Talk:Kingdom of Mysore

Archives: Archive1

Tags

This article is under dispute over its accuracy, its neutrality, its abominable English, and its questionable title. The evidence of this remains at its FARC, and if its WP:OWNERS continue to revert, they should be prepared to answer to our forms of WP:dispute resolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the cleanup tag as inappropriate. Even a casual perusal of cleanup-tagged articles (which I do cleanup from time to time) will show this article far above those in quality. Although I am not an owner of this article, and as I said don't care whether or not it remains FA-listed, I will take this to whatever dispute resolution you care to, as there is absolutely no call for a cleanup tag here. The other tags sufficiently get your point across. Gumming up the cleanup tag backlog immediately following failure at FARC is not good form and an action I consider to be borderline contentious editing. -- Michael Devore (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a more specific tag for "parts of this article aren't in standard English"? I would have used it if I had known what it was, and I apologize to the {{cleanup}} crew. But for now three will be enough; since those issues are far more serious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit

As a note to the primary authors, I have altered my original stand on copyediting this article that I stated in an initial inquiry for help. Prior to the burst of article tagging, I had planned on waiting until the content was consensus-approved by major parties before helping improve the copy, if I helped at all. However, parties unhappy with the FARC resolution are using the article's current copyedit status to overburden the article with warning tags as an alternate form of dispute. Two tags of the four may be appropriate, but it is difficult for me to discern project value in this latest behavior.

In response, I have decided to help, as best I am able, to clean up the article content as it stands. While the content certainly has problems, it is of higher quality than cleanup-tagged articles I have looked at (quite a few of them, actually), many of which truly do use "abominable English". If the content substantially changes due to consensus, and my edits are rendered moot or obsolete in a later revision, so be it. Article improvement is progress no matter who the editor or what their side in this debate. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy issues for consideration in Architecture section:

• Re:"The Athara Kutchery, which initially served as the office of the British commissioner, has an octagonal dome and a finial that adds to its beauty." Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. In the absence of a universal standard of beauty, consider directly quoting a source which shows why people notable within the scope of the article think the dome and finial add to the beauty, or why it's generally considered beautiful, or reworking to make it less POV. "Beauty" can be used in articles, but you have to be careful when doing so.

• Re: "Its extensive pilaster work and mosaic flooring are noteworthy." Noteworthy for what? There are a large number of ways to be noteworthy and not all of them are good. Also beware of changing the sentence to "noteworthy for their beauty" or similar, due to the issue raised in the previous point.

• Re: "One mural shows Tipu enjoying the fragrance of a bouquet of flowers while the battle is in progress." This could be correct, but it is suspect. Is it historically established that he is "enjoying the fragrance" or is it simply one author's embellishment? It's probably clear that he is smelling the flowers (if that is what the mural shows), but without more detail in the reference or the article, I'm not sure you can say he is "enjoying the fragrance".

• Re: "In that painting, the French soldiers' moustaches distinguish them from the cleanshaven British soldiers." As placed, this seems to be a nonsequitur, though it may be an important detail for the article. Could you integrate it more smoothly with the previous sentence(s)? -- Michael Devore (talk)

More small issues in Music section:

• Re: "While the Tanjore and Travancore courts also extended great patronage and emphasised preservation of the art, the unique combination of royal patronage of individual musicians, founding of music schools to kindle public interest and a patronage of European music publishers and producers set Mysore apart." Three patronages in one sentence is a bit much. I think the number can be reduced through re-ordering or restructuring the sentence. If you can't come up with anything, let me know and I'll puzzle it out. Since I'm already standing in the sentence's guts, I'll nit-pick and say "great patronage" is a bit nebulous. Consider a close synonym of "strong" or "significant" instead.

• Re: "... calliaphone, a mechanical music player". Assuming you mean Norman Banker's invention, you might want to pipe that red wikilink to either Calliope (music) or the article section Calliope_(music)#Calliaphone.

I changed this myself as uncontroversial. -- Michael Devore (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re: "Significantly, the court ensured that Carnatic music also kept up with the times." When you start a sentence with a word like "significantly", it implies that the article did or will explain why the action is significant. Either explain the significance or drop "Significantly".

Removal of 'Significantly' from the sentence also appeared to be uncontroversial, so I made the change. The meaning of the sentence remains, without the implication that there is an unexplored special significance. Change or revert if I missed the point. -- Michael Devore (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re: "Attention was paid to "technology of the concert"." The article quotes an uncommon phrase without a helping wikilinked article. Can you either briefly explain it or tie it to the sentence which follows?

• Re: "Chowdiah was appointed court musician by Maharaja Krishnaraja Wodeyar IV in 1939 and received such titles as "Sangeeta Ratna" and "Sangeeta Kalanidhi". Are these good and noteworthy titles? Is there a translation available for them, as commonly provided in other parts of the article? -- Michael Devore (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Miscellany in Literature section:

• Re: "Not only was the Mysore court adorned by famous Brahmin and Veerashaiva writers and composers, the kings themselves were accomplished in the fine arts." Adorned is a bit flowery here and could be considered a positive POV. Consider a more neutral synonym.

• Re: "A remarkable development of the later period was the influence of English literature and classical Sanskrit literature on Kannada." Remarkable? While you might here mean remarkable as worthy of notice, most readers will probably interpret the meaning as an "extraordinary" development. If you did mean extraordinary, the article should back the claim, otherwise to reduce confusion you might change the word to something else.

• Re: "Muddanna has deftly handled an ancient epic from an entirely modern viewpoint." Deftly is a POV judgement call; quote it to a scholar or drop it.

• Re: "He authored dramas in Kannada and translated William Shakespeare's "Othello" to Shurasena Charite." I'm not sure I understand this. Is Shurasena Charite simply the play Othello, but with the title and content written in the Kannada language? So Shurasena Charite is the name used for Othello in the translation and the characters and actions remain the same? -- Michael Devore (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Good enough stopping point for now, it's most small and minor stuff so far. I'll look at more sections later this weekend… -- Michael Devore (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Society section:

• Re: "Accounts by contemporaneous travellers indicate the widespread practice of the Hindu caste system and of animal sacrifices during the nine day celebrations (called Mahanavami)." My search results on Mahanavami usually mention it as the ninth day of the ten-day Dasara festival. Is this a difference in customs and language, or is this not the same festival?

Or an alternate interpretation now occurs to me. Does this mean "during the ninth day celebrations (called Mahanavami) of the Dasara festival?". -- Michael Devore (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re: "Remarriage of widowed women and marriage of destitute women was encouraged, and in 1923, women were granted the permission to exercise their franchise in elections." Exercise their franchise in elections? You mean "vote" here, correct? It's shorter and easier for readers to understand.

• Re: "With the advent of British power, English education gained prominence in addition to traditional education in local languages." I'd like to change that to "prominence as an addition to", because I think the sentence means that English education was then becoming prominent, rather than both English and traditional education, However, I'm not sure this is the desired intent, so I am leaving it unchanged for now.

• Re: "These changes were orchestrated by Lord Elphinstone, the governor of the Madras Presidency. His plan became the constitution of the central collegiate institution or University Board in 1841." This mentions changes and his plan, but doesn't really say exactly what the changes or plan are. Gaining prominence is an effect, not a cause. -- Michael Devore (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Michael, You are are entirely welcome, of course, to copyedit it; however, please be aware that I plan to edit it soon and there likely will be changes in content. The 440 edits made by the two authors, user:Dineshkannambadi and user:Sarvagnya, during the last seven weeks, were not only made without consensus, but also without transparency, sometimes without even the barest pretense at it. Their edit summaries, in fact, were often marked by duplicity. This edit of user:Dineshkannambadi, in which one of the maps from my article History of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760 has been added to the Kingdom of Mysore article, but whose edit summary says, "moved image to correct location," is but one of many examples. Given this recent history of unilateral editing and given that a majority of these edits were not specific responses to specific FAR(C) concerns or, indeed, preceded by talk page discussion here or elsewhere, why need I be beholden to seeking that elusive consensus when I make my edits? At least mine will cite internationally known authors published by academic presses whose books have ISBN information.

Since I do consider you to be a fair and conscientious person and don't want your effort wasted, let me state that I plan to edit only the history, economy, and administration sections and will likely start with "princely state." I have just woken up; it will be another hour before I've had my coffee and fed the cats, and will then have a window of an hour, if that, before the rest of the household wakes up and puts the brakes on my editing spree. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

PS Unfortunately, I didn't get any time, and the weekend looks iffy. So, why don't you go ahead with your proposed edits. I did, however, remove the map (image) that I have alluded to above, since it was added without explanation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• The mustaches are described in a popular account of Tipu Sahib; there is a point there: they make the French look like Indians. I can try to locate it if this is not in Fowler's secondary sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall avoid adding comments concerning the article's copy in the sections you list, unless and until you notify me that your work there is complete for the next several days and unlikely to involve large rewrites of material in the near future. Thank you for your communication to reduce unnecessary effort. -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for tags: Factual accuracy and neutrality

Please read what the scholars say about Mysore during the period 1800 to 1947 (especially, in the selection from James Manor), and contrast that next with what the authors have written in their attempt to keep their portrait of Wodeyar "rule" unsullied. Please notice that the authors don't shirk from blaming the "corrupt local officials" for the "mal-administration," or the British, implicitly, for the famine, but Wodeyars come through unscathed in that section, in marked contrast to what the scholars say. This is just one example of both factual inaccuracy and bias (by which I mean an inadequate or unfair representation of the body of knowledge about the topic). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite asking you repeatedly, you haven't come up with any citation which contradicts anything said in the article. Come up with such citations first before you tag it for factual accuracy. Also, where is it "implied" that the British were responsible for the famine? You'll do well to stop holding everyone around you responsible for what goes on inside your head. The famine resulted in the death of a fifth of the population, for heavens' sakes! Are you arguing that it does not merit a place in the article? If so, can you come up with any work on the history of Mysore which does not talk about it? The article says what the sources say. Sarvagnya 18:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please check who wrote Great Famine of 1876–78 before you start making soaring statements about history, similar to the inaccurate ones you made in the FARC about Sanjay Subrahmanyam's paper not going against the prevailing view. Bias is different from inaccuracy; it is entirely possible to write a biased article without contradicting anyone. It is done by being selective. That doesn't mean that this article doesn't have factual errors. How many do you want me to find? Consider the first two sentences of princely state: "Following Tipu's fall, a part of the kingdom of Mysore was annexed and divided between the Madras Presidency and the British vassals. The remaining territory was formed into a princely state and the five-year-old scion of the Wodeyar family, Krishnaraja III, was installed on the throne with chief minister (Diwan) Purniah handling the reigns as regent." Ignoring "reigns" and other copyedit issues, what are "British vassals" (in the plural)? How many were there? And "vassal?" Is a princely state the same thing as a vassal? The "remaining territory was formed into a princely state and the five-year-old scion ...?" No, the remaining isolated middle that the British didn't want to govern (and for which Wellesley first considered Tipu's sons), was handed to a five year old boy languishing in jail. He wasn't the scion of anything, if "scion" implies heir. The dynasty had ended. Tipu Sultan ended it in 1886 when he ended the charade of maintaining the puppet monarchs in the palace and put them in jail. The February 2007 version of the article, even as edited by one of the primary authors, but yet to receive its first coat of revisionist whitewash, said just that. How then did Tipu become a "de facto" ruler that according to user:Dineshkannambadi had not be "coronated?" The British raised a dynasty from the dead. And there's no factual inaccuracy? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

NO. There are no factual inaccuracies. If you want to change "vassal" to "allies" (if you count the Marathas too who influenced the outcome by remaining aloof) or just "the Nizam", be my guest. Just stop holding up as examples and blowing out of proportion harmless rudiments of feverish expansion and cpediting; especially when your only contribution to such expansion and cpediting has been one of distraction by way of endless soapboxing and crustiness. Anyway, thanks for coming up with the first example of something that comes even remotely close to "factual inaccuracy". And... what if the boy was in jail, he's "scion" all the same; atleast, the British thought so. If anything, the British saw the Wodeyars as legitimate rulers and the father-son duo as illegitimate usurpers. Regardless of such nitty-gritties, the fact (for purposes of the historical outline here) remains that the British restored the Wodeyars to the throne. The article certainly says, "...the British restored...", not "...the Wodeyars retook control of..."; it says, in the lead that Mysore by way of the subsidiary alliance remained a 'princely state' and both "subsidiary alliance" and "princely state" are linked. Look:don't expect to keep reading between lines looking for nonexistent biases, write "soaring" essays about them and be taken seriously. Articles are written to reflect the facts as gleaned from RS sources and not to reflect your disdain for Wodeyars or your reading of the facts. The article throughout does make it a point to note that the Wodeyars were nominal or titular heads when they were nominal or titular heads. However, what we will not adopt in the article, is the tone of disdain and contempt you reserve for the Wodeyars. As for the famine, what is your point? Sarvagnya 20:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The errors are not "harmless rudiments of feverish expansion and cpediting." The fever was already there in the newly FA'd version of early November 2007 when a dozen experts lined up in the FAC and pronounced the patient's good health without an examination. As for "scion," here is what Rice says, "Nanjaraja was strangled in 1770 (aged 22), being nominally succeeded by his brother Chama Raja VIII, who died childless in 1775 (aged 16). Chama Raja IX, son of Devaraj Arasu of Arkotar, a member of the Karugahalli family, was then selected at random by Haidar. He died in 1796 (aged 22) and Tipu appointed no successor." Direct descent of the original wodeyars had ended 80 years earlier. What then is a "five-year-old scion of the Wodeyar family?" Heir to what and of which family? As for the British use of the word "usurper," there is substantial historiography on how it was used to diminish the Muslim Sultans of Mysore (the only Indian rulers who managed to whup the Company's behind, if only briefly); Walter Scott, among others, fed the hysteria. (See here, for Walter Scott and here, for the latter-day colonial reconstructions by the Hindu right). Believe me, those are not the only inaccuracies; I can find plenty more, as in the famine, where, among other things, the numbers are wrong, based on a cursory reading of the introduction of the 1881 Census!

It's not like I didn't try to engage you or user:Dineshkannambadi. Both yours and his responses were either arrogant or wise. Please read the replies to my initial talk page posts here, here, and here, and please notice the arrogance and lame humor. Really? user:Dineshkannambadi is having a "hard time typing out the 700 sources?" And you consider genuine concerns—as a result of which you have now belatedly removed "de facto,"—to be the snares of a troll? And now you are saying why don't I fix the problems at the same time your primary co-author is saying that we have to have "formal discussions" before anything can be changed?

I will make one more attempt to correct the various problems in the article as and when I find time during the coming week, but there better not be any more obstacles thrown in my way when I do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Better not be? Pretty strong words. I would be careful with that kind of language.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for tags: Article name

Please see Statistics for usage "Kingdom" vs. "State" for Mysore. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If editors are agreed, as they were during the FARC, that all histories of Mysore are based on Lewis Rice (which in turn is based on Wilks), then looking at the titles of their books might provide clues for an acceptable name for the page. Lewis Rice's book is simply called Mysore, even though his history covers both the pre-1799 period (Kingdom) and post-1799 period (princely state). 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).

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). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidence is when discussions are held and evidence is confirmed. Just calling your POV as evidence and tagging an article wont work, especially after failing at FAR to prove your points. Please start a formal discussion and then we can can decide what is evidence and what is not.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Evidence is when discussions are held and evidence is confirmed." Is that a definition? Perhaps you'd like to write to the OED and offer your improvement? While you're at it, consider also, the theoretical computer science community for a discussion of whether your new algorithm is NP complete. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

PS And would you like the formal discussion in a formal language, perhaps invite Noam Chomsky to arbitrate? I ask because I know your 440 edits were made with such scrupulous attention to rules and I'd hate to break any. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Christianity

I am removing the two paragraphs on Christianity in the section entitled 'Religion'. The paragraphs, taken from the Chopra reference, are generic to South India and focus more on the coastal regions (as a reading of the subsequent paras in the Chopra reference will show). They say nothing about the Kingdom of Mysore. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 14:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please dont remove anything without formal discussions. This is the only way the article can be improved. Its important not to take hasty steps after failing at FAR to gain concensus. This is a request.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dinesh, I'm ok with the FA status for the article (and will gladly work on improving it). However, the two paras on Christianity are really out of place in the article. They say nothing about the Kingdom of Mysore and read more like the kind of term paper padding I used to do as an undergrad. There is material on Christianity in the Kingdom out there (a little further in the Chopra reference for example, and also a bit on missionaries in the Subrahmanyam article) and I'll add that next week. However, I don't see much sense in putting generic stuff that is not even tangentially connected with the subject matter of the article into it. Especially in a Featured Article. (BTW, I follow a 1RR policy and won't re-revert if you reinclude the text, but, I think it is a mistake). --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 14:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I wont revert your removal.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I observe that Dineshkannambadi has made three reverts to this article in the last 24 hours; he would be well-advised to read WP:3RR, especially the part about this not being an entitlement. The last two are on the stated grounds that the tags, and Fowler's latest edit, were not discussed. Since the present four or five sections were here before Dineshkannambadi made his latest edits here, I have difficulty understanding this as a correct representation of what is the case.

I shall be restoring this blanking, and hope that Dineshkannambadi will fix the article, or permit others to do so, rather than continue to edit-war for the text he owns. The fact that Fowler's net edit was simply to link to sections for discussion makes this egregiously irresponsible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Note - And you will be well advised to watch your tone (here and above. and elsewhere) when you're in public. Thanks. Sarvagnya 17:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I hold my post to be both accurate and parliamentary. If you care to discuss specific phrases, and give specific reasons, I will consider whether I wish to strike them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Note - And Pmanderson, you should be aware that 3RR does not apply when reverting vandalism. Throwing tags on this article after voting 'delist' on this FAR that closed 48 hours back with 'Keep' does not look good on you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no vandalism here; this is a content dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A decision of "keep" at FARC does not mean that there are no POV issues in the article, only that there was no consensus for "delist." It is not an imprimatur of anything, certainly not an absence of bias in the article. Consequently, the adding of neutrality, factual accuracy of text or article name tags is not vandalism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding tags and trying to create sensation, after an unsuccessful attempt to de-FA the article is a sort of vandalism.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me be blunt. I know more about the history of colonial India than all the various authors who have penned this article put together. Please read my reply to user:Sarvagnya's post above and have a discussion with him. But please don't make arrogant statements here when I can easily find mistakes in pretty much every sentence of the article. As I have stated above, I will begin to make corrections in the history section soon, but I don't want obstacles, especially ones accompanied by bluster, thrown in my path when I do. Believe me I'm trying to be helpful. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On the notion of "failing at FARC"

What failed at FARC was the process, and it is clear, that FAR(C) is not equipped to assess whether an article fairly represents the body of knowledge about its topic, but rather only whether its sentences are cited or its language is POV. And so it was with this FARC. After all the editors other than the authors who actively participated in the discussion voted "delist," (and one who would have voted "delist" was away on vacation), the FA was saved by drive-bys, who either provided the flimsiest reasons in the pithiest language or in the case of one—user:YellowMonkey—made irrelevant remarks about other "Indian FAs" (please see post here), and dumped, for our edification, a graph on the percentage of cited sentences! That's failing at FARC?

I'm not done, by the way, with this episode. As long the primary authors were adding biased content to esoteric penny-ante topics (from my perspective), I didn't much care, but when they do it to colonial India (a topic I know something about), I will take the issue not only to mediation, but also to independent expert evaluation and, if needed, to ArbCom. I will do the same if the primary authors try to protect the article from edits by the editors who have actively participated in the FARC on the grounds that this is an FA and the edits need to be discussed first. What after all was the seven-week long discussion in the FARC?! Whom (and on which talk page) did the primary authors discuss with when they began to blindly paraphrase the first third (nay, the introduction) of Sanjay Subrahmanyam's paper on "Warfare and State Finance in Wodeyar Mysore?" With each other? I wonder why the primary authors forgot to mention both "warfare" and "state finance" in their edits? Perhaps because the entire paper is not available on Google Books? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

PS Indeed in which edit summary did the primary authors announce to the world that they were incorporating Sanjay Subrahmanyam's paper? That's a "ce" (copyedit)?? Even my cats are laughing (and we have five). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

PPS Not to speak of the borderline copyvios and change in meaning. Contrast, "Consequently, by 1612-13, the Wodeyars exercised a great deal of autonomy and even as they acknowledged inscriptions and proclamations of the overlordship of the Aravidus, transfers of revenue to Vijayanagara stopped." of the edit with, "By 1612-13 then, the Wodeyars enjoyed a great deal of autonomy, and made no regular revenue transfers to Chandragiri, even if they continued to acknowledge in inscriptions and proclamations the overlordship of the Aravidu clan." of the original. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As a method of ranking articles, FA is almost worthless; its justification is that it often does actually improve articles, and it inspires people like Mike Christie to spend energy writing quite decent articles. FA review is all too often this shoddy.

Percentage of cited sentences is a characteristic notion; it ignores (in general) whether the citations are to good sources, whether the sources express consensus, or whether the sources even support the text of the article; that would require research. Indeed, I have seen this attitude (on other articles) approve footnotes that didn't actually cite anything.

Correspondingly, I have also seen reviewers object to articles that didn't have a footnote on every sentence, even when the entire paragraph was from a source duly noted at the end of the paragraph. Some dozen reviewers are excellent, some are useful on certain aspects; but many are illiterate and incompetent editors who can say nothing about the writing or content of an article, but review to feed their vanity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in fact the version of the article in April 2007, before the primary authors had a real go at it, had no citations, but, in many ways, was less biased in its representation of the body of knowledge. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that the citation density rationale was disappointing because it completely ignores the quality of the text in an article as well as the quality of the cited texts. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I'd like to propose that user:RegentsPark, user:Septentrionalis, user:Mattisse, user:Docku (if s/he is back) and I be given a chance to improve the history, economy, administration sections of the article (as well as the Christianity paragraphs in Religion)—in the way we think is required—during the coming week (Monday through Sunday). The primary authors have made over 450 edits in the last seven weeks and many more earlier. During this time, the five of us have not reverted any edits consistently; in other words, and if we did so occasionally, we didn't persist in the reverting. I think it is our turn now and we should be given a chance to edit the article. The discussion should be held afterwards. If there is major disagreement after we've had a go, the article can always be reverted to its current version.

Also, I don't think the article needs to be copyedited by the primary authors (as user:Sarvagnya seems to be doing now) since user:Michael Devore will be doing that anyway. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My time will be limited next week; on the other hand, this is out of my field, and I would largely be editing for comprehensibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Will the week after next be better for you? We may need to be flexible anyway in order to accommodate four or five people, and the "week" of my proposal, in any case, begins tomorrow (actually today (Sunday) in the usual reckoning of the week). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Septentrionalis had a keen eye in the FAR; I think his editing for "comprehensibility" and good sense would be welcome. I am willing to help as I can; I am good at spotting POV and peacock terms. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Especially if the question of the article title is put on the back burner for the time being. That, I think, is a major distraction and is best deferred to a time when we are all satisfied with the content in the article. For my part, I do plan on redoing Christianity anyway and on adding some material on administration from the Subrahmanyan chapter. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 02:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, great, so the combination of Septentrionalis and Mattisse will be good. I'm happy to wait until next week if that will be better.

Yes, I'm happy to not worry about the page name for now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. You might want to look at the Kanthirava Narasaraja I, where I added a paragraph from Subrahmanyam on early Christianity in Mysore. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fowler should probably begin; as has been said on this page, it is pointless to copyedit a sentence which is then removed as hopelessly wrong. Let us know when you've done that, or need support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As an earnest of our good faith, I have removed the various tags for now. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the primary author, Dineshkannambadi (talk · contribs), is not responding, and the secondary author, Sarvagnya (talk · contribs), has not logged in. I left posts on both talk pages more than 24 hours ago, and will now leave reminders as well. Please suggest what I should do if, say, no response is posted here in the next 24 hours as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Silence implies consent; begin editing. (If they show up and revert when you begin editing, then this silence would be mere sulking; but then we go back to tags and recrimination, I suppose.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

the proposal sounds reasonable and wish could participate myself. looks like i will be away for a while but will try to pop in once in a while. --Docku: What's up? 07:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)I'm sorry.. but what is this charade about? Since when did anybody on Wikipedia need anybody else's permission to edit? Having said that, this is a FA and radical changes to content without discussion and consensus will not be allowed. If you're planning radical changes, I'd suggest you come up with a draft on a sub-page of this talk page and then we'll discuss. Also, my editing for almost a year and more has been limited and I will appreciate it if people take it a little slow. I will only be able to discuss one issue at a time. Reminds me, I haven't even had the time to respond to the New Year's wishes lying on my talk! Sarvagnya 03:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Sorry. So anyone can edit this page? Or do they have to pass it by you first? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is par for the course for user:Sarvagnya. As admin Redvers said about a related page, "Sarvagnya has OWNership issues with articles on this subject and is tag-teaming with Dineshkannambadi, who needs to understand that people who disagree with them are not per force trolling, ..." (see here). In the past, other editors who were in sympathy with their point of view would—at the drop of a hat—materialize out of thin air and edit war for them. That seems to have stopped lately, so they are resorting to a passive-aggressive combination of silence on the one hand and bluster and bravado on the other. It seems that Septentrionalis is correct. I will start editing the page tomorrow and will restore the tags tonight. Both user:Dineshkannambadi and user:Sarvagnya have had more than 48 hours. The former has been editing away and ignoring my two posts on his talk page; the latter has responded with his trade-mark churlishness. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this article has come thru a FAR and passed and has content dispute issues, you are supposed to start a formal discussion forum and get concensus from a wide spectrum of users, not just the group that voted "delist". Major changes made without discussions are not acceptable and will be reverted untill the correct formal channels are followed. All discussions have to made in the presence of a neutral mediator(s) who has access to all sources. This is the correct way of doing things.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sarvagnya. Discussions have to be made after the the contesting party comes up with a draft for each section being contested. Then, one issue at a time has to be discussed by a wide forum, to ensure changes, if any, are made. Bulldozing your way into a FA with dozens of sources is not acceptable.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you point to the rules that say that editors must come up with a drafts before they are allowed to edit this article? Is this article an exception Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" policy regarding articles? Should not this page be protected if no one can edit without permission? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Once Fowler applies for experienced mediation, any sensible mediator(s) will suggest a step by step approach, which is what I am also suggesting above. Trying to re-write sections, hoping it will stick by way of sheer votes, is trying to beat the system and that does not help or solve the issue. When this issue settles, it must be laid to rest for good.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Or we can just tag the dubious, the ill-sourced, and the illiterate statements, and see whether the gracious owners of the article will permit them to be fixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps you could come up with a list of "dubious", "ill-sourced", "illiterate" statements on this talk page before you shoot your mouth off about "owners"(whoever they are). Sarvagnya 21:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with the illiterate ones:

• Mughul records claim a regular tribute (peshkash) was payed by Mysore.
• Meanwhile, the French had withdrawn their support to Mysore after the end of Anglo-French wars in 1783.
• The start of fresh hostilities between the British and French in Europe was all that Tipu needed to aborgate his treaty and further his ambition of destroying the foreign power. His attempts to lure the Nizam, the Marathas, the French and the King of Turkey failed to bring direct military aid.
  • This last is also nonsense; this is after 1783 and before the third Anglo-Mysore War of 1789; there were no hostilities between Britain and France in Europe in those six years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I have been mulling over how I have spent the last seven weeks. Here is a quick history.

• I noticed Kingdom of Mysore in late November in the context of working on Princely state.
• I next tried to have a discussion with the primary authors here, here, and here, and received only arrogance or lame humor in response.
• I then collected sources on this talk page and made a post here before attempting to add a sources and historiography section for the page; however my edits were immediately reverted by the primary authors (please see here).
• Realizing that this page's history sections had no parent articles (other than false ones, such as Anglo-Mysore Wars, whose two dab articles have not been précis-ed here), I began to write History of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760. I also created two stubs History of Mysore and Coorg, 1761–1799 and History of Mysore and Coorg, 1800–1947.

Given how the two primary authors have reacted, either here, (see user:Dineshkannambadi's talk posts above: post1, post2), or on my talk page, (see user:Sarvagnya's various posts there), I fail to see how my editing this page is going to be even remotely amiable.

For the last ten years I have taught and worked with graduate students only (and the occasional undergraduate summer intern). The discourse I am used to in my real (intellectual) life rarely sinks to the levels it does on Wikipedia, and I don't see why I should be going out of my way to seek the lows of the latter discourse. I am proposing therefore that the editors who were dissatisfied with this article (user:Docku, user:Mattisse, user:Pmanderson, and user:RegentsPark) help me instead with the History of Mysore and Coorg articles. I should have a first cut of the first article ready by the week's end, and then will likely need a week each for the second and third articles. Once, we have polished those articles, we can make a decision on what to do next. At least, while we work on them, we won't have to worry about creating "equal air time" for sources that (in the field of early-modern- or colonial India) no one has ever heard of. If, after we are done, the primary authors accuse us of content forks, we'll be on firm ground and I'll be happy to request an independent expert evaluation. Look forward to your responses. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit distracted right now but I agree that the situation here does not look good. When an edit war starts over tags on a featured article, you can pretty much assume that nothing productive is going to emerge! I was about to suggest that (1) the tags be dropped as a distraction as well as being a bit pointy when placed on a recently reviewed featured article. (2) that only edits that improve readability be done on the article without discussion. (3) that the purpose of other edits (i.e., how specifically they improve the article, very very specifically) be listed on the talk page before the changes are made (any discussion from this will help all parties if mediation becomes necessary). And finally, I wanted to point out that while there is no bar on editing a featured page (Talk:India, for example, encourages editors to be WP:BOLD and improve the article), all this be done in the spirit of good faith. I see very little assumption of good faith on either side and a lot of heated rhetoric. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad that you see the pointy-ness of the tags. As for editing the article, I don't see where anybody has prohibited it. Even this very talk page encourages people to be bold and "improve" articles. That however, does not mean going against a core wikipedia policy like WP:CON nor does it mandate circumventing WP:NPOV, WP:TONE, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN by peppering the article with cherry picked editorialized quotations from random authors. I can easily see where this is heading, so let me warn right now that there is a subtle line dividing reporting 'facts' as opposed to reporting 'editorials'. Sarvagnya 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Re editing the article, I was referring in particular to this comment about 'major changes without discussion' being reverted and the need to follow 'formal channels'. Quite the opposite of WP:BOLD. My point is that there is no requirement that some formal process be followed to make edits to a featured article. However, as I say above, in the spirit of assuming good faith, I suggested that the discussion precede any changes. Are you ok with that? (And, yes. I do see that the tags are pointy.) --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 23:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

By "formal process", I'm sure Dinesh meant reasoned discussion minus the intellectually dishonest and alarmist rhetoric ("whitewashing", "revisionist"... Really?) or the patronising stiff upper lip you see in the posts purported to be Fowler's attempts at "unfailingly polite" "discussion" and other posts during the course of these past weeks. And in the unlikely event that a reasoned discussion proves futile, we always have channels like RfC, RfM or informal mediation by editors both parties trust. What however will not be brooked is wanton antagonistic bluster like taking it to "independent expert evaluation" etc.,. What is meant to achieve? Put the fear of God in us? bah! Sarvagnya 23:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

yes, Sarvagnya understood be correctly. Fowler's claim earlier that he knows more history then the currently cited authors does not help his cause in anyway. Using tangential sources which hardly dig into the details of the history dont help either.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, he claims he knows more history than Sarvagnya and Dineshkannambadi. That may be; whoever was responsible for the last sentence I cited in the previous section doesn't know enough history to understand his sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• It certainly would be an improvement if the argument rested less on personal attacks and more on reliable sources to history, placing more weight on a variety of mainstream, recent scholarly opinion. (And also bearing in mind WP:Peacock and WP:Words to avoid.) —Mattisse (Talk) 04:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues in sentences 1 and 4 (lead)

Yes, there are errors of all sorts everywhere. Consider sentence1 and sentence4 of the lead itself. (There are errors, by the way, in sentences 2 and 3 as well.)

"The Kingdom of Mysore (1399–1947 CE) was a kingdom of southern India, probably founded in 1399 in the region of the modern city of Mysore. ... The kingdom reached the height of its military power in the latter half of the 18th century under Haider Ali, an army commander, and his son Tipu Sultan, who took control of the kingdom."

1. Sentence 1 (Factual errors):
   1. "probably founded in 1399?" (With probability 0.0001?) Contrast this with Subrahmanyam 2001 (who everyone seems to be agreed is a modern reliable source), "The origins of this kingdom are obscure, and date back to the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, ..."
   2. "in the region of the modern city of Mysore?" "Somewhere in the vicinity" of the modern city of Mysore is more accurate. The "kingdom," such as it might have been in 1399, likely didn't envelop the modern city of Mysore, a possibility the current formulation leaves more open. For, in 1565, a full 166 years after its "founding" and "steady expansion in the sixteenth century" (as is next claimed in sentence 2!), it comprised only 33 villages and a force of 300 part-time soldiers.
2. Sentence4 (Selective emphasis/subtle bias?):
   1. "The kingdom reached the height of its military power" True, but, more importantly, it also reached the peak of its geographical extent. (For, it was able to marshal the resources of its many realms.)
   2. "under Haider Ali, an army commander, and his son Tipu Sultan, who took control of the kingdom." After, seven weeks, the authors are not being able to stomach the concept of the Muslim Sultans of Mysore as having replaced the defunct wodeyar. So, Haidar Ali is an "army commander" and his son "took control of the kingdom." True enough, and I can certainly find sources for either statement, but contrast how Britannica describes Tipu: "Encyclopaedia Britannica (2008): "Tipu Sahib: Sultan of Mysore, who won fame in the wars of the late 18th century in southern India. Tippu was instructed in military tactics by French officers in the employ of his father, Hyder Ali, who was the Muslim ruler of Mysore." Notice the difference (after disregarding the possible peacock expression "won fame")?

As for the tags, I was originally in favor of removing them while we worked together on improving the article. However, in the absence of tags, as we saw for 48 hours that we removed them, the authors either kept editing Wikipedia and didn't bother to reply to my two posts on their talk pages (user:Dineshkannambadi), or simply didn't edit Wikipedia (user:Sarvagnya). I believe without tags, progress will be very slow.

Anyway, as I said earlier, I'm going to be working on the Mysore and Coorg pages. If you need help in finding more factual errors, of which there are a legion here, or more examples of selective mention/bias, please let me know. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

PS (I am adding this here so that we have a record.) We shouldn't permanently put on the back burner another important issue, that of the page name. The primary authors have not responded either to the stark statistics or the precedent for other Indian states in Wikipedia. It is not sufficient to say, as user:Dineshkannambadi as said on occasion that there are many examples of people using "Kingdom of Mysore." Sure there are, but most are to the Kingdom ruled by the Sultans Haidar Ali and Tipu Sahib. If you search among all social science and humanities links on Google scholar for "Kingdom of Mysore," or "Mysore kingdom," but disregard ones that are references to Tipu or Haidar, you get only 17 links; in contrast if you search for the princely state and also disregard references to Tipu and Haider, you get a ten-fold increase! What does that mean? That the princely state (1799–1947) was not called "kingdom" by too many people. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»

• Hopefully, User:Sarvagnya will allow others to edit to obtain a more balanced point of view. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions

• "...traditionally believed to have been founded in 1399 in the vicinity of the modern city of Mysore" - does this mean that there is no recent scholarship or findings, archeological or otherwise, that enlarge on tradition, and that "traditionally believed" is the best evidence? Are there other beliefs that are not so weighted by tradition?

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: These accounts are drawn from the Palace History, a "compilation" (by a late 19th century Wodeyar) drawn from palace records and from a text known as the Vamsavali. According to Krishnaswamy Aiyangar, these texts are based on traditions of a "more or less reliable character".(Aiyangar, 1911, p. 272) Aiyangar goes on to say that the first contemporary record of a Wodeyar - copper plate inscriptions - is that of Betad Chama Raja who's reign began in 1513. (Aiyangar, 1911, p. 277). Aiyangar is doubtful about the nature of the 'kingdom' prior to this date (he says "if we may call it a kingdom at all" - p.276) and also, interestingly, states that Betad Chama Raja moved the capital to Mysore from a town called Hadana. Presumably, according to the 'Palace History', the Wodeyar's started out in Hadana rather than Mysore. (It also looks as if different authors follow different conventions for naming these rulers, which causes utter confusion!) --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 20:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sarvagnya. I think the 'deposed the Wodeyar's' reads more accurately. Perhaps this correction can also be made in the Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan section. The source quoted (Chopra et al) uses the same deposed words "In 1761, Haider Ali became the king of Mysore by deposing its Hindu King," (Chopra et al, 1979 edition, p. 85). The article would be greatly strengthened if it were made clear that the Wodeyar's may not have had even nominal title to Mysore during the Haider/Tipu period. Kamat is the only source I can find that says that the Wodeyar's were nominal heads and even he takes this away during Tipu's reign "Later, after Haider’s death, Tipu did not appoint a successor to Chamaraja VIII, keeping the throne vacant." (Kamat, 1980, p. 242) --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 19:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being a voice of reason. As for Haider/Tipu, Venkataramanappa explicitly calls them de-facto (who would have imagined that de-facto could be construed as being pejorative?!) and he is someone who, believe me, is almost fawning in his praise for the duo. Also, he takes the pains to point out that Haider in particular, didn't take to styling himself the King. Haider, it seems, always referred to himself as a 'loyal' servant of the king and even the inscriptions of the time (issued no doubt by Haider himself) referred to him as the karyakarta, no more. As for Tipu, it was not until the fag end of his rule, in 1796 to be precise, that he did away (completely) with the Wodeyars. Even this came when Chamaraja VIII died. in a rush.. gotta run now. later. Sarvagnya 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)