no such moves that directly concern this FAR, unless he has gained consensus for them both here and on the talk page of the mother article. I have reverted the move. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The sub-article you just reverted is being renamed to include a larger subset of writers and poets from a larger area. The name of the link in this article will also change now. There is no rule that a subarticle's name can't change when a FAR is on going, so long as the sub-article still carries all the relevant information pertaining to the FA article here. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

PSIt is a controversial move. I for one oppose it without discussion and concomitant explanation on the talk page. I don't care what your eleventh hour reasons are, a move has to be requested and a discussion conducted on the talk page. Changing the name of the mother article is the least of the problems in such a move. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

PPSIf a larger set of writers are to be included, why does the page name need to be changed now, when for many many months you have used artifices like naming (long) sections, "Contemporary developments and then including material that did not contemporaneously originate within the realm of the Kingdom of Mysore. This is a major issue in this FAR. Why do we need this change now, when we didn't need it earlier? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The FAR is about this article, not its sub-articles. So long as the sub-article contains plenty of relevant info, pertaining to literature in the Kingdom of Mysore, I dont see why I need to discuss this issue with you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not to address/change any of the concerns raised by others without mentioning/acknowledgeing here. Doing so will just make the person who raised that particular concern sound like a stupid when a reviewer in the future goes through that non-existing concern. Docku: What up? 23:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fowler, you need to explain why you are complaining about a sub-article here, in the FAR of this article. Sub-articles are meant to be expanded and that's what I did. Have I done similar things to distort the FAR process? Can you expalin what those distortions are? It is you who was trying to mislead a prospective reviewers by linking to a sub-article and complaining about content there in that article, discussing about unrelated and controversial topics such as Aryan invasion, Indus Valley civilization, Saraswati river, RSS and Hindu nationalism etc, after apologising to me in the very first line of the FAR. Please explain all this.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dinesh please read Pointer 5 in this concern. Fowler has mentioned how a poet who was not born in the geographical region of mysore Kingdom was discussed in this article (Kingdom of Mysore) and elaborated in the mother article, Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore article. While I dont know anything about the veracity of that concern, by changing the title to Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE, you seem to have, in fact, addressed the concern without acknowledging it here. While what you did may have been editorially a correct decision, it just comes across as non-transparent. Docku: What up? 00:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Docku, Fowler "should not" have linked to another article in this FAR. That is "not transperent". It is misleading to reviewers. If he had a problem with the poet Sarvajna in this article, he should have stuck to that issue with this article. If you notice, I have, several days back, copy edited the "literature" section of this article to accurately state why Sarvajna is mentioned here in this article. Are you telling me, I should not have copy edited and improved the prose here in this article? In that case, what is this FAR meant for? To improve the article or to preserve Fowlers concerns for the FARC reviewers to see. It is upto Fowler to update his concerns as I make/take remedial actions. Fowlers concerns are not meant to be "preserved" for posterity here. What sarvajna does/is in another article, is irrelevant to this FAR. I expanded the article just as I have numerous articles, changed its name to a more accurate name, and nominated that article for Peer Review. Fowler cannot complain about another article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What? Is there a problem to look around and discuss about issues and understand a larger problem which is not necessarily confined to this article but certainly related? your questions make my head go crazy. Docku: What up? 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not concerned with larger problems in this FAR. Only with this article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

hmmm. If the larger problem is understanding how the author of this article perceives what reliable sources and feature article mean, it is relevant. Your use of travel books to write History FA (and still not acknowledging it) is a question of credibility, sorry to break it to you. Docku: What up? 01:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I said in the first FAR. You are supposed to be neutral and not judge the FA author or his credibility. Dont mind me breaking that to you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This FAR was already restarted once (unprecedented at FAR), yet it's back to something unmanageable again. It would be helpful if lengthy issues were hashed out on article talk, and the FAR was used to tell reviewers, briefly, what the deficiencies in WP:WIAFA are and which have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Guess enough has been said. If the reviewers have trouble understanding any specifics, it can be explained. Docku: What up? 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment

The entire first paragraph in the history section (with the exception of the content I had brought in with my sources- Kamath, Aiyangar, Pranesh and Rice) seems to be unverifyable-Although legends date the Wodeyar (also "Odeyar," "Wodiyar," or "Wadiar," literally "chief") dynasty's origins to 1399, they in fact go back no earlier than the early sixteenth century, and in the estimation of some historians, even the late sixteenth or early seventeenthy centuries. These chieftains are first mentioned in a Kannada literary work in the early 16th century. A petty chieftain, Chamaraja, with dominion over a few villages on the banks of the river Kaveri, is said to have constructed a small fort and named it, Mahisura-nagara, from which Mysore gets its name. The Wodeyar clan themselves issued their first inscription in 1551 during the chieftaincy of Timmaraja Wodeyar. Two decades later, they are recorded to have owned 33 villages and fielded an army of 300 men. During this time, the Wodeyar chieftains, like other Nayaks in the region, were vassals of the Vijayanagara Empire.

• Subrahmanyam - makes no such comment on page 68 (and in the estimation of some historians, even the late sixteenth or early seventeenthy centuries)
• Stien - page 156 goes to the index but has been cited several times.
• The Manor web page - has one page info not referring to the content added. The exact page whose content is cited should be displayed in the web link.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler Post 13

After what user:SandyGeorgia has just said above, I'm not sure what the point of the post above is, or even to whom it is addressed. It is best discussed on the talk page. Let me point out though that Pp. 156 at the end of a book reference refers to the number of pages in the book, not the page number of the content cited; little wonder you are seeing the last page of the index!

PS To SandyGeorgia: I will provide a summary soon of what all has transpired here since this FAR began almost a month ago. I agree it does seem very convoluted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, comprehensiveness and NPOV. 22:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have now added a final summary in the review subsection above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep - The article was always FA-worthy and in the past month or so, it has improved even further. I disagree with User:Fowler&fowler's opinion of the article and also his reading of "what all has transpired here since this FAR began". His assessment is not just priggish, but also specious and flawed. The bottom line remains: "Is this article one of our best?". And the unequivocal answer to that remains - Yes. That is not to suggest that there is no scope for improvement, but that the article even in its present state is FA-worthy. I intend to further work on the article, particularly the Architecture section and improve it, but am being constrained by some exceptionally hectic times in RL. Sarvagnya 23:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep This page looks good to me, and certainly better than anything else on the subject elsehwere. Giano (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not yet To quote from the Religion section: The Portuguese patronage called Padraodo was suppressed by the Propaganda of the more hostile European powers, including the English, the French, the Dutch and the Danes. The Propaganda sent out Capuchins, the Discalced Carmelites, the Theatines and the missionaries of the Society of Paris.

This is an assertion that Britain, Denmark, and the Netherlands were Catholic powers, which fails the obvious blithering nonsense test of what should not be on our Main Page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Still in need of a copy edit. The origin of the kingdom, however, remain obscure, notwithstanding legends ia not grammatical English. (The list of sources which precedes it should be a separate paragraph, if not a section.)
• For that matter, the kingdom annexed large expanses of what is now southern Karnataka and parts of Tamil Nadu to become one of the powerful ruling families in the region. may evidence the confusion Fowler speaks of; but kingdoms do not become families. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Pmanderson

• Several changes have taken place in the lead and the History section. So hopefully your concerns have been dealt with. Please let me know otherwise. Regarding the Padroado and Propaganda issue, this is what my source says:

The new colonizing powers (from previous page-"Holland, England, Denmark") were opposed to the missionaries of Portuguese origin and therefore, Propaganda used to send apostolic missionaries and Vicars belonging to other nationalities. The Capuchins, the Discalced carmelites, the Theatines, and later on the Foreign Missionary Society of Paris, which were the religious orders of recent origin, and which had not been very much connected with the Padroado, were particularly utilised by Rome for the missionary work here. This complimentary intervention of Propaganda later turned into a kind of permanent conflict with the Padroado. The Portuguese disliked the activities of the Propaganda and opposed it tooth and nail...... So it seems it was Rome that sent these various missionaries and the new powers encouraged it. I will correct the mistake I made.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Done.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Or, in brief, Dineshkannambadi does not understand the most obvious points about European history and has been confused by the absence of a paragraph break in his source, whom he is paraphrasing blindly. This is not promising for an article on a state profoundly involved with European colonialism. Our article is not a volume, and it seems undue weight to mention the Carmelites, for example, at all. Say French clerical and monastic orders, delist, and find an editor who knows something about the subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • From you understanding of the paragraph I have provided, can you please tell me how you want that para reworded. It should be as simple as that.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
        • No, that paragraph, like the grammatical howlers, is a sample, a reason not to trust this article, root and branch. If we cannot trust what it says where the facts are well-known, how can it be trusted on dynastic history? But I will attempt to reword once this is delisted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I must say I am disappointed with your lack of objectivity. Here is why. First you wrote ''obvious blithering nonsense regarding the missionary issue. I refered back to my book, typed out the whole paragraph for your perusal and corrected myself in the article the best I could. May I remind you, this article is not about Europe and its religion, but about the Kingdom of Mysore, and I can only write what I see in my source and how I interpret it. Then you claim you can't trust the rest of the article, just because 'you feel' I badly paraphrased one sentence and you further suggest that seems undue weight to mention the Carmelites, which to me is WP:OR without you proving it with sources. I dont mean to be rude, but I do realise you have no prior knowledge of the Kingdom of Mysore. I would like to know if you have even bothered to read the entire article in the first place. Not meaning to offend you, Regards,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I dont mean to be rude, but. Yes, you do; that's what that phrase means. That it is misspelt is another matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
              • I must admit that I don't understand the relevance of the two paras on Christianity in South India to the Kingdom of Mysore. The reference cited (Chopra 2003, though I have the 1979 edition) focuses on the area around Madras and Pondicherry, and coastal regions such as Canara and Cochin, none of which are in the Kingdom of Mysore area. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 22:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Septentrionalis PMAnderson: I will take care of your concerns shortly. I am looking for a copy editor, who seem to be scarce lately.thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have started to work on your porse concerns. I will re-checkmy source regarding the religion issue.Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comments
  1. The lead is a bit confused. and it is not clear to me (a lay reader) what the relationship between the Wodeyar's and the Sultan's was. The lead implies that the Wodeyar's and the Sultan's are the same family (the flow from para 1 to para 2 as well as the use of the word 'restored' in para 2) but, to the best of my knowledge, that was not the case. The first sentence is less than ideal because it refers to a Yaduraya with no help as to who he was. Perhaps the name can be deleted. In the last para, it is not clear which period is being referred to in 'this period'.--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 14:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. The 'Origins' section is not written in a catchy or easy to read style. Para 1 discusses obscure literature from medieval times that are of little use to the lay reader. Since there is a sub-article for this information, the entire content of this paragraph should be moved there. The second para should start with the original king Yaduraya and then move to the arrival of the Wodeyars. (The lay reader will not be aware of the importance of the Wodeyars and will be confused by the non-linearity of the implied timeline).--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 14:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Autonomy: advances and reversals: In para 1, it is not clear if the original kings were Wodeyars or not (if it is not historically clear, then no worries). In para 2, you need to specify siege of what (1638). The rest needs copy editing but looks readable. One suggestion, you may want to generally replace Kannada names (e.g., Sarvadhikari) for English names or, at least, reverse the usage: power fell into the hands of the prime minister (Dalwai) Nanjarajiah (or Nanjaraja). That would greatly improve readability. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 15:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. The Rice, B.L. reference (note #5) is not included in the list of references. (I assume this is the 1877 gazetteer.) --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 22:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Origins (again). In my reading of two sources (Kamat(1980) and Basaravaja(1984)) the pre-1578 history is murky (this is not clear from the text). Basaravaja points to 'tradition' for his description of that period while Kamat sources the 'annals of the mysore royal family' (which is not listed in his list of sources so, I assume he means tradition again). The murkiness of the pre Raja Wodeyar period (1578-1617) should be clearer. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 22:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply to RegentsPark: I have started working on your concerns. Should be done later today. Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I have switched Kannada (English) words to English (Kannada) words in several places for readability. I have also explained the possible relationship between Yaduraya and the Wodeyar family and how the Wodeyar title continued. The siege was of Srirangapatna and is included now. Now I need to look for a copy editor. If you can suggest one, it would really help.RegardsDineshkannambadi (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I have also clarified which period the last para of the lead refers to.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I have taken care of your other concerns too. The siege of Srirangapatna in 1638 and the removal of Yaduraya from the lead. I have also addressed in the "Origin" section how Yaduraya may have got the title Wodeyar, without going into details of legends.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Reply to RP (Origins)The text already said that accounts of this period were "mired in legend". It further reiterates that the "first unambiguous" account of the Wodeyars is from the reign of Achyuta Deva Raya (1528-). I think that was clear enough. But, just to make it more clear, I've added the words--"According to tradition,..". Hope that works. Thanks. Sarvagnya 22:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashed fairy-tale or history? (Comment by Fowler&fowler)

There is a danger that this FARC will degenerate into a kind of peer review, where various editors will make suggestions about grammar and diction and user:Dineshkannambadi will faithfully implement their suggestions until he wins enough brownie points for good faith and effort for the article to remain an FA. The overwhelming issues of bias, however, will remain unaddressed. Consider for example the section about the history of the princely state of Mysore (1799–1947). Read first what the sources have to say about that period . Now read the whitewashed fairytale that is being told in the Princely State section of this article. Do you see the whitewash? Where is there any mention of the utterly subservient status of the restored Wodeyars? Where is there any mention of the Nagar rebellion of 1831? Where is there any mention that most of the institutions that Mysore later received praise for (from the British themselves), were created during the period of direct British rule from 1831 to 1881? Instead, we are being given the full long name of the Queen Mother who acted as Regent for a 11 year old boy!! Read the praise there for the "rule" of Krishnarajendra (also Krishnaraja) Wodeyar and then read what Ian Copland has to say in his book about Krishnaraja Wodeyar's "rule," that it was in fact the Chief Minister, Mirza Ismail, who was firmly in control and the Wodeyar ruler merely a rubber stamp. What sort of bogus history is being promoted here? Furthermore, what sort of conceit are we humoring ourselves with if we regard such an article as one of Misplaced Pages's best and continue to waste everyone's time in continuing to "improve" it six weeks after we began the improvement?! Now we are told that the primary author is looking for a copy-editor! Isn't it time for an administrator to step in an put an end to the rot? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise you to tone down your alarmist rhetoric a few notches. Your comments above are certainly vios of WP:CIVIL, if not WP:NPA. You are entitled to your glittering generalities and jaundiced reading of sources and that too of cherry picked quotes, but, sadly for you, that is not how wikipedia works; certainly not a WP:SS article. Mysore was no more (and in fact, lot less) "utterly subservient" than any other princely state of the time--and there were 600 or so of them. Details of such "subservience" belongs on Princely States of India or some such; not on this article which deals with a time span of nearly 500 years and deals not just with administration, but also culture, history and society. Of the 600-odd princely states and much of British India, all sources without exception, note that Mysore, Baroda and Hyderabad were the most important ones--administratively, culturally and financially. Some put Baroda on top, some put Mysore on top; but all of them--including the ones (at least the ones which focus on Mysore or the Princely states and not on India or South Asia or Vijayanagara) you champion--speak of Mysore as a model state of its times.

Moreover, Mysore's primary claim to fame then and to an extent even now is as a seat of high culture. It is probably the only place in the whole world where a Parveen Sultana and Balamurali Krishna draw equal crowds. That was the Mysore Maharajas' main contribution and enduring legacy. Any book on music, dance, arts, yoga etc., will testify to this, as is evident from the numerous citations in the culture section. The British commissioners and residents certainly didn't pen the javalis or the Sritattvanidhi for Mummudi Krishnaraja Wodeyar. Nor did they compose JCRW's kritis for him! Mirza Ismail and Sir M. V were no doubt exceptional Diwans and they are both given their due in the Administration section. What we will not do, however, is buy your OR that Mirza Ismail was some kind of de-facto ruler, regardless of how many cherries you distill it from. He served as Diwan only so long as he enjoyed the Maharaja's confidence. It was precisely his resistance to the Maharaja's democratic leanings that led to JCRW showing him the door--not very different from MV's run-in with the king on the issue of reservations and his eventual exit.

I'd request an admin to step in an put an end to this relentless disruption. I have never come across anything remotely this ill-informed and spiteful on any FAR.Sarvagnya 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we now changing the focus of this History FA to one about "culture?" Well, in that case, have it delisted and submit it at FAC as an article about culture (and remove the history whitewash). The history sources (over a dozen historians) are agreed that Mysore was a puppet sovereignty, much more so than other princely states. Furthermore, it wasn't me, but the American consul in his communications to the US Secretary of State in Washington DC who stated that the Mysore rulers were rubber stamps and the last one, Jayachamaraja Wadiyar, was "not noted for his intelligence, initiative, or administrative qualities" (quoted in Copland, Ian (2002), Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917-1947, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society). Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 316, ISBN 0521894360). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Besides the fact that he graduated with five gold medals; earned a D.Lit from Queensland University, a Doctor of Law from Banaras University and a D. Lit from Annamalai University; was a prolific composer whose kritis which continue to be cherished, sung and studied by musicians, musicologists and connoisseurs; was equally well versed in Western Music as he was in Indian music and was Honorary Fellow of the Trinity College of Music, London; authored several books; owned a library which was the object of many a scholar's envy; was Governer of two modern Indian states; was Chancellor of Mysore University - one of India's most reputed universities;... besides all that and much more, yes he was a duffer. Nilakanta Shastri perhaps didn't know what he was talking about when he dedicated his celebrated 'Oxford' work to him. Thanks for giving everyone here a sublime sample of your cherry picking and quote-mining. Thanks. Sarvagnya 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a quite customary CV for a prince; for example, almost all of it can be duplicated for Prince William, Duke of Cumberland, whom nobody said was bright, and was a political disaster area. We are not a Court Circular, and are not in the business of writing puffery. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind doing a little reading on the subject before you jump in with inanities like the above? Even if for nothing else, JCRW is counted among the Who's Who of Indian classical music composers. If you have any issues with that, feel free to take it up with musicians and musicologists who for reasons best known to them, continue to cherish and sing his compositions. You might even want to use your example of the Duke of Cumberland to drill the point into the thickheads. Sarvagnya 23:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And how, exactly, does that disprove Fowler's claim that he reigned but did not rule? Compare, again, Ptolemy Auletes; princes with an actual job rarely have time to excel at a hobby. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delist per my comments above and per remarks of Septentrionalis. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Delist per remarks of Septentrionalis and per remarks of Fowler&fowler«Talk», as well as my own concerns about the use of biased and unreliable sources for this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Dineshkannambadi

I have been watching this and am rather amused at the roller-coaster ride we are on here. One of the things that stands out in all this are Fowler's constant contradictions. Let me just list few of them:

• Suryanath Kamath: According to Fowler's own admission in his unrefractored review commentary here , historian Suryanath Kamath is a widely known historian, despite the gentleman's probable controversial works on Aryan theory, Indus Valley civilization–though I am not sure what it has to do with this kingdom, which came to flourish some 3000 years after Indus Valley. Fowler did not have this issue in the first nomination of the FAR which was closed by Joel. It suddently sprang up in the second round (Dec 9th) after Mattisse made this ill-adviced comment about me on Dec 8th here . But now, Fowler seems to be making an arguement on RegentParks talk page that Suryanath Kamath is actually a non-notable historian when he writes It is poorly cited: it cites two or three unremarkable sources, at least one of which is written by a historian with publicly stated Hindu nationalist sympathies . Fowler really needs to prove what Kamath wrote about "Mysore Kingdom" is controvesial. Otherwise what we have here is WP:SYN. This is a summary style article. So, its amusing if someone expects a whole section devoted to Sir Mirza Ismail or Lord Cubbon, the British commissioner of Mysore.

• The other interesting feature of this FAR, if one reads Fowlers comments right from the first nomination (Dec 5th) and his comments on the FA talk page, is his insistance that the Hindu Wodeyar rulers were worthy of nothing more than a passing reference in this article. Yet, Fowler himself authored the article History of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760 using numerous sources, focussing purely on political aspects, the contents directly pertaining to Mysore (sections-Shadow of the Mughals, Seventeenth century Mysore, Chikka Devaraja) being not too far off from the present contents in the history section of this article. Remember, here Fowler also focusses on states other than Mysore, so you may have to read through this. I am again confused. If the Wodeyars are unworthy of mention or have been over-focussed on, how come he took the trouble to write an entire article on an unworthy subject? Just to show us how to write?

• In the unrefractored FAR commentary, Fowler claims the first nomination spiralled into a content dispute. But on RegentParks talk page, claims it is not a content dispute. Fowler really needs to come clean what this is about.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to comments by user:Dineshkannambadi

Dear user:Dineshkannambadi:

• I was being sardonic in that "unrefactored" post you mention, a mode of expression that apparently was entirely missed by you (as I noticed in an earlier post of yours). For that reason, in the refactored version, I changed it to the bare unvarnished truth. If you read, My concerns, you will see that I have regarded your sources to be obscure from the start.
• Furthermore, if you don't see the difference between History of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760 (which is still in development, needing more text for the period 1704 to 1760 and for Coorg) and Kingdom of Mysore, too bad for you. The first is a dynamic history that gives the reader a feel for how fragile the post-Vijayanagara polities were; the second is a static view that still, after being pushed for six weeks, is attempting to maximize the Wodeyars' contribution each opportunity it gets. The second is not even history; it is a hurried and badly paraphrased version of some sources. I have Subrahmanyam's paper right here and I can readily see what a hatchet job has been done in paraphrasing the first third. History is about perspective, not about picking a sentence here and a sentence there and stringing together a version of the family folklore we all, each of us, grow up with.
• Finally, the first FAR had become a content dispute in the sense it had begun to focus, largely as a result of your long obscure answers (which drove me to post here on the talk page), on things which —as user:SandyGeorgia later observed—are best discussed on a talk page. The FAR has always been about violations of FA criteria 1 (b), (c), and (d). Let there be no confusion about that. Examining my posts on user talk pages for little nuggets and then playing "gotcha" here is not going to help. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You were being sardonic? I though a FAR was meant to be a cordial atmosphere where users come together to improve an article, not to make hidden sardonic comments on sources and such. This is clearly bad attitude. Similarly, screaming Hindu nationalism, (a very catchy word, I must say) and hoping to get some mileage out of it is also not going to help. You have to prove it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't turn the tables on me so easily. I was unfailingly polite first on the article talk page. See my posts and compare them with your arrogant replies or no replies: Serious issues of inaccuracy and bias and One more attempt. I was unfailingly polite in Fowler&fowler's concerns and sources, where I explained that I was starting the FAR and in My concerns, which has always been my main statement in the FAR. I was unfailingly polite in the first FAR. Examine my posts and your replies! It was only after you started dumping blind searches from the internet (confusing T. K. Ravindran (a historian) with T. Kumari Ravindran (an agricultural economist)), that I made my post on the FAR talk page. And it was only after the sheer unintelligibility of the first FAR resulted in it being closed, that I finally resorted to some sardonic humor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have copied user:Dineshkannambadi's post and my replies to the talk page, since it is about my behavior, not about the FARC (i.e. if the article does or doesn't meet WP:WIAFA and whether it should be delisted). Please see user:SandyGeorgia's post at the end of the FAR above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments made by User:Michael Devore on her talk page (and copied here by me with permission) regarding my copy edit request to her–per FAR reviwer RegentsPark's comment above:

No, sorry, but with that article involved in an extremely contentious featured article review, there is a good chance that large portions of the content may change. That dispute needs to be substantially resolved before I would be comfortable investing significant time on the article, including the requisite discussions with you on specific copy changes. Of course, that doesn't mean everyone should agree; just that neutral parties would find the sourcing and writing to be an acceptable version of events. For now, I see no neutral party interaction helping establish consensus.

Leaving aside the behavior of participants as tangential to the issues, I do not know who in the FAR is more correct regarding the accuracy of the article content. The arguments made go to the the heart of what and how the content reads. However, I will say that the delist arguments made in the FAR because a copyedit is needed are not compelling. Given the article's existing FA framework, those sorts of issues can be resolved more quickly than the FAR itself has already lasted. Articles with a similar (or possibly worse) level of writing remain FAs not under review. If it gets to a point where a copyedit is the main issue, then I'll help out to the best of my modest abilities. If you feel my comments here may help assuage editor concerns outside of the content dispute—a dispute I am completely unqualified to remark upon—you may copy the comments where you believe them relevant. -- Michael Devore (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RegentsPark, hope this helps to put copyedit issues in the backburner for now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy of a portion of a post made on user:Michael Devore's talk page by Fowler&fowler.

You say, for example, "... the delist arguments made in the FAR because a copyedit is needed are not compelling." Who has argued for "delisting" on grounds of poor prose? I can't seem to find anyone. All that people have said is that in addition to issues of poor sourcing and factual accuracy, of lack of comprehensiveness and the presence of bias, it doesn't help the article any that the prose is so shabby. That's quite different from arguing for delisting because the article hasn't been copy-edited.

Many problems in the text that don't fall under bias, citations, or comprehensiveness, are in any case errors that a copy editor will likely not catch. The classic howler (which has since been removed) was, "The economy of the Kingdom of Mysore was based on agriculture, due to the majority of the population being villagers." Fixing the grammatical errors alone there won't do much, since the author has confused cause for effect!

Also, it is incorrect, in my view, to characterize the FARC—in which the primary author of the article has been accused of bias—as a dispute between two equally biased parties which requires intervention by a neutral party (whatever that means). Perhaps you would like to do a Google Scholar search on each of user:Dineshkannambadi's sources and decide for yourself how obscure they are; contrast them then with the results for the major authors who have worked on the topic of Mysore.

I would like to request that you ask him to remove your post from the FARC. If you would like to add something to the FARC, you should do it yourself. At the very least, you risk your message being misused unwittingly. If you choose not do this, I will be copying this post to the FARC as well. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I wish to emphasize that the essence of my Delist was not copy editing, whatever problems there may be there, but the issue of bias of POV, specifically the quality and the breadth of the references and how the information available on the subject is integrated, respecting NPOV, into the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Fowler&fowler

I agree with user:Michael Devore and I have already stated above:

"There is a danger that this FARC will degenerate into a kind of peer review, where various editors will make suggestions about grammar and diction and user:Dineshkannambadi will faithfully implement their suggestions until he wins enough brownie points for good faith and effort for the article to remain an FA. The overwhelming issues of bias, however, will remain unaddressed.

No one, however, has asked the article to be delisted because of copy-edit concerns. The issues, as Joelr31 has stated at the top of the page, are 1 (b) (poor sources), (c) (lack of comprehensiveness), and (d) (bias).

As for copy-edit concerns, the shabby state of the article, is nothing new. It has been that way for over a year, long before it appeared on this FAR. The version that passed the FAC was no better. Examine the Economy section of that version. Almost every sentence there has errors of grammar, diction or logic. I think RegentsPark is trying to be helpful to you; I don't think he has said anywhere that the page should be delisted solely because prose concerns, although I am sure an FA can be delisted because of poor prose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Response: Rather than copy my entire response to Fowler&fowler from my talk page, I shall repost only the portion addressing the article review, and not include commentary on editors' motives or behaviors. I believe trimming away such comments helps us stay on topic and is a good practice, one I endorse for future consideration. My edited remarks follow:

"My comments were carefully structured not to take sides in the crux of the debate, and I believe them to be accurate within the scope of a disinterested party with no special knowledge of the subject, to be on point, and to be potentially helpful to those who are concerned, as some were, about the copyedit of the article. Since I do not recommend pass or fail at FACs, and I have no strong feelings on what is kept or delisted at FA (the article quality is the same regardless), I left the decision on whether to repost my comments to the primary party in the FARC interaction: Dineshkannambadi. My remarks clearly cannot not be found to support his basic content position, but do demonstrate a willingness to help out at the article in another possibly problematic area if the factual nature of the content was consensus approved. Various comments related to Delist at the FARC assuredly do significantly remark on the writing style and copy."

Though it makes no difference to this article or to any of my work, as a postscript to Dineshkannambadi, the pronoun "her" with respect to myself does fail the test of content accuracy.

As a postscript to Fowler&fowler, you stated your position on my talk page and I stated my position in response. That is fair to us both, and that is enough. You were asked not to use my talk page as yet one more of the multiple pages covering your disputes with Dineshkannambadi. You refused this simple and polite request, with the result that your subsequent comments were reverted. Here, I again ask you to not post further on this particular topic to my talk page, as doing so will fare similar consequences. Thank you. -- Michael Devore (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Brief response by Fowler&fowler

I have removed personal comments from the excerpts of my post above (and changed "disingenuous" to "incorrect"). You might want to do the same in your third paragraph above, which properly belongs to my talk page or to yours. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I believe a significantly better purpose will be served if the editors who wish to have this article delisted work with the original editors of the article to bring it to a point where they are satisfied that this article meets all FA criteria. FAR should encorage editors to work together to fix any shortcomings in an article, and only if the article misarably failed most FA criterea should it be nominated to be delisted. I've gone through the article, and the arguments above, and I certainly don't think the article is at a point where it's beyond redemption and needs to be immeidately delisted. I'm not an expert on this topic, and I can't judge whether some sources are sufficiently reliable. But if some editors think unreliable sources are been used, they should do their best to help find reliable sources, or correct the article based on reliable sources. This should not be a problem as based on the arguments above, the editors suggesting delisting of this article as a featured article appear to have a significant understanding of the material covered.

The spirit of FAR should be to help improve articles, not have them delisted because of a few problems that appear to have been found after the FA nomination. --snowolfD4 06:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Snowolfd4 by Fowler&fowler

I'm afraid, it is not that simple. Please read my reply to user:RegentsPark at the bottom of this talk page section. This has been going on for more than six weeks. The primary authors, in my view, will not agree to major changes unless the article is delisted; besides, it is not clear if the article should survive as one article. The very name of the page as one kingdom continuous in time from 1399 to 1947 is a neologism. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

PS Other tertiary sources (Britannica, Encarta) have histories of a fixed region, not that of a changeable kingdom; doing the former here (as I am doing in History of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760) will take a great deal more work. Part of the problem with the article is that the authors have claimed to have written the history section in summary style, but there are no "parent articles" that this section is based on. They list three pages: Origin of the Kingdom of Mysore, Anglo-Mysore Wars, and Princely State of Mysore; however the first was just a copy of a subsection, the second a completely independent page written by a completely different set of authors which has not been summarized here, and the third another independent page created by user:Docku and me a few weeks ago which is still a stub!. My three pages: the one mentioned above, History of Mysore and Coorg, 1761–1799 and History of Mysore and Coorg, 1800–1947 will be the closest thing to "parent articles," but it will take them some time to be ready. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick question f&f. Do you disagree with (or rather, does, in your opinion, the literature disagree with) the central theme of the article that the Wodeyar family ruled Mysore through the entire period that the article spans? I.e., whether as satraps of Vijayanagar emipre, or as nominal heads under Haider Ali or Tipu, or as, titular heads post Tipu and until independence. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 15:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The literature is mostly silent on them. Nine out of ten of the general references at the end of the British Raj article make no mention of the Wodeyars. When Mysore is mentioned, it usually starts with Haidar Ali; there is sometimes a mention of a Hindu dynasty which he overthrew with no name mentioned. More specialized works of authors working on Mysore, such as Burton Stein or James Manor, make the point of the powerlessness of the wodeyars; others such as Janaki Nair, Manu Bhagawan, and Aya Ikegame talk about how the British-restored wodeyars obsessively focused on showing an unbroken lineage (by way of retrospectively creating palace histories) in an effort to bolster their fragile sovereignty. (See second paragraph here.). The first mention of them anywhere was in 1513, their first inscription is from 1553. Even if one includes the "coronations" in the jail of boy-kings, who were then murdered and replaced by other boy-kings, there was an interregnum between 1786 and 1799, although the wodeyars apparently issued an inscription ten years after Tipu's death that one of their ilk was in fact crowned in 1792! Tipu Sultan made an explicit point of ruling a Muslim Sultanate that was different from the previous Hindu principality, a sultanate in which there was no titular Hindu ruler; the coins he issued, the embassies he sent to France and Turkey were all explicit about it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Literature is mostly silent on them"?! What a load of "obvious blithering nonsense"! It bears being pointed out here (again) that almost none of the works user:Fowler&fowler mentions above are histories of Mysore. You can't simply hoard a bunch of tangentially related works and then scavenge quotes for people. The single most influential (and most comprehensive) work on Mysore history is C Hayavadana Rao's monumental 3 volume work which runs into thousands of pages. That's probably more than all of Fowler's sources put together have produced! And for some weird reason, Hayavadana Rao decides to call it: History of Mysore (1399-1799) !! Now there surely is a chance that Hayavadana Rao didn't know what the hell he was blathering about. May be Fowler&fowler can wake him up from the dead and lecture him about how wrong he was and get him to rewrite his book.

It is all very well to pull out a book about Vijayanagara or the Indian Independence movement or about Princely States of India and scavenge quotes for people, but that simply is not how we operate here on wikipedia. Sarvagnya 19:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I have already mentioned Hayavadana Rao here and described it here (last paragraph). They (Hayavadana Rao (1930), Kamath (1973 translated 1980), Rice (1897)) are all Gazetteer authors who have written versions of Wilks History written in 1811. The only modern history, which too borrows from Wilks, is titled, History of the Wodeyars of Mysore, 1610-1748, by A. Satyanarayana, Karnataka (India). Directorate of Archaeology & Museums, Karnataka and published by Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, 1996. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"are all Gazetteer authors who have written versions of Wilks History written in 1811" - Really? Maybe Hayavadana Rao was lying then, when he called titled his work History of Mysore (1399-1799 A.D.) : incorporating the latest epigraphical, literary and historical researches. Furthermore, your response evades my point. My point was about historians treating Mysore's history all the way from 1399 as a contiguous one. duh. Sarvagnya 20:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please note: A few mordant comments here are certainly not helping in arriving at a meaningful solution. Display of temper through rhetorical comments sway the mood and direction of the discussion and the discussants. A humble appeal to all "Stay clam and focussed". If you can't, please don't nullify the efforts by others to keep this discussion purely intellectual. Regards. --KnowledgeHegemony 20:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to user Sarvagnya

My post doesn't evade that point. I am making the point that old historians did write such histories of Mysore, which were rehashes of Wilks's History; that is not something I made up, but the view of Sanjay Subrahmanyam. However, if you do a Google Scholar search on "Wodeyar Mysore" among modern historians, 1983 to 2009], the names that show up are the references I have used: Kate Brittlebank (4), Sanjay Subrahmanyam (3), Burton Stein (3), A. Ikegame (2), Janaki Nair (4), Manu Bhagawan (2), P. Barua (2), K. Roy (2), not Kamath or Chopra. With the exception of one paper of Subrahmanyam on Wodeyar Mysore during 1724–25 based on a newly discovered missionary manuscript and the broad thesis of Burton Stein on military fiscalism (which mentions Chikkadevaraja), there is not a single publication by the most widely cited historians which focuses on the years 1610 to 1749 (let alone the years 1399 to 1749). Why do you think the most widely cited modern historians on the topic of "Wodeyar Mysore" are not writing about the pre-1750 years? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

PS Even if you search Google Scholar for the last 40 years, the most cited authors on the topic of "Wodeyar Mysore" are still from my list, not Kamath, Chopra, or reprints of Hayavadana Rao, Rice, or Wilks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:RegentsPark I'm beginning to see the problem that f&f has with this article (but bear with me for a bit), and also why the 'Origins' section included the note on sources. First, documentation on Mysore pre 1760 is lacking (according to Subrahmanyam (Penumbral Visions, 2001). Given that, most of what is known about the kingdom before 1760 is hard to verify. Second, most authors rely on the sources mentioned by f&f (mainly Wilks) and on tradition (which I take to mean mostly oral tradition). Wilks, in turn, relied on oral traditions and Kannada documents that seem to have disappeared. Thus, a lot in this article is hard to verify. That said, it does appear that there is a constant tradition of a Wodeyar family ruling (ignoring whether they were nominally or actually independent rulers) from Mysore since at least 1578 and continuing to do so in some capacity or the other till independence (ignoring the brief period when they were not even ruling in name during the reign of Tipu Sultan). This is confirmed by Subrahmanyam (who f&f agrees is a reasonable WP:RS) as well as Kamat (1980) and Basavaraja (1984). To me, that seems a necessary and sufficient condition for an article entitled "Kingdom of Mysore". Now, the only remaining questions (in my mind) are whether the article is biased in some way, whether it is reasonably complete, and whether it reads well. More on that later (gotta go for a piano concert). --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 23:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply by Fowler&fowler to RegentsPark's comment

The same logic that you applied to Mysore would also apply to all the other princely states. Kashmir for example is older than Mysore; before 1847, Gulab Singh was the ruler of Jammu and the Dogra dyasty in Jammu goes back more than a thousand years. See Neologism and Other Princely States for examples of Hyderabad, Bikaner, Jaipur and others. We are not free to choose our own terminology; we can only use the terms that the secondary and tertiary sources use to describe the entity that was Mysore. By an overwhelming margin, the usage among them for Mysore during the period 1500 to 1947, but especially for the period 1799 to 1947, is a "state" or "princely state." Please see Statistics of usage "Kingdom" vs. "State" for Mysore Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read so far, "Mysore Kingdom" or "Kingdom of Mysore" seem acceptable names in the literature. For example, Subrahmanyam repeatedly refers to it that way on his chapter entitled "Welfare and State Finance in Wodeyar Mysore" in Penumbral Visions (which, btw, seems the best exposition out there on Mysore during the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries). --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 20:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only are they acceptable, but the choice is also prudent due to the various connotations of "Mysore". "Princely State of Mysore" for example, is a synonym for the political entity that came into being after 1799. "Mysore" is a modern city in the Republic of India. "Mysore State" is used mostly to refer to the princely state, but also sometimes to refer to the modern state of Karnataka which retained both the name and the extent of dominion until 1956; and then, until '73, retained just the name. "Mysore Chiefdom"/"Chiefdom of Mysore", another "terminology" Fowler tried to push, finds almost no resonance whatsoever in the literature. "Kingdom of Mysore" or "Mysore kingdom" are by far the most common terms used to generally describe the political entity that is associated with the Wodeyars of the 16th c. onwards, their ancestors (fabled or real), Hyder, Tipu and the British.

As for Subrahmanyam, while I agree that it is a good exposition of the period it deals with, I disagree that the article does any injustice to his views(like F claims). First of all, it must be noted that even while SS bemoans the paucity of sources, he does not go against the established historical outline. The premise of his work is investigating the quantitative imbalance in scholarly interest in Haider/Tipu vis-a-vis their Wodeyar predecessors. That however, does not mean that he has superseded or even seeks to supersede the communis opinio, if you will. For the purposes of WP:SS articles, it is fair and for the most part, sufficient, to rely on sources which present the communis opinio as against focused investigations into specific aspects of the history (questions of centralization, extent of centralization, military, micro-economy etc., in SS's case). Forget Mysore, scholars are not decided on such nitty-gritties even for larger and more deeply studied entities like the Cholas or Vijayanagara or even the Mughals.

Burton Stein, for instance, if I remember correctly, contends that Cholas like many others, were only 'segmentary' and that accounts of the extent of their centralization etc., are overstated. Champakalakshmi, I believe, takes issue with that. Standard communis opinio histories of Mysore, and indeed most of India, are few and far between. It is a general trend not just in Indian history, but in all of Indian Humanities--something Sheldon Pollock mourns and deplores here. Indian history in general and sub-altern Indian histories in particular, is not blessed with the kind of scholarly interest that is seen in the case of Egyptian, Greek or Roman histories or even contemporary issues like the Middle East conflicts.

Consequently, it is fallacious to claim that a source becomes 'dated' solely by virtue of the date of its publication--not when the state of affairs is how Pollock describes it. A work can be deemed dated only when much of its content has been rebutted or superseded by later research. If multiple generations of scholars repose their trust in Wilks (even SS does), it must be for good reasons(if paucity of sources is one of them, then so be it) and on wikipedia, we have no option but to go with them. Also, wikipedia has a WP:UNDUE policy we have to contend with and we have to be careful when sourcing from overly focused expositions like SS's. We are better off waiting for the next substantial general history of Mysore or Karnataka to come out which will incorporate SS's and any other works. Until then, Hayavadana Rao, Venkataramanappa, Kamath et al will be the go-to people. Sarvagnya 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(Addendum) I think it wouldn't be a stretch to argue that the article be split into two Kingdom of Mysore (for the 1399-1799 period) and Mysore (princely state) or Mysore State or ... (for the 1799-1947 period). However, that discussion is, IMO, beyond the scope of this FAR. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 21:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree respectfully, FAR or no FAR. There are no shortage of FA's here in wiki, where a kingdom (or empire) has been treated as one article, especially when there is continuity of history, irrespective of who was boss and who was vassal over that period of continuity. I would be glad to give examples. Fowler's insistance on inconsistancy is not our burden. Fowler is free to create a fully blown article called Princely state of Mysore and attach it as a sub-article to this article, if he wants to.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RegentsPark Subhrahmanyam works in early modern South India (mainly Tamil Nadu). He has never written about Tipu Sultan except obliquely in his joint work with Muzaffar Alam and only once or twice on early colonial South India. I've never (please see half a dozen of his papers in History of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760) seen him use "kingdom" for Mysore during the period 1800 to 1947. For example, his paper, Subrahmanyam, Sanjay (1991), "A note on some early nineteenth century inam records in the Karnataka state archives", Indian Economic and Social History Review, 28 (4): 435–443, has second sentence, "Supported by the English East India Company, the Wodeyars ruled over a state far smaller in its extent than that controlled by Hyder and Tipu, but nevertheless among the largest of the princely states that survived under Pax Britannica." and his conclusion has "Given the recent resurgence of of interest in inam among historians of south India in the early colonial period, I wished to point out the existence of a little-known additional set of inam papers, those concerning the princely state of Mysore." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to user:Dineshkannambadi' The precedent on Misplaced Pages, as I have already stated, is to call Indian dominions that were formerly principalities or petty kingdoms and later became princely states, simply "states." Please read Neologism and Other Princely States. We can't make up terms for colonial Indian history based on precedent in histories of other regions or other time periods. The precedent in historiography (as I have already indicated above) is approximately 50:1 for "state" for the period 1800 to 1947. The mistake was yours in writing an article that goes against all precedent in secondary or tertiary sources. Authors write history of a region such as old Mysore, or Karnataka, or of a dynasty, or of a polity, but not of an entity that favors on dynasty as it keeps absorbing others. We can't write a history of the United Kingdom that includes only that of Kingdom of England but not that of the Kingdom of Scotland. The changes in Mysore from 1700 to 1800 were more complicated than those in the UK. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Let us not make tall claims who made a mistake and who did not. I though I proved to you in the first round of FAR itself, and even typed out from those very sources you claimed use the term "princely state" only, also used "Kingdom of Mysore" and that this occurred irrespective of what period you considered.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Alarmed by the size of the discussion here, I've read and re-read the article a few times over the past few days. And, I have to say that I have not come across any significant bias of any kind in the article. For an article which is accused of being Hindu-nationalist POV, it devotes a whole section to its Muslim rulers who it seems ruled for 30-40 years. I find Fowler&fowler's charges rather baseless. This article is surely one of our best. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 13:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Hindu nationalist issues are the last of the points in My concerns. What about the first five? As for those 40 years, the secondary and tertiary sources, by an overwhelming margin, devote most of their discussion of the pre-1799 period to the years 1760 to 1799. See, for example, the chapter Indian Society and States in the Eighteenth Century in Sir S. N. Sen's History of Modern India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I went through your other concerns too. And I find little or no merit in them. Seems more like a storm in a tea cup. I mentioned the issue of Hindu-POV above because, frankly, I find that "concern" almost ludicrous and the very fact that you raise it causes me to take any of your elaborate arguments with a few pinches of salt. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you find merit in them? Can you cite any scholars of Mysore, perhaps in this list, who say anything contrary to my concerns? My concerns, by the way, was written 6 weeks ago for this version of the article and what does I say about Hindu nationalism? I made a very cautious statement. Please read it again in point 6 here. When an article has a history section, in which 45 of the 60 footnotes are to little known work by a historian, S. U. Kamath, who has publicly voiced support for Hindu nationalism (see posts here and here written in a sardonic vein), and the article moreover consistently refers to Tipu Sultan as "de facto ruler of Mysore," when no scholar in the last 200 years has referred to him in those words, and when the religion section of the article cites (historians with no scholarly articles in Google Scholar or JSTOR) for sentences such as: "However, this has been countered by other historians who claim that Tipu Sultan treated the non-Muslims of Mysore far better than those of the Malabar, Raichur and Kodagu regions. They opine that Tipu was responsible for mass conversions of Christians and Hindus in these regions, either by giving them tax incentives and revenue benefits or by force," (which is quite different from what S. N. Sen says in the link in my previous post), why is it ludicrous to worry about Hindu nationalist bias? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think this is Hindu Bias? Tipu's religious policy is one of the most debated issues regarding his rule. Have you looked at the article Tipu Sultan of late? Don't you see a whole section, and the biggest section, just for that? Can you prove to us that Tipu's religious policy is an unlikely topic of discussion among historians? You should on the contrary apperciate that I provided citations from at least one source I had on hand that countered claims about his tough religious policy. I have also provided citations about Haider Ali indicating his case is generally non-controversial.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid there is a world of difference in the discussion on Religious policy in the Tipu Sultan article and your article. The former has a sophisticated discussion, which quotes some of the best-known historians of the day, and makes the point that Wilks's two accounts (see bibliography in History of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760), and, by implication, documents based on it, such as C. Hayavadana Rao's book, are unreliable in their descriptions of Tipu's religious fanaticism. Yours, in contrast, quotes two historians (writing in Rao's tradition), with no scholarly articles in Google Scholar, who repeat Rao's assertions. By writing in such vein you are only providing more supporting evidence for Septentrionalis's assertion above that you are not able to see the historical forest for the trees. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Perhaps at least the travel guide could be removed as a source for architectural statements and replaced with a reliable source. Also, this site: http://www.india-today.com/itoday/millennium/100people/durai.html seems opinionated and not scholarly.
• If the issues of the breadth of sources can be resolved then the prose concerns, the wording that makes the content of questionable accuracy voiced by User:Pmanderson (his delist way above) could be addressed. To give one example:

"Their origins however, is mired in legend and is still a matter of debate, with some historians positing a northern origin at Dwaraka, while others claim a local Karnataka origin. Irrespective of where they came from, Yaduraya is said to have married the princess of Mysore, Chikkadevarasi, and assumed the feudal title "Wodeyar" (lit, "Lord"), which the ensuing dynasty retained "Wodeyar" (lit, "Lord"), which the ensuing dynasty retained."

• "their origins...is (origins is pl) - so it should be "origins are" - also a useless "however"
• origins > origin > origin - unnecessary repetition of word 3 times in one sentence - in what sense is "origins" being used?
• "Irrespective of where they came from" - unnecessary phrase, as it adds no information (especially if what follows is also just more speculation)
• "Yaduray is said to have married" - weasel phrase, as who said? Do you mean this is also mired in legend or is there a reliable source for this? If there is a reliable source, then "is said to have married" can be reworded. (The source you are using now is dated 1911. A more recent one is needed. Then you could make a more definite statement than "is said to have".)

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RegentsPark's addendum and Proposal for article name

Sorry, I didn't see you addendum. I didn't say that splitting the article into two article was the only option. I stated three options. I will state them below, in a bit, but first let me consider some of the above discussion.

If people are agreed (with Subrahmanyam) that all subsequent regional histories are based on Lewis Rice (which in turn is based on Wilks), why don't we examine the titles of these books? Lewis Rice's is simply called Mysore, even though his history covers both the pre-1799 period and post-1799 period. Similarly, Wilks's book is titled, Historical Sketches of South India in an attempt to trace the History of Mysoor: from the Origin of the Hindoo Government of that State to the Extinction of the Mohammadan Dynasty; note again, it is "Mysoor" (with parenthetical reference to the "State") but no "Kingdom." It is the same with C. Hayavadana Rao's History of Mysore, 1399 to 1799; it is not the History of the Kingdom of Mysore, 1399 to 1799, even though at the time of first publication (1946) there was ambiguity in the term "Mysore" (i.e. city or kingdom).

Now, let me state the options starting with the third:

• 3) Split it into two articles: Kingdom of Mysore and Princely State of Mysore
• 2) Go the way of other princely states and call the article Mysore state or State of Mysore, and
• 1) Follow the example of Wilks, Rice, Hayavadana Rao and simply call it either
  • Mysore, 1565–1947 or
  • Mysore region, 1565–1947 (There is precedent of using "Mysore region" in Indian historiography. David Ludden (Penn), for example, uses it in his India and South Asia, and there would be no confusion with Mysore city, and, obviously, given the time period, none with the state in independent India), or
  • Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1947, (if you want to be more explicit, as in the Imperial Gazetteer of India History of this region; here too, given the addition of Coorg, there would be no confusion with Mysore city,), or
  • Mysore, Coorg, and Kanara, 1565–1947 (if you want to include coastal maritime history as well and make it cover more regions of modern Karnataka).

Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. On the point of citations, which is usually the first thing I check for, I'd have to say that this article is, of the 73 listed under WP:INFA, well within the top 20% at least. I have some statistics I only gathered for fun a while back, I'll upload them in a second. Firstly in terms of quantity, there is no major problem here, although there are two paragraphs where the second half doesn't have anything attached. I think that should be easily attached. Secondly, in terms of quality of citations, the first (and presumably foremost) concern raised by Fowler, again, the quality of the citations is fine. I see that only two out of 184 citations are websites, and at least they are proper newspapers. Thus 99% of the citations are from books in proper/scholarly sources. This trumps basically all the other Indian FAs, half of which are half-unsourced, as well as a lot of general FAs. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of bias, if I wanted to hunt down FAs on that ground, the first ones on my target would be Puerto_Ricans_in_World_War_II, Hispanic_Americans_in_World_War_II, Military history of Puerto Rico, which have copious amounts of material sourced to family tribute websites, and Hispanic pride/activist lobby group websites. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the reference statistics I promised. The reason I put the Karnataka ones separately is because of persistent mumblings of bloc-buddy voting, with the obvious inference that less meritorious articles have reached FA. KoM has reference density 4.00, more than 80% of RoI FAs. Also keep in consideration that 4.00 with all book refs, which is much more thorough and higher quality than web refs. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In depth stats

KN size KN ref KN ratio percentile 23 57 2.47826087 0.0625 53. Hoysala architecture 32 113 3.53125 0.125 49. Vijayanagara Empire 35 126 3.6 0.1875 Western Chalukya architecture 31 112 3.612903226 0.25 20. Bangalore 39 141 3.615384615 0.3125 63. Karnataka 39 145 3.717948718 0.375 56. Western Chalukya Empire 50 200 4 0.4375 Kingdom of Mysore 43 172 4 0.5 KN lit in the VE 37 175 4.72972973 0.5625 44. Chalukya dynasty 29 143 4.931034483 0.625 61. Political history of medieval Karnataka 27 134 4.962962963 0.6875 Mysore 33 166 5.03030303 0.75 62. Western Ganga Dynasty 27 137 5.074074074 0.8125 48. Hoysala Empire 35 188 5.371428571 0.875 Literature in the Hoysal Empire 36 195 5.416666667 0.9375 59. Rashtrakuta Dynasty 32 190 5.9375 1 Mangalore

Rest of India

Ind size Ind ref Ind ratio percentile 27 20 0.740740741 0.01754386 16. Malwa 24 19 0.791666667 0.035087719 10. Indian Railways 18 15 0.833333333 0.052631579 7. Kalimpong 27 30 1.111111111 0.070175439 31. Muhammad Iqbal 34 47 1.382352941 0.087719298 6. Mumbai 40 56 1.4 0.105263158 Norman borlaug 34 50 1.470588235 0.122807018 38. Ladakh 48 72 1.5 0.140350877 28. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel 55 84 1.527272727 0.157894737 3. Mahatma Gandhi 31 49 1.580645161 0.175438596 22. Lothal 39 62 1.58974359 0.192982456 26. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake 24 39 1.625 0.210526316 12. Flag of India 23 41 1.782608696 0.228070175 4. Sikkim 15 27 1.8 0.245614035 15. Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport 28 54 1.928571429 0.263157895 30. Sikhism 20 39 1.95 0.280701754 36. Adi Shankara 35 72 2.057142857 0.298245614 29. Indian Institutes of Technology 16 35 2.1875 0.315789474 37. Crushing by elephant 28 63 2.25 0.333333333 41. Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur 32 72 2.25 0.350877193 42. Syed Ahmed Khan 46 107 2.326086957 0.368421053 45. History of Tamil Nadu 16 38 2.375 0.385964912 55. Technopark, Kerala 24 61 2.541666667 0.403508772 53. Hoysala architecture 24 62 2.583333333 0.421052632 35. Kochi 30 85 2.833333333 0.438596491 32. Satyajit Ray 34 99 2.911764706 0.456140351 34. Darjeeling 54 168 3.111111111 0.473684211 19. Political integration of India 17 54 3.176470588 0.49122807 8. Tamil people 36 116 3.222222222 0.50877193 11. Rail transport in India 26 84 3.230769231 0.526315789 33. Ahmedabad 34 110 3.235294118 0.543859649 14. Economy of India 34 114 3.352941176 0.561403509 58. Climate of India 29 100 3.448275862 0.578947368 51. Pashtun people 8 28 3.5 0.596491228 25. Kolkata 26 92 3.538461538 0.614035088 47. Indian Standard Time 30 107 3.566666667 0.631578947 39. Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India 18 65 3.611111111 0.649122807 Amateur radio in India 36 131 3.638888889 0.666666667 43. West Bengal 38 141 3.710526316 0.684210526 Vithoba 14 52 3.714285714 0.701754386 18. Kerala 26 97 3.730769231 0.719298246 52. Nathu La 32 121 3.78125 0.736842105 60. Lage Raho Munna Bhai 19 73 3.842105263 0.754385965 History of saffron 8 31 3.875 0.771929825 2000 Sri Lanka cyclone 29 113 3.896551724 0.789473684 23. Rabindranath Tagore 13 55 4.230769231 0.807017544 2007 Samjauta express bombings 14 62 4.428571429 0.824561404 Akhtar Hameed Khan 29 131 4.517241379 0.842105263 50. Delhi 21 101 4.80952381 0.859649123 1. India 25 123 4.92 0.877192982 Brian Horrocks 29 145 5 0.894736842 13. Chennai 19 99 5.210526316 0.912280702 64. Kaziranga National Park 18 96 5.333333333 0.929824561 Siege of Malakand 23 125 5.434782609 0.947368421 9. Gangtok 29 158 5.448275862 0.964912281 Pretiy Zinta 35 260 7.428571429 0.98245614 Ganesha 26 231 8.884615385 1 27. Chola dynasty

Stats. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Retierating, both the coverage of the sources, and the quality of sources (90%+ proper textbooks) is much higher. Most of the Indian articles on that list are just reliant on whatever turns up in google, and what is more, as websites tend to only have snippets here and there, the same number of cites from a book does more work. Nichalp here says that most Indian Wikipedians can't be bothered going to get a proper book at the library and I guess it shows in those stats and just looking at them. I guess he counts himself among them as well, as 90%+ of his FAs just use websites that google trawls up. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to user YellowMonkey

I don't see the point of producing such statistics. All you are suggesting is that a large number of sentences are cited. The point of My concerns is not that sentences are not cited, but that the article uses a few obscure unremarkable authors over and over again for its claims. (See the References and see also my assessment of them). Compare these with the list of some mainstream authors for this topic. Please try finding publications for S. U. Kamath in Google Scholar on the topic of "Mysore"; contrast it then those of James Manor.

I don't understand the point of producing numbers of "Indian articles" (whatever that means). Are you suggesting that articles on topics related to India are held to a lower standard on Misplaced Pages than those on other topics? If this is the case, then are you also suggesting that this lower standard should continue to prevail? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly worried about the look of the source. If you want a more prestigious source you can, and it would look better with more prestigious sources, but I am not concerned about the fact that the authors may not have the same gravitas. At the end of the day a first year physics textbook is fine for citing as long as it isn't incorrect, we don't have to use the Feynman lectures. I have not said that this article is perfect or has used the most prestigious names on the calling card, but that isn't sufficient to knock this one off for me. As for the comparison, it's true that this article stands or falls on its own merits, but I've provided the data to show that this article is far from being the worst FA in existence on WP:INDIA or in other places. From your comments here and on associated pages, like your own talk page for instance, it would seem that this article is one of the worst of all time, eg your post at User_talk:Fowler&fowler#Reply_to_Docku, even worse than the fare on the subcontintent. I disagree obviously and think that your attitude to this article is unnecessarily and excessively negatively, especially compared to other FAs you have commented on, that are overwhelmingly reliant on websites. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Elaborating on the sources again, the WIAFA asks for "reliable sources" and "represent the published body". 1) A university textbook by a PhD in history is reliable, I presume that's what's meant by college, and 2) being a less famous author doesn't necessarily mean that his results are out of step with the mainstream. A guy with a PhD is much more mainstream than 90% of the sources anywhere on Misplaced Pages, ie websites. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

PS Could you please also move the statistics to a subpage and provide a link here? This page is already getting to be too long. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply 2 to user YellowMonkey

By "mainstream" I mean, as you state in your point 2 above, that the article "accurately represent(s) the relevant body of published knowledge" (Featured Article Criterion 1 (c)). I don't think writing an article that uses for its citations a book written by an author with a PhD is more mainstream (in this sense) than older articles that use websites or, indeed, even articles that have no citations. This article certainly cites every sentence, however, it does not accurately represent the body of published knowledge; in contrast, the version of the article of early April 2006 (before it was edited by the primary author), which had no references (and a tag to advertise that deficit), more accurately represented, in many ways, the body of published knowledge. (Obviously, it is only a stub and far from perfect, but it more or less "gets it.").

And that's what I meant in my post to user Docku that you quoted from. user:Nichalp and user:Saravask (mentioned in that post) are canny about what the mainstream opinion is, even if their articles are not cited in the best possible fashion; in addition, of course, they write good English prose. Give me one of their articles, and, if it is in my area of interest, I can easily access the academic databases and find references which range over the relevant body of knowledge in that field. I can't do that with this article (even now, after the authors, in over 450 edits since the FAR began, have hurriedly tried to incorporate a reference or two from my list of authors). Examine what the mainstream authors say about the princely state of Mysore; contrast it now with the refurbished image of the Wodeyars presented in the "princely state" section of this article. This is the nub of the issue here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

PS Could you please move your statistics to a subpage and provide a link here (as I have done for mine above). Thanks. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per YM's statistics and others. The article meets WIAFA sufficiently and is much better than most other similar articles. Giggy (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Agree with above comments by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) and Giggy (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To Giggy and Cirt, What is the point of adding perfunctory "Keeps?" Could you explain why you agree? Could either of you explain why most of the authors in this list of some mainstream authors on the topic of Mysore are missing in this article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delist - There obviously are multiple conflicts over naming and bias in this article that cannot properly be resolved at WP:FAR. I suggest that the article be delisted, per criteria 1d, 1e (and 1a, but that seems a minor issue at this point), the involved editors encouraged to discuss these issues on the article talk page or go through some appropriate dispute resolution process, and then reapply for FA status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 January 2009

I'm sorry, but there aren't "obviously multiple conflicts" here. Conflicts, if any, are only in User:Fowler&fowler's mind. Also, you misinterpret 1e. From the time the article became FA (in late 2007), right up until this FAR started (in late 2008), both the article and its talk page remained virtually untouched!. That is sufficient proof of its stability as well as of the non-contentious nature of its content in the eyes of everyone except Fowler. The flurry of activity in the last 1 month or so has been(and understandably so) in response to the FAR. This activity can by no stretch of imagination be held against the article; or we will have a delist every time an article goes through a FAR and every time conscientious editors editors improve an article! Sarvagnya 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know who is right on this article. However, now that I've read a few of the sources, I do see that the material is drawn primarily from one or two sources, which increases the possibility that there are inherent biases in it, and that likelihood goes up when I see that parts of the article are contextually incoherent (like the two paragraphs on christianity mentioned above). Given that, I would prefer to see the article delisted; and you, Dinesh, and f&f hash out the content on the talk page or elsewhere because FAR is not the right place to do this. I believe that the article will be greatly improved if you all discussed this in a reasonable fashion but I don't see that happening right now. Take away FA status and combine your knowledge and you'll probably have one of the best articles on wikipedia, but it is not there yet. (Delisted or kept, I'll list my concerns on the talk page of the article because this FAR has gone far enough - who can possibly read and make sense of all the stuff on this page!) --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 03:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This article became an FA way back in 2008, with about a dozen reviewers supporting it, and without a single objection. It was well cited at that point (some 135 citations), and the sources included some well known scholars. In this FAR, the nominator Fowler &fowler made many claims why he felt the article did not deserve to be a FA. But he has been unable to prove his points convincingly. This becomes evident if one goes through the entire FAR commentary here and on the talk page of the FAR itself!. In fact, he stood disproven with his own sources. The article meets all the criteria for being an FA in addition to being consistant with other history related articles on kingdoms/empires/dynasties which include all the required sections for completeness and comprahensiveness: History, government, religion, literature, music and architecture. The article was never written to be one that focusses purely on politics and martial aspects, but rather the whole spectrum of topics that makes a kingdom. The article has been further improved by User:Sarvagnya and myself over the last 7 weeks adding content and citations to just about every section, doubling the number of references used, including atleast one important source provided by Fowler &fowler himself. Various edits have been made highlighting the rule of Haider and Tipu and later the British control over Mysore, both in the text as well as in the template boxes. This article is one of our best.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Response by Mattisee

• "This article became an FA way back in 2008" - yes, that was November 8, 2008 (2 1/2 months ago) with an unclear Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Kingdom of Mysore - at least reading over it now, that is the way it seems. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he must have meant 2007. I just noticed that I'm mentioned at the end. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right. Interesting that the last comment in the FAC mentions you:

There is a great deal of work that could be done on the rest of the article also. Problems of relevance and due weight exist also in the “society” section and elsewhere. Why is it imperative for us to be informed, in the literature section, that "...the Mysore court (was) adorned by famous writers and composers, many of who were Vaishnava by faith..." Please have the page thoroughly copyedited and vetted for perspective. I would suggest Fowler, for both diligence and perspective

—Mattisse (Talk) 14:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just to note, this FAR has been closed as no consensus, keep. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.