Talk:Kannadiga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Karnataka workgroup.

[edit] Vijayanagar empire

Vijayanagar empire was not a Kannada empire. The articles on this topic clearly point out great deal of controversy. It is not right to brand things outright without clear evidences.Kumarrao 07:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There are controversies about every Kingdom in India. The Vijayanagara rulers lived in the Karnataka region, espoused Kannada and Telugu. Feel free to include them in "Telugu people" article also.Dineshkannambadi 14:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Learn to be impartial

I am certain you did not read the article (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html) carefully.

It seems there are certain standards for Kannada-speaking Wiki users and others for different users. You brand 'Adluri's web reference as a blog site and at the same time defend 'Old Kannada' origin by citing the same reference. Try to recollect your umpteen contributions to Wiki where you cited innumerable blogs and web pages in addition to a handful of books published by Kannada enthusiasts to show "Kannada empire" extended upto Gujarat and Bihar. For you, all south Indian dynasties were Kannada empires. You have perpetrated this perfidy in many articles related to Andhra and Maharashtra history. Now you say Kannada was spoken upto Godavari. I would like to see those sentences from Pampa's works. Cite them.

Pampa was a Telugu Brahmin from ancient Kammanadu (Guntur dt) who adopted Jainism and was patronized by Vemulavada Telugu Chalukyan King Arikesari.

Please read the webpage (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html)critically and learn how to write history impartially and dispassionately. The article has a true historical account of Pampa, Chalukyans, Renati Cholas etc., Do not think medieval Cholas and Chalukyas had your hyper-enthusiastic outlook about language.

Vijayanagar empire had the capital in Hampi which is now located in a region that comes under "Karnataka". That does not mean it was Kannada empire. It was historically known as "Karnata Rajya". Even Telugu poets mentioned so. There is a clear distinction between "Karnata empire" and "Kannada empire". I think all Kannada Wiki users ignore this subtle difference. Andhra Satavahanas ruled almost entire South India, Western India and, at one point of time, upto Bihar. That would not make it Telugu or Maharashtrian empire. No Telugu historian ever lost this sense of proportion.

I have been waging a war with a couple of Kannada Wiki users to defend a historical truth about Telugu script and Telugu language. A reference I cited becomes a blog to ignore my input but the same reference becomes invaluable and handy to silence me. What kind of logic, rationale, and reason are present in these acts?

I am being collectively browbeaten. My edits are reverted without citing any reason. On the other hand, I am forced to give lengthy explanations which are ignored and branded as conjectures. I cannot imagine how a script can travel to South East Asia from Karnataka? Did it fly over Telugu and Tamil regions?Kumarrao 18:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Kumar, in your eagerness to defend your POV, you are overlooking an important wiki principle, which is: your source needs to be reliable. Can you establish Adluri to be a reliable source, per wiki standards ? A quick glance through his website doesn't lead me to believe so. Dinesh, like others here, has a POV - but he has cited enough reliable sources and has written his articles according to wiki policies. If you can find enough reliable evidence to support your claims, there won't be any war to wage... you will find several people willing to help you. So, please do more research and find reliable sources to support yourself . Cheers! Lotlil 00:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for the advice. Going by your own advice, please delete the material put in by Kannada wiki users in the articles Telugu script and Telugu language by citing the same reference. Why don't you preach this to the people who first did the same thing? Can a source become reliable for some and unreliable for me? Is it not hypocrisy? If you do not do it, I shall be compelled to doubt your integrity. Kumarrao 05:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to preach to you, I only reminded you how to go about editing around here. If you feel that doesn't suit your style, you shouldn't be here. Anyway, if what you allege is true, that someone is using this same source to further their POV, I agree that it needs to be fixed. Why don't you do this: In this talk page, list all the controversial statements from this article (the ones which you have an issue with and the ones which the others do). And for each item, cite your sources and explain why you agree or disagree. Let's work through it one at a time. Lotlil 14:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No one except Kumarrao has been citing that so called reference pointed by him. The claim made by him is a blatant lie and mislead. Gnanapiti 16:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

I am again citing the reference: (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1d.html) Please see the figures T1a and T1b. Kumarrao 07:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please avoid political issues

Dear IP user, please avoid making this a political article. I am also a Kannadiga, perhaps like you, but its important to understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a popular newspaper to aire anti-Tamil, anti-Hindi views. If you have any serious reservations against any ethnic group, fell free to start a blog site for the purpose. We want to develop the Kannadiga article into a featured article meeting wikipedia guidelines and the edits you have made dont meet the guide lines.Dineshkannambadi 11:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Boss ,we need not hide truth just to please our neighbours.People like you are actually disasters. WHat do you mean by avoid political issues then we need to erase everything. Contemporaraily you should be good enough to display facts. Karnataka bundh was not politically motivated. All writers unitedly are trying for classical status - And everybody knows what Tamil and Centre politics have done for a Kannadiga. Why not discuss it? That IP user is not anti Tamil or anti Hindi . He is against the political system of India and every Kannadiga is for that matter. Why are you suppressing it.All the things which you have removed have proper That means you are hiding the facts to be friends to others. Boss leave this attitude man .Else there won't be anyone .Satya nishturanaagiru kannambadi. Hope you will revert back all the facts because you people have barn stars and thinga like admin and at free will can make wikipedia a tamil or englishpedia. Kali-K 15:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Kali-k, I am not trying to hide facts, nor am I am trying to be popular with anyone. I will carefully go through your edits and retain what is worthy of a encyclopedia. Also, wikipedia is all about verifiability, not the "truth". Hope you understand. My best wishes.Dineshkannambadi 16:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just some more to unveil your ignorance what politics can play in normal life

A writer in churumuri blog feels this giving very rational thoughts:

After the Cauvery tribunal verdict when Kannadigas were protesting the injustice meted out to them, Kannada films (Maataad Maataad Mallige, Preethi eke Bhoomi mele ide) that were being filmed in TN were threatened and hounded out of TN by Tamil fanatics. Hence we need to protest the release of Sivaji in Karnataka.
Sankar who has directed Sivaji produced a highly disgusting movie by the name Imsai Arasan Pulikeshi in 2006. Throughout this film, he has made mockery of the great Kannadiga king Pulikeshi. Also in the same film, he depicts a character by name Sangolli Raayanna as a traitor supporting foreigners. Although this film was banned in Karnataka because of protests by Kannada organizations, director Sankar has not apologized for his mistakes in Imsai Arasan Pulikeshi. Hence we need to protest against Sivaji, a film directed by Sankar.
Karnataka Film chamber of commerce is a trade body which has been established to develop the markets of films of languages from Karnataka (Kannada, Tulu, Konkani) both within Karnataka and outside Karnataka. Instead of doing what it is supposed to do as mandated, it is promoting Tamil, Hindi and Telugu film / film related market in Karnataka. There is absolutely no effort by KFCC to develop the market for Kannada film / film related industry outside Karnataka (within India / outside India). Whatever little marketing is happening outside is because of effort by individuals / Kannada associations. Protest against this sellout by KFCC with regard to Sivaji by boycotting this movie.
Kannada film industry is on resurgence. Kannada films have huge market. This has been proven by Mungaru Male whose revenues are supposed to have touched Rs 40 crores +. As of 2006, the 5th all-time highest grosser (in India) was about Rs. 35-40 crores. So all this shit that Kannada films do not have markets and that they are not good enough is all false propaganda. Since lots of good Kannada films are running to packed houses in Karnataka, any attempts to release Sivaji on a large scale in Karnataka will deprive Kannadigas from watching their favorite Kannada films. Hence we need to oppose this movie’s release.
Tamil film market is on a low in Karnataka because of the following reasons:

• Good quality of Kannada films • Tamilians joining Karnataka mainstream by adopting everything Kannada including Kannada films This has resulted in heartburn for the Tamil film industry and their agents (like a former KFCC president in Karnataka). They are using release of Sivaji on a large scale to create hype and thereby create a market for smaller Tamil films that follow.

Although Tamilians in Karnataka have access to entire range of Tamil news and entertainment media (TV, films, newspapers, magazines, etc), Kannadigas in Tamil Nadu do not have such access. Inspite of the population of Kannadigas in TN being 50 lakh +, they are denied their right to news & entertainment in Kannada. Out of the 9 channels that Kannada has on cable TV, at most 1-2 channels are provided access in TN, no Kannada films are allowed in TN, entry barriers are created for Kannada newspapers / magazines distribution in TN, etc. We need to highlight this injustice done to Kannadigas in TN by opposing the movie Sivaji.

Just go through the wiki articles on Tamil . They would have furnished minute of the stupid details and nobody questions it yaake -olle naayi gala thara jagalakke ninthirthaare - next to those involved in article like christianity. Aa lofor English avrige bere ella dharmada article mele interest - just to throw stones at them. Next to them are Tamils. Ivru sting operations nadisthaare. Namma duraadrushta pakkadalle irbeku. Even today archeological centre at Mysoor has lot of evidences of old Kannada records but nobody is bothered . WHo do you make responsible for this? Have you seen the attitude of Tamilians in Bengaloor. Alle eththi Baarisa beku.

And someone like Telegraph- Bongaligala tharale -talks about Kannadiga as intolerant http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070618/asp/nation/story_7938214.asp

Also view this for centre's political stand for someone of stature of S L Bhyrappa - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8791848966367226138&hl=en

None of us like to fight but constantly we are questioned and somewhere we need to answer . Hope you know it.

When I said avoid political issues, I meant "avoid political issues on this encyclopedia, not everywhere". I understand your grief and your concerns, but this is not the place to air it. You should consider starting a newspaper, perhaps an evening paper and make sure it reaches the masses. You have failed to understand the meaning of "encyclopedia". I grew up in Bengaluru and understand your concerns. best of luck.Dineshkannambadi 12:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So are you going to remove all Kingdoms and Empires - they are also political past. Do you mean all protests and injustice (given with links) goes off without entering encyclopedia- Now this is politics?

I would have started a media but they are already sufficient available there and there is no problem with masses but the so called intellectual(literate,uneducated,capitalists-sometimes racial against their own culture/language/origin, or who speak mother tongue only inside their house and profess it also! and athithidevaru(mg road-koramanagala stretch) and those who are blessed from them and shelter them) ) classes are the problem. Only some people are Jaana-Kurudaru not to see this!

[edit] Vijayanagar

It was a Telugu empire established by Telugu brothers Hakka and Bukka, who were Golla Nayaks employed in the court of Kakatiya King Prataparudra. They were captured when Warangal fell to muslims, taken to Delhi and converted to Islam. They were sent to subdue Hoysala king by Delhi sultanate. They did it but got reconverted to Hinduism under the influence of Vidyaranya and established Vijayanagar kingdom. See Robert Sewell's "Vijayanagar: A Forgotten Chapter of Indian History" ((http://historion.net/r.sewell-vijayanagar-history-india/). A large number of local books and webpages will give false and biased information going against Sewell's well researched history.Kumarrao 07:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your arguement is insufficient. Just as there are some scholars who claim Harihara and Bukka Raya were Telugu, similarly there are other scholars who claim Harihara and Bukka were Kannadigas. Cant give higher priority to Sewell, just to please you.Dineshkannambadi 12:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logical

That is exactly the reason I said that the matter is controversial. Your edit is quite reasonable. Although I may not necessarily agree with some of the authors you quoted, I rest the matter as it sounds logical now. I hope your fellow Kannadiga users also follow similar logic. Policy of coexistance is what the example of Vijayanagar teaches us. All the best.Kumarrao 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For the vested interests in Kannada

I have been seeing anti-Kannada feelings grown by other linguists in this article which is why they have tried making everything into some unknown truth. Please don't remove facts like Tulu and Kodava being integral part of Kannada culture and Konkani also being one prominent part from this. I know this may hurt narrow mided people but our heart is broad and we have a huge diversity and have achieved a unity in it. There is also a community which being Kannadigas are very coward to speak it also and patronise foriegn language. A bright example is Narayana Murthy . Being a leader of sorts he is shy to speak his mother tongue anywhere but his house. This has indeed created a room( rather a hall) for those who don't know anything and google just anything and everything and paste it here in the name of globalization. Time and again your efforts will be cut down as there are some hardcore Kannadigas here.

[edit] Venu62 : The Tamil sock

Please remove this puppet Tamil Konga guy as he is spreading vandalism in Kannada related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.92.150 (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kuppalli-Hatti.jpg

Image:Kuppalli-Hatti.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The name Kannadigas

I have placed a request for a rename to Kannadiga (as an uncontroversial move). I feel this is appropriate, as the term Kannadigas is an English plural, Kannadiga is the original term and is also in widespread use. It would also be standard usage; compare for instance Malayali, Hindu, Muslim. Imc (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rk4.jpg

Image:Rk4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kannadigas are Dravidian in all sense of the term.

Kannadiga culture, ethnicity and language is predominantly Dravidian. Only one of these criterion is required to be classified as a Dravidian people and Kannadigas are one of the biggest Dravidian ethnic groups, classified as south Dravidian. I can't believe user Dineshkannambadi actually undid my edits considering this very obvious fact. "Just because a language is dravidian, does not mean the people are too." was his justification, this has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard considering the Dravidian topic. Some people seem to think that Dravidian implies a colonial description of a predominantly black skinned and wavy haired people I think. If Kannadigas are not Dravidian, there are no Dravidian people in India and the world. I will redo my edits for encyclopedic contents sake, and if anyone wants to revert them, please feel free to try and disprove conventional classification of Kannadiga people as Dravidian by all academia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_people Nambo (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir, You are once again using abuse in using terms like "dumbest" in your replies. This is against wiki policy. An admin will be intimated about your language. Now, Just because Kannada is a dravidian language, it does not mean all Kannadigas are dravidian people. Please stop being an expert on a complicated issue, that even hardened indologists have a hard time answering.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kannadigas are 'dravidian' only to the extent that the language they speak has come to be classified linguistically under the group of 'Dravidian' languages. Anything beyond that, is, but the puerile imagination of Messrs EVRamasami naicker, pavanar and the like run wild. The Kannadigas have as much in common with 'Indo-Aryan' Marathis as they have with telugus or tulus or malayaless or tamils. The 'Dravidian' tamils of lanka probably have more in common with 'Indo-Aryan' sinhalese than they have with kannadigas or kodavas or for that matter, perhaps even tamils of india. And surely, Kannadigas have just about as much in common with the Chinese and the Dutch as they have with the 'Brahuis'! In this light, the 'Related ethnic groups' that Nambiar is seeking to add to the infobox is not only silly, unscholarly and unencyclopedic, but it is also misleading. I request User:Nambiar to stop edit warring about this. Sarvagnya 18:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, amazing how a dedicated cabal can keep out certain information on WP. I guess nothings perfect. Based on WP articles currently, Telugus, Tamils and Malayalees are stated as Dravidian and Kannadigas are Indo-Aryans speaking a Dravidian language I suppose according to Dineshkannambadi and Kannadigas as related to Marathis as other Dravidian people (culture included!), which will be very hard to prove, and that they are as related to Chinese people as they are to Brahui people, according to Sarvagnya. Why don't we all ignore the prevalent usage of the term Dravidian and Indo-Aryan people, used to describe related cultures, languages and ethnicities in south Asia, when it comes to the Kannadiga article.Nambo (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How about someone showing sources that explicitly say that Kannadigas are or are not Dravidian? Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_MozAAAAMAAJ&q=dravidian+people+kannadiga&dq=dravidian+people+kannadiga&lr=&pgis=1, Robert Caldwell the first user of the term Dravidian in the meaning we know now used it to refer to south Indians specifically, P. 678 Dancing With Siva: Hinduism's Contemporary Catechism, By Himalayan Academy, Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, Master Subramuniya. Nambo (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Snipptes are not acceptable as citations. They lack context. Also , see the confusion the author causes by calling the Tamils, Kannadigas etc. as races.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't judge that ref without seeing at least the whole page, to get a sense of what is going on. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The language Kannada is classified as a Dravidian language and anything beyond that is open to imagination and OR and hence should be kept out of Wikipedia. Period. And Mr. Nambiar stop taking user's names and stick to what your argument is. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)