Talk:Vijayanagara Empire

Corrections ...

(1) Please note that the correct term is Mastigallu (Maastigallu) which is a stone that memorializes the woman who undertakes Sati. This term is derived from Maha+Sati+Kallu (respectively meaning Grand or Big + Woman who has undertaken Sati + Stone). This is a generic term, with the referent being the person who immolated herself (presumably) along with the dead husband (which is what Sati is about). So, it is possible to state, this is a Maastigallu of Tayavva, say, who died after her husband Sangappa died.

(2) There is absolutely no term in this context called Sati-virakal. The author must have confused the Viragallu (or Veeragallu) which is a celebratory stone memorial for a Veera (the brave) who lays down his life in the line of duty protecting his king, commander, master, etc in a war or similar other circumstance. Veeras (plural of Veera) are young men committed to the cause of protecting the powerful functionaries of the Kingdom (King, Commander, Paleyagara, Naada Prabhu, etc.) at any cost with the belief that life can be given up, if necessary, to achieve Veeramarana (a brave death) that places them in Swarga (heaven) rather than accept defeat.

There are thousands of Veeragallu's and Mastigallu's spread across present day Karnataka, Andhra, Telengana, Maharashtra, Odissa and Tamil Nadu.

To summarize, Mastigallu is for women and Veeragallu for men.

Please set right the incorrect reference given alongside: "About fifty inscriptions have been discovered in Vijayanagara which are called Satikal (Sati stone) or Sati-virakal (Sati hero stone)"

Sati paragraph violates WP:UNDUE

Sati practice is evidenced in Vijayanagara ruins. About fifty inscriptions have been discovered in Vijayanagara which are called Satikal (Sati stone) or Sati-virakal (Sati hero stone).[86] According to Ashis Nandy, the Vijayanagara practice was an example of an "epidemic" of sati practice just like Rajput kingdoms under attack by Mughal armies, attributing the practice to foreign intrusions from the persistent wars between Muslim sultanates and the Hindu kingdom, in contrast to others who question the evidence.[87] According to scholars such as John Hawley, "the evidence about the extent of the custom and about the classes that practiced it is far from clear, since most accounts come from Muslim chroniclers or European travelers" who did not have means and objectivity to report about the practice or its circumstances accurately.[87]

Above paragraph has undue WP:UNDUE weight on a subject which is unrelated to the article. Per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so. I propose that this paragraph be changed as below:

Sati practice is evidenced in Vijayanagara ruins by several inscriptions found known as Satikal (Sati stone) or Sati-virakal (Sati hero stone).[86]. There are controversial views expressed by historians on the reasons for this practice as religious compulsion, marital affection, martyrdom or honour against subjugation to foreign intrusions.[87]

Some thoughts about the growing size of the article. Jaykul72 should keep in mind that wiki FA's are summary articles and its important to keep it that way. He is free to add more and more pertinent content on each section so long as he creates subarticles such as "Social life in the Vijayanagara empire" and such. Such an article could contain the existing content on "Social life" and expand on each issue such as Sati, Dowry, caste system.Holenarasipura (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I also noticed that many of his citations are not complete. He has to provide year of publication, publisher and ISBN/OCLC information. Otherwise, the citations may be considered invalid and the content removed. These are wiki policies.Holenarasipura (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Alternately, he should provide full book/publication information in the format shown in the bibliography section.Holenarasipura (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the incomplete citations with ISBN, URL, publication, year details Thanks, Jaykul72 (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

There are two sentences that have a common citation. {[U|Jaykul72}}, please ensure that the citations are broken up to reflect the correct page number for each sentence. In other words, please don't club multiple, disconnected sentences with a common citation. Also, I don't think there is a need for so many citations in the lead. a couple of good ones is sufficient to prove a point. The sentences are: in the lead section "It was established in 1336 by the brothers Harihara I and Bukka Raya I of Sangama Dynasty, members of a pastoralist cowherd community that claimed Yadava lineage." and in the religion section "The interactions between the Vijayanagara empire and the Bahamani Sultanates to the north increased the presence of Muslims in the south. In the early 15th century, Deva Raya built a mosque for the Muslims in Vijayanagara and placed a Quran before his throne.". I have split it for now but you can verify the accuracy.Holenarasipura (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Vijayanagara empire

About it Radha madana (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Regionalism and Hinduism

@Pied Hornbill: It should be fairly obvious why a vague and subjective statement like "The Vijayanagara Empire created an epoch in the history of Southern India that transcended regionalism by promoting Hinduism as a unifying factor" is a point of view and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic entry. For one, factors such as "regionalism" don't make much sense in the medieval context, linguistic identities weren't in vogue until the Indian National movement during the British Raj let alone be the basis of polities during the this time period when they hadn't even developed properly, something which is being implied here. Neither is there anything in the body that could reasonably justify the particular line. Their administration and treatment of religion isn't any different in style from previous or succeeding Hindu kingdoms so I don't see how exactly it is that they are "promoting Hinduism as a unifying factor", the entire thing reads like modern romanticism. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Featured article status after 18 years!

This featured articled since 2002 does not meet the current featured article standards. Among some of the major issues that can be pointed out is that the presence of significant quantity of uncited text, the use of vague peacock terms and fairly point of view language. But above all and more importantly, the article is rather incomplete, in a variety of aspects; for instance the history is at best only a very brief summary and neither does it delve much into the administration and influences of the empire, on which much can be written about. Unless if someone is willing to bring the article to standards of date this article should be submitted for Featured article review. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)