Talk:Rashtrakuta Empire/Archive 2

Maharashtri Prakrit

Maharashtri Prakrit (preceder of Marathi) was administrative language of Rashtrakutas (third Govinda and Rashtrakutas of Vidarbha). Citation is added. Mrtag 14:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

राष्ट्रकूटांनी आपल्या राज्यात कन्नड कला-साहित्याला राजाश्रय दिलाच परंतू तिसर्या गोविंद (७९३-८१४) व विदर्भातील राजकूटांनी महाराष्ट्री प्राकृतला सन्मानाची वागणूक दिली. Rashtrakutas developed not only kannada culture literature but Third Givinda and Rashtrakutas from Vidarbha (especially) respected Maharashtri Prakrit.मराठी भाषेची जननी असलेली महाराष्ट्री प्राकृत राष्ट्रकूटांच्या काही भागात राजभाषा म्हणून उदयास आली होती. Mother of Marathi language, Maharashtri Prakrit was court language in few parts of Rashtrakuta empire.

So you are nothing but a Marathi hater. I dont mind replacing Marathi with Maharashtri Prakrit. Page numbers are 39 and 40. I would rather request u to get a another source for ur edits at Yadavas for Suryakant Kamat seems to be a Kannada fan. Mrtag 14:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please dont make personal comments.I intend to cut and paste what you call as citation and present it to admins and see if they accept it. An book citation should come with ISBN or OCLC number, publisher, page number etc. The content should be tranalsted into English by someone other than you, cleary state the language was used in inscriptions (official edits and documents) or be used in Coinage.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No personal comments from me. It is u who is terming me as vandal and what not. The translation I provided is full-proof, also refrain from being sarcastic as in what you call as citation. Mrtag 15:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

new information is added with valid citations . Mrtag 03:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

History

Under History subheading the very first paragraph also came from a Marathi book called "Marathi Encyclopedia (Khand.14), 1989, publisher-Maharashtra Rajya Vishwakosh Manda"

"The Rashtrakutas were feudatories to the Chalukyas and came into prominence under Dantidurga around 753 CE.The oldest Rashtrakutas are believed to be from ancient Kuntala in the valley of river Krishna. Manank ruled from 350 - 375 C.E. and had built his capital in Manpur (now Maan in Satara district). The Vakatakas of Vidarbha another Rashtrakuta ruler were in conflict with Manank"

I'd say that unless there is a problem with the credibility of the Marathi Encyclopedia, then it would be fine. If there are other books which say different conflicting things, then attributing to the original historian and their differing viewpoints is the way to go. WP:SOURCE#Language, doesn't seem to rule out using non-English texts at all, although an original English translation, rather than a self-translation is probably better. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the debated nature of this article, It feel its better to use translated texts then to have someone do a personal translation, make a subjective judgement and come to conclusions, as I think Mrtag is doing.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 10:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons this article has been constantly plagued by controversy is partly because of the naming of the page. This page pertains to "Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta" specifically, though a brief mention has be made about their descendents etc. I propose we rename the article to match the name of the Imperial dynasty - Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta. This would solve lots of problems about dealing with Rashtrakutas of Vidharbha, Jodhpur etc. People interested in creating other subarticles are free to then create articles for their own tiny kingdoms elsewhere while the main article remains for most well known Empire - the rulers from Manyakheta. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 11:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Now ur in right track. But isnt Manyakheta synonymous with Malkhed. The way u were ignoring Maharashtri/Marathi in the article of Rashtrakutas (who were the rulers of our state in ancient times) is unfortunate. I am OK for Mr.Kannambadi's proposal and the same holds with Yadavas of Deogiri. They are more related to Marathi than any other languages. Kannada was not their court-language in the 'present day Maharashtra part' of their rule so Kannada script should not be used there. And same is being pronounced everywhere except your dubious books. 'Threw the Kannada rule' this term itself tells the whole story.It will be nice if u write history articles with open-mind and zero prejudice. Mrtag 13:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point. My suggestion has nothing to do with present day Maharashtra or Karnataka.

The Yadava kings encouraged Kannada scholars in their court, minted Kannada coins. They wrote over 500 Kannada inscriptions. Whether the Yadavas of Devagiri are related to Marathi's or not itself is debated as expained by all the citations. To me it's clear from the Seuna article that during the 11-13 century was a time of multiple languages in Maharashtra. Even historians are not sure if it is clearly the first Maratha empire.Dineshkannambadi 13:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Also see my comments on user: Blnguyen page at the bottom. I think you are in for a surprise.Dineshkannambadi 13:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yadavas (of Deogiri) were the Maratha empire and Marathi was the court-language. Yadavas were patrons of Marathi.Historians are much clear about it. You can go ahead and make Seunas from Karnataka or whatever as you wish. Yadavas of Deogiri are undoubtedly Marathi. I have no intrest on what you think or what is clear to u. I am not at all surprised or intimidated by Bl's response. Get this very clear, u have started all this flaming and u dont know my conviction!

Secondly its time for u to stop ur threats and behave properly. Agreed that it is a web-forum but still some decency and consideration has to be mentioned. Take a crash course on mannerisms,if possible. Mrtag 14:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Maharashtri Prakrit

I have given enough citations to prove that Maharashtri Prakrit was a court-language during Rashtrakuta period. The book is Maharashtrache prachin rajyakarte by V.Rajawade. Page numbers are 39 and 40.It justifies Maharashtri Prakrit script in the article.

Reply

I'd say that unless there is a problem with the credibility of the Marathi Encyclopedia, then it would be fine. If there are other books which say different conflicting things, then attributing to the original historian and their differing viewpoints is the way to go. WP:SOURCE#Language, doesn't seem to rule out using non-English texts at all, although an original English translation, rather than a self-translation is probably better. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC).Cut and paste by Dineshkannambadi 19:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Kannambadi also removed Marathi encyclopedia which is far more genuine and trustworthy than his dubious citations.marathi encyclopedia link

Google snippets are also used by other users in Yadavas of Deogiri article. Whatever information I have added using that snippets is brief and easily viewable. They clearly show that rashtrakutas of Manyakheta are marathi.

Reply
Mrtag, I looked at those google searches - I am not sure how this service works, but it did not seem to provide a paragraph or such which has this content. It appears to only give the fact that a word is in the text. Can you explain things more clearly? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC). Cut and paste by Dineshkannambadi 19:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the part which says that there were some Marathi Rashtrakutas who were later ancestors of Marathas, seems like it stands by itself, that there were some Marathi speaking people. Of course it would be preferable if Mrtag has the whole book to read, although it doesn't seem that would help anybody else. However, the justification for putting Marathi first seems to be based on the use of a piece of text which merely stated that there were Marathis, not that they were predominant. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC). Cut and paste by Dineshkannambadi 19:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

arbitration

This article will go for arbitration to decide what is an acceptable citation and what is not. This decision will be made by the arb committee. With this in mind I am providing full publication information including page number, author, year of publication and publishing company etc to each citation brought in by me. If it is a web page, the citation contains author, web page link, last update of web page and publisher name. If the need arises, I shall also provide credentials of the web page author. Instead of constantly reverting and ruining this article, I suggest all contributors do the same. I have not altered any text that changes the meaning of the article. I suggest Mrtag and his various wiki incarnations do the same before this goes for arbitration which will be final. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations under question for arbitration (as of 12/27/06, 3:26 PM (USA))-->citation #1,2,3,6, 26,27,44,45. These citations have no publisher, page number. If I find any other citation without sufficient infomation, I shall add its number here. The number can change if more citations are brought in and should therefore not be considered final.Dineshkannambadi 20:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Solution to revert problem

Here is a possible solution to all the reverts on the Rashtrakuta page.

• First of all we need to stop whoever is creating so many sockpuppets from anymore puppetry.

User:Mrtag, User:Itihaas are all sock puppets who have been blocked indef.

• We can then bring in a panel of judges who will thoroughly study the article, its citations and source of citations to ensure the same are acceptable to wikipedia standards and that there is no fabrication of the citations. If citations are coming from non-English language sources, we need to confirm if this is acceptable and if it is, then is the translation accurate and the non-English content from a scholarly source. We need to ensure no blog sites are being used.

• Then the article can be reworded by one of the judges so as to meet the requirements of all valid citations.

• To validate the citations, I suggest the authors of the article, which is myself and the puppetmaster of the banned puppets to prove they really pocess the books we are using. We can even go in detail to the page numbers given in the citations.

Hopefully this is an acceptable process to solve the revert problem.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 02:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A good article, but needs support in several places

I think it is a good article, but several vague statements are made to give the impression that it is an empire under one dyansty and that it is a Kannadiga dynasty. If this is the case I would be quite happy to accept it, but the evidences are not there, I'm afarid. --Aadal 20:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please point out which are those vague statements? and which sentences need evidences? Thanks - KNM ^Talk 01:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this. I've provided my input at FAC.--Aadal 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Branches of the Rashtrakutas

The significance of the Rashtrakutas is attested by the branches of the Rashtrakutas established in different regions. Their impact was widespread, not just in Karnataka/Maharashtra. Please do not remove this information.

--Malaiya 00:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Praise by Arab authors

The Rashtrakutas formed a Pan-Indian dynasty, not a regional one. The Rashtrakuta king Amoghavarsha I (called Balahara by them) and his rule was profusely praised by three Arab authors Sulaiman, Al Idrisi and Abu Zaid. This should be mentioned in the article.--Malaiya 01:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed

1. "The book refers to early Kannada prose and poetry writers such as the 6th century King Durvinita of Western Ganga Dynasty." This statement in the section on "literature" is false. The Kavirajamargam refers to Durvinita as a prose writer, not as a Kannada prose writer. talk 21:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. It says prose writer in Kannada.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry dear. Here is the passage from Margam. Vimalodaya Nagarjuna Sameta Jayabandhu Durvinitaadigalee kramadol negalchi gadyaashrama pada gurutaa prateetiyam kaikondar. Margam 1.29. talk 21:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:wilfredsimon, no original research please. Do you have reliable source which says King Durvinita is not a Kannada prose writer? Dinesh, does the source given the article explicitly states Durvinita prose writer in Kannada? - KNM ^Talk 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

2. "This period effectively marked the end of the classical Prakrit and Sanskrit era. Court poets and royalty created eminent works in Kannada and Sanskrit that spanned such literary forms as prose, poetry, rhetoric, Hindu epics and life history of Jain tirthankaras." In this portion from the section on "language", the second section contradicts the first. The first sentence says that the period effectively marked the end of Sanskrit. The second sentence says that works were composed in Sanskrit!!! talk 21:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the contradiction here. The first sentence talks about that period, and not the subsequent periods. If that period marks the end of an era, then it would contradict if eminent literary works are found in subsequent periods. The second sentence still talks about that era, which is perfectly in line with what the first sentence says. - KNM ^Talk 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry dear too. You cant decipher inscriptions on your own. Original research is not allowed on wikipedia. You have to bring citations from scholars specifically quotong that Durvinita did not write Kannada prose but just "prose". Sanskrit works were written later too, but were on a gradual decline. Just because a sentence does not agree with you, does not mean its factually inaccurate. I have provided several citations and can provide several more. Provide your sources, page number, author, year of publication. then talk.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I can produce as many secondary sources that will dispute any claim not attested in primary sources. I ve cited the text from Kavirajamargam above. Now, what is your primary source that tells that Durvinita was a Kannada writer??? And, what statistics do you have to show that Sanskrit literature was "on a gradual decline"? Show me at least one Kavya work from the Rashtrakuta region before Jinasena's Purvapurana in the 8th century. I would like to have solid evidence. And I would like to see evidence for kavya, not purana or shastra or philosophical works. When I say solid work, I mean concrete evidence, not mere speculation that Bharavi might have been a poet from the region, because he was a friend of Durvinita. Removing FA tag may not solve the problem. Anyway, I am not adding the tag anymore. Best. talk 23:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are not original research. I am quoting from a source text. Reference to secondary authors can also be original research. For works of scholars, see:
1. Sheldon Pollock. 1998. “The Cosmopolitan Vernacular.” In Journal of Asian Studies 57 (1): 6-37.
2. Sheldon Pollock, ed. 2004. Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions From South Asia. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
3. Sheldon Pollock,. 2007. The Language of the Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Culture and Power in Premodern South Asia. New Delhi: Permanent Black.
Best,
talk 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I see only one author. You cant quote anything from Kavirajamarga itself because that is original research. It has to come from proven scholars. And ou cant decide what is primary and what is not?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

....just as you cant decide what is original research and what is not.... best. talk 23:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont. See WP:OR Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material." (Emphases added) WP:OR, talk 18:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the citations I have provided carefully. It comes with author, publisher, year of publication, name of book (in the reference section). Buy those books and read them. I can provide you 12 more sources, all from reputed historians. You are not the first one to come here with your own personal theories.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rashtrakuta's Capital

Article has all the content but very few lines on the Capital of Rashtrakuta Empire. In this article Manyakhet observed as the capital of Rashtrakuta but there is a place in Nanded District of Maharashtra called Kandhar where the fort built by Rashtrakuta is situated. It has been said that the Kandhar was the capital of the Rashtrakuta Empire. This article has nothing information available about the place Kandhar and fort built by them.Santosh 8080 (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Bias in the article

Imposing modern linguistic states on earlier empire IS a really injustice to history.kindly avoid it.Better to understand that we all share something in common.States of Karanataka and maharashtra are created in 1960.what is the fun in streching back it.is it a scholarship

Rashtrakutas belonged to Abhira stock

(Elliot,Numismata Orientalia,Appendix,p.149'Muliya Thimmappavva Kannada Desa Tattsavu Dharwar.1954.p.6)says that they were of Abhira stock. http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=YISRTfmfFMPXcdnCtYkH&ct=result&id=m54tAAAAMAAJ&dq=abhiras+of+jodhpur&q=abhira

Encyclopaedia of Indian culture, Volume 4

Yadavas through the ages, from ancient period to date, Volume 2

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=-l-VTdHdK87rrQewwpj3Cw&ct=result&id=QJNHAAAAMAAJ&dq=abhiras+of+deccan&q=deccan

Even though some people think it has its origin from Yadavas, there is no direct evidence of it and it remains a controversial top. --Onef9day ^Talk! 05:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Manpur

The "Manpur in the Malwa region of modern Madhya Pradesh" bit in the intro is problematic. Abhimanyu's inscription mentions "Manapura" - its identification with Manpur of Malwa is pretty much obsolete.

From Epigraphia Indica (Volume 37, Part 1 - Page 12):

“ Fleet himself first proposed its identification with Manpur in Malwa, but later he himself rejected it on the ground that it is north of the Narmada. ”

Fleet subsequently identified it with a Manpur in Bandhogarh (Rewa state), and once again, rejected his own proposal. Bhagawanlal Indraji identified it with Malkhed. Some others, such as Vasudev Vishnu Mirashi, have identified it with Man, Satara (e.g. 12).

In short, the location of "Manapura" is not certain. I suggest changing the statement to something like "... from Manapura, a city in Central or West India, whose exaction location is not certain". utcursch | talk 16:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"... from Manapura, a city in Central or West India" is just fine. The uncertainty is implied.Mayasandra (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Peacock wording

I'm not sure whether architecture-related articles have such wording but here are the instances: All of them are stated in the Pedia's voice and don't seem to be attributed to the source. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:PEA.

• "the finest example of which is..."
• " splendid rock-cut cave temples..."
• "... most extensive and sumptuous of the ..."
• "'... have marvellous sculptures ..."
• "...excel in beauty and craftsmanship ..." Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• • The solution is simple. We can trim the peacock terms a bit without extensive copy edits to that section.Mayasandra (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Extent

"Having conquered Kannauj, he travelled south, took firm hold over Gujarat, Kosala (Kaushal), Gangavadi, humbled the Pallavas of Kanchi, installed a ruler of his choice in Vengi and received two statues as an act of submission from the king of Ceylon (one statue of the king and another of his minister). The Cholas, the Pandyas and the Cheras all paid him tribute."

How does this imply that:-

"The Rashtrakutas empire now spread over the areas from Cape Comorin to Kannauj and from Banaras to Broach."

when the article on the Pallavas says that:-

"The Cholas drove the Pallavas away from Kanchi in the mid-4th century, in the reign of Vishugopa, the tenth king of the Pallava line. The Pallavas re-captured Kanchi in the mid-6th century, possibly in the reign of Simhavishnu, the fourteenth king of the Pallava line, whom the Kasakudi plates state as "the lion of the earth". Thereafter the Pallavas held on to Kanchi until the 9th century, until the reign of their last king, Vijaya-Nripatungavarman."

which implies that Kanchi was ruled by either the Pallavas or the Cholas for the period under question. Similarly, the article on the Pandyas says that:-

"After the defeat of the Kalabhras, the Pandya kingdom grew steadily in power and territory. With the Cholas in obscurity, the Tamil country was divided between the Pallavas and the Pandyas, the river Kaveri being the frontier between them."

(However, no reference is given for this sentence.)

Therefore it cannot be concluded that "The Rashtrakuta empire now spread over the areas from Cape Comorin to Kannauj ..." Exacting tribute from another kingdom is different from connquering and absorbing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.233.32 (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

References