Talk:Chalukya dynasty/Archive 1

Comment

Gultu don's say something without proof..just because kannadigas supported telugu does't make kannadigas as telugus. In Andhra, you find more kannada and tamil inscriptions than telugu.Go and contact Archealogical survey of india

Comment 2

These conversations seem to be based on present day situations and divisions of Indian subcontinent but it has to be noted that when Chalukya's and Vijayanagara's emperors ruled there was no such divisions based on linguistics, all the south Indian languages have interconnections and no one can deny that, kannada and telugu also have close connections so its better to look into it in a perspective apart from linguistic division. In those days of flourishing empires they didn't give much importance to divide people based on languages as they do it now that is the reason we find many inscriptions made different languages and they also used Sanskrit at many points, even now we use Sanskrit in almost all the temples I believe. If Sanskrit is considered to be the mother of all Indian languages then there is no point arguing whether who belonged to which language or spoke which language. If you want to know what is the history of our ancestors then talk about pure history not language as it is just a medium and, the same archaeologists who deciphered the inscriptions in different languages can also prove that there was no kannada or telugu division 1000 years ago. So think about it and try to know the true history. Krishnadevaraya spoke telugu and even kept it as the court language but there is no evidence anywhere in the history which states that he or his predecessors regimes differentiated languages. Please at least stop politicizing languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.199.2 (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

---

---

Vikramaditya VI and chola wars

Let me start this discussion with a positive note that all empires, however great they are, have suffered reversals and finally vanish only to be repleaced by another. Please look at history from a positive non inflammatory way (Mr. Senthil Kumar). The Cholas were no doubt a great empire, but it takes a broadminded student of history to realise that all empires eventually meet their match somewhere. The Kalyani Chalukyas and Cholas were dreded enemies at times, made pacts and truce at other times and betrayed each other ever so often. This is a fact of life with ancient empires as they are in todays politics.

Regarding Vikramaditya marrying a Chola princess, please be aware that any kingdom that is at a disadvantage does not make demands/requests about marrying a princess of the competing kingdom. Any king who gives away his daughter would natually do so to the king whose kingdom is at an advantage, just as todays fathers would want to give away their daughters to a bridegroom whom he would consider worthy of his own status and worthy of his daugther.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Sorry sir, if I had inflammed your feelings ,but I wrote from thes sources Veerasozhiyam, and "Battles of South India" by K Appathurai -in which he gives the long lists of the stone inscriptions and tablets , both of Chalukyas and Cholas and their exact places, giving about 12 or more battles between them in 20 years. All these battles were within Chalukyan mainland and west Vengi. I donot know what sources you have given from, but I humbly wish to point out that all the years and battle results you have said were nowhere near truth, esp. that Rajendra, RajaRaja wre defeated, as they wage only 1 battles each which they won, in which Manyaket was fully destroyed when Sathyashereyaa lost ; in any case can you say why Manyaket ceased to exist even as a town after 1010 C.E.?

Writing history should be free of nationalist and ethnic passions and in any case truth provided with literary and archaeological evidences will be held good at all times. thankyou. Senthilkumaras 16:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

historians from south?=

One does not expect a historian from Bihar to be able to deciper "old Kannada" epigraphs unless he is adept at that language. Please dont make accusations unless you can provide proof from a North Indian Historian who can prove these incriptions wrong. I have been doing some reading on this matter and I understand now that Kannada has amongst the highest number of inscriptions in India (mostly from Karnataka/Andhra). I will contiune to strive to prove my point in a mature and responsible way. good luck!! Dinesh

In the article on "Chalukya", their clan has been called a "Maratha" clan. I would like to point out that this is false. The concept of "Maratha" evolved only after the spread of Marathi language in northern deccan (after 1300AD) and became popular only during the years and the years preceeding the rule of Shivaji. During the time frame 500AD - 1200AD (ie., the period that includes rule of Badami Chalukya, Rashtrakuta and Kalyani Chalukya), Kannada was the prevalent language of the deccan and hence its incorrect to call the Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas or Shathavahanas as "Maratha". Please correct this mistake. Most of the incriptions and literature from the above mentioned period prove that the Badami Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas and Kalyani Chalukyas were Kannada empires.

Please provide references to prove that the Chalukyas of Badami and Kalyana were indeed Marathas (Solankis). It seems to me that the Solankis were one among the many decendents of the Chalukyas. So its not correct to call the Chalukyas of Badami and Kalyana as Solanki Marathas.

Dinesh Kannambadi

I am responding to this statement "Huien-Tsang, a chinese traveller speaks of Pulkeshi as king of Maharashtra and not otherwise". Please dont try to obfuscate history. If Huien-Tsang speaks of Pulakeshi as king Of Maharashtra, it does not mean todays Maharashtra. He must have implied the whole area between Kaveri and Narmada because Pulakeshi had already established his empire this far north by now and obtained the title "Dakshinapatheswara" History needs to be handled with maturity. If you claim that the term "Kannada bala" implied the Eastern vengi chalukyas, provide proof from a historian of repute or rest in peace. The Rashtrakutas started out as subordinates of the Badami Chalukyas before gaining control over their whole teritory.

Dinesh Kannambadi.

"bordering Maharashtra"?? There seems to be an attempt to emphasise on Maharashtra here, more then anything else. This is purely speculative and reconfirms our petty sub-regionalism. It should be known, without intending to puncture "Marathi pride" that Shivaji the great himself was supposed to have been a descendent from the Hoysal Marathe clan (not sure how true this is!!). The Hoysalas are a great kingdom the ruled Karnataka (1000-1330AD) from Belur/Halebidu in south Karnataka. The people of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra share a glorious history together. Purandara Dasa (15th century AD), father of carnatic music (who wrote more then 450,000 carnatic songs in Kannada) hailed from Pandarapura in current day Maharashtra!! though he practiced carnatic music and lived in Hampi, Karnataka during the time vijayanagar Empire. Yet we people of the south consider him one of our own. It just so happens that Kannada being the 3rd oldest language of India (after sanskrit and tamil) has played a immense role in shaping Indian history. Much of Maharashtra's history from ~600AD-1200AD is written in Kannada. Even the Yadava's of Devgiri (now called Daulathabad) adopted a version of Marathi which is essentailly a mixture of Aphabhramasa and Kannada loan words. Current day history buffs tend to look at history from a purely subjective point of view and hence get a narrow view of history. It may be difficult for people of Maharashtra to accept that Kannada once extended way north of todays boundaries which implies that anscestors of current day Marathi's spoke Kannada at some point in their history. This ofcourse plays against sub regional politics and false egos.

Please keep an open mind when you study history.

Dinesh Kannambadi

"lord of path leading to south"?

If uttarapatheshwara means lord of the north, why does dakshinapatheshwara mean "lord of the path leading to south". Makes no sense. Once again, who ever made this edit is looking at 7th century India from todays geographic perspective. Let me explain. "lord of the south' probably only meant "south of Harshvardhanas Kannouj empire that extended to Narmada". Please provide historical evidense to prove your point. Dinesh Kannambadi

Reply:

Dinesh,

You are probably correct that till the Yadava Empire the language Kannada was used in parts of present day Maharashtra. To understand history we have to look beyond the boundaries of today. But you are wrong about the origins of the Bhosales (Chhtrapatti Shivaji Maharaj). The origins of Bhosales are not from the 'Hoysal Marathe' clan, but from further up north. The Hoysalas were originally 'Dhangars' or shepherds (like Holkars of Indore). The Dhangars have founded many Kingdoms in the history of India and do not originate from Karnatak.

Suneetk

Vikramaditya and Chola wars

Hello Mr. Senthil Kumar. Please refer to "History of Karnataka" by Mr. Arthikaje (especially the chapters on Kalyani Chalukyas and Hoysalas)(http://www.ourkarnataka.com/history.htm) for more details about this issue. I wouldn not be surprised that all the info you got pertains to efforts made by Tamil historians. Historians are human too and are prone to biases. Its important to compare facts from various sources though. All said and done, at the end of the day, neither can the Chalukyas take away the Chola glory or the other way around. Each kingdom has had its time. I have tried to enumerate my thoughts after prolonged reading.

1. One most important thing I have learnt about history is that While Inscriptions can mislead or can be misinterprited, temples dont mislead. Temples are an enduring example of a reign of a kingdom in a certian region over reasonable period of time, considering it takes decades to built ornate Hindu temples like those built by the Cholas or the Chalukyas or the Hoysalas. you will understand what i mean in the following lines.

2. If you notice the chronology of two greatest Chola rulers, Raja Raja Chola I and Rajendra Chola I (medeval Cholas), you will see that both were no longer alive when Vikramaditya VI was at his peak (1075-1120AD) approx. None of the later Cholas left a mark on world history. To claim that the Cholas controlled the vast empire shown on the map on wiki page "Chola" wouldbe highly inaccurate.

3.Both Cholas and Kalyani Chalukyas fell to the prowess of the Hoysalas of Belur/Halebidu and Kakatiyas of Andhra arounf 1200AD. The Cholas may have remined in power over a very geographically reduced kingdom in the Tamil hinterland. The Kalyani chalukya empire got distributed (around 1195AD) amogst the Hoysalas, Suenas, Kakatiyas and the Kalachuris. Clearly, The Cholas did not get any share of this piece. If they were such a great force till the end (1275AD) as claimed by the wiki page on Cholas, they should have got something out of a fallen empire. This is clear indicaton that the Cholas themselves were a spent force well before the fall of the Kalyani Chalukyas.

3. The Gadag style of architecture that is present in Central Karnataka (Gadag/Dharwad/Haveri/Koppal disricts) were built from the time of Someshwara I from around 1050AD -1200AD). They built some 50 marvellous temples in these districts.I have visited a couple in Gadag and Hubli If the Cholas truly had control over entire Karnataka, how could the Chalukyas have managed to build these temples. (http://www.templenet.com/Karnataka/kalyani_chalukya.html) Discussions are underway now in the Karnataka Govt. to propose these temples (especially at Kuruvatti, Lakkundi and Itagi) as "WORLD HERITAGE SITES"

4.As Historian Dr. S.K. Iyengar said "Vishnuvardhana is hailed by scholars as one of the great rulers of the family, "The real maker of Hoysala Kingdom"". (1108-1152AD). He had titles like Nolambavadigonda ( I think you know what that means).I have presonnaly visited the now already proposed "WORLD HERITAGE SITE" temples at Belur and Halebidu. Both these temples were built by Vishnuvardhana. The Chennakeshava temple was built to comommrate his victroy against the Cholas at Talkad. An inscription remains in the temple premises to prove this. His commander Katamalla built the one at Halebidu. These temples were supposed to have taken 40+ years to complete. So its clear the Cholas could not have been in control of Hassan district at this time. In fact the incredible effort it took to build these temples gives clear indication that the Hoysala country must have enjoyed stability for sustained period of time to build such great temples, just as the Tamil country must have been in tranquility and stability for the Cholas the build the great temples of Tanjore and GangaiKondaCholapuram. All the 150 odd temples built by the Hoysalas are built with a stone called chloritic schist (also called green soap stone)This material is found only in the Mysore Plateau and no where else. It seems obvious to me that to build all these temples stretched across Hassan, Mandya, Chikamagalur, Shimoga districts etc, the Hoysala country must have been firmly in control of the Hoysalas. I have visited ove a dozen of these beautiful temples. In fact you will find Hoysala temples even in Tiruvannamalai in Tamil Nadu, which was under Hoysala rule for some time. Similarly the Vijayanagar kings of Kannada Country built several temples in Tamil Nadu and added Mantapas to already existing Chola and Pallava temples in Madhuri, Tirutanni and Tanjore. This was made possible due to the fact that there must have been a long term stability and peace in that province of the kingdom.

5. Around 1200AD, Ballala II assumed titles such as Cholarajyapratishtacharya for helping the Cholas from the wrath of the Pandyas. This is what i meant earlier when I said even enemies make friends at times. clearly, the Cholas were all but gone by now.

6. Sri Ramanujam, the great Tamil saint took refuge under the Hoysalas (in Melkote in Mandya district)to escape the Cholas. Here is where Vishnuvardhana converted to Hinduism from Jainism (he was originally called Bitti deva). Clearly, Mandya district which borders Tamil Country itself was not under the Cholas at this time.

7. when one reads history written like this , under the page for Kulothunga Chola I "Kulothunga I who was directly responsible for the reduction in size of the Chola Empire in his later years( by 1116 B.C.E. he had peacefully let off SriLanka, Ganga, Southern Chalukya, Chera, the Kalinga and Vengi to their native kings without any war ), was succeeded by VikramaChola who was able to govern a large and unwieldy Empire." one knows that the matter is highly invalid. No king lets go of lands without a fight. At the same time very few kings were foolish enough to fight if the odds were too much against them, when they normally made a truce.

8.When you read the chapters for Kalyani Chalukyas in you will see that the then tiny kingdoms of Kadambas, Hoysalas were constantly lending support to Kalyani Chalukyas in their either effort to fight the Cholas. The more I read the more I am convinced that While the Cholas may have taken control of Vengi and the Andhra reagion from time to time, they also lost control of it soon enough. This has been the story since the time of Pallava-Badami Chalukya conflict. I dont believe either Kannada empires or Tamil empires have had monopoly over Vengi for ever. The very fact that The Telugu writing system developed from Old Kannada script shows that the Kannada empires (Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas) enjoyed considerable control over this region for sustained periods of time. Almost all Telugu inscriptions from AndhraPradesh between 633AD and 1500AD are in Old Kannada script. Infact Old Kannada is often called Kannada-Telugu script.

6. Manyakheta was not their regal capital. Kalyani was. In addition, they had other regional capitals also like Etagiri, Vijayapura, Manneyakere and Vikramapura. I cant prove or disprove whether Manyakheta was truly distroyed by the Cholas or not, but to me its seems failry clear that the battles between the Kalyani Chalukyas and Cholas never go into the Kannada Heartland. Even today, Pallava and Chola temples exist in only Tumkur, Kolar and Chamrajnagar districts, built by these kingdoms during their respective reign.

It seems to me that the Chola Empire started a decline after Rajendra Chola I (1044AD). the map shown in the page for "Chola" is the one at its peak. A war consists of several battles. Inscriptions could have been made after every battle and can be easily misinterpritted as the final outcome of a war. so one has to take this with a pinch of salt and be more deliberate.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Can someone explain, why Belur and Halebedu temples are in ruins? Were these temples completed? Were these destroyed by Muslim invaders or due to other causes? Thanks--Aadal 21:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pulakesi II ....

Dear Llyrwch can you elaborate on Pulakesi's conquest on Pandya and Cheras . He is said to have defeated Mahendravarma Pallava once around Kanchi for suree but never really annexed it, it was only a raid-like and Even after the battle Pallavas by their stone inscriptions and sculpture works, seems to have continued to rule their land. The victory over Pallavas is clearly aided by division and reduction of of Pallava army into 2 , one to fight Pulakesi in the north and the other to fight Cheras and Pandyas in the southern border . Where in the history did Pulakesi II conquered Pandyas and Cheras , kindly give evidences .This sure is intriguing and nobody has ever heard it . Kindly explain the battles, kings, stone inscriptions or grants in temples which says it . Kindly write history based on accepted and true and verifiable history and not on nationalist and ethnic inclinations . Senthilkumaras 16:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

extent of Chalukya empire- map

Let me congratulate whoever made these latest edits. please go ahead and make one more for the Kalyani Chalukya peak time frame of Vikramaditya VI. I would love to see a map like this for the Rashtrakuta empire (which is considered even bigger then Chalukya empire), Vijayanagar empire, Hoysala empire and even smaller kingdoms like Kadambas and Gangas.

Dinesh Kannambadi

I've added a map showing the Chalukya territory during Pulakesin II. I will be creating the bio pages for the various kings of the dynasty. Please review and help if you can. I am not an expert in Chalukya history. My aim is to collect and copyedit what is already available in the pulic domain. I find most of the existing pages on Chalukyas are of poor quality language-wise.

Parthi (Venu62) 22:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

chalukya territories

The map does not accurately depict Chalukya territories as they had conquered lands upto the Narmada which is way up in MadhyaPradesh. The current map only shows Northern Karnataka, Andhra, and Maharashtra in tha map. The Badami Chalukyas also controlled Gujarat. Dinesh Kannambadi

Kilashnath temple at Ellora

Can someone remove this picture. The Chalukyas did not build this temple. It was built by the Rashtrakutas. It should not be too difficult to put a picture from Pattadakal (badami chalukyas) or Lakkundi (Kalyani chalukyas) in its place.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Why don't you do it?

Parthi (Venu62) 21:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kalyani Chalukya Art

Finally, Kalyani chalukya art gets some exposure. During my recent visit to Shimoga district, I had the opportunity to visit this Kalyani Chalukya temple and take pictures. Its a pity that the ornate temples built by these great kings some how gets lost between the Badami Chalukya art of Pattadakal/Badami/Aihole, temples at Hampi built by the Vijayanagar empire and the splended sculptures of the Hoysalas in southern Karnataka. I intend to visit the four fabeled temples of the Kalyani Chalukyas (Mahadeva in Koppal, Mallikarjuna in Davangere, Kasi Vishveshwara at Lakkundi and Kalleshwara in Bellary) and get some great images sometime in the future. I intend to create a seperate page called "Karnataka architecture" eventually. Happy viewing!!!

Dinesh Kannambadi

Congratulations Dinesh. The pictures are amazing. Good luck with your articles. Also, you can automatically insert your name and date stamp your comments (valuable to determine the chronolgoy of the discussions) by simply inserting four tildes (~~~~). - Parthi 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Chalukya kings

Do we need a detailed info on lineage and dates of Kings here in the "Chalukya" page?. The entire info seems repeated in the main page for "Eastern Chalukya" anyway. Maybe just a few short sentences to indicate their origin as it exists may be ok here in the Chalukya page. Also, some of the names of Eastern Chalukya kings clash with those of Badami and Western Chalukya names causing confusion. Maybe for the eastern chalukya names that match other names, we could use a slightly different designation to indicate Eastern Chalukya lineage. Just a thought Dinesh Kannambadi

I agree. We could just leave the summary paragraph on the Eastern Chalukyas and leave out the king list. - Parthi 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

More info on ChalukyasDineshkannambadi 19:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I will be making inputs to the Chalukya page based on one of my more elaborate sources (Dr. Suryanath Kamath, Concise History Of Karnataka, 2001). Whereever such edits conflicts with inputs made from research work by Prof. K.A.N. Sastri, the difference in opinion will be accodingly noted, without changing any info sourced from Prof. Sastri itself. This will probabaly give a wider perspective. However, I suspect there should not be very many differences. I shall be touching upon each king, general administration etc. Other topics in this page are generally up-to-date w.r.t both scholars.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Minor copyedit and TOC reorg

I have made some minor copyedit for language and readability plus some changes to the TOC structure in the later half of the article. I think we can write detailed sub articles on the Chalukya art and administration in a similar vain to Chola Art and Chola Government - Parthi 05:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Chalukya AdministrationDineshkannambadi 13:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Would these be seperate articles? Reply to my own question: I have taken a look at the Chola pages and it looks good. I will create something similar. Feel free to contribute any way you feel fit. Dinesh

Detailed edits to Government of Chalukyas

Hi. My current sources provide good info on this matter, but in order to create seperate "main pages" for each category of governance, society, religion etc its better to obtain books specific to the Kingdom itself (books that I have identified and intend to purchase) where the quantum of info would justify the creation of seperate pages. Untill then its probably better to go with the current basic information I have provided. The same goes for other kingdoms i have worked on. I will try to look around for more info in the mean time.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Peer Review

I think it is time now to start working towards making this article a FAC. Towards this end we must go through this article and do a good copyedit and nominate it for a peer review. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Going by my experience with Chola dynasty, some reviewers may want to change the article title to Chalukya dynasty. We should give it some thought. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 00:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree and support this. Shall we transfer the contents to Chalukya dynasty and provide the redirect from Chalukya, Chalukyas to Chalukya dynasty ?

Please let us know if there is any opposition for this approach. - KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} 17:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Article title is now Chalukya dynasty. - KNM ^Talk 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Chalukya Empire" / "Chalukya Dynasty"

Can anyone please throw light on how is it referred(Empire or Dynasty?) in History books and in all the references provided? - KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} 01:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

provided page numbers from reference books for citations

Parthi/KNM, I have made page numbers for citations available in case its asked for. Some citations are from respectable web pages that have copyrights. So either I can add the link to the citation or leave the link where it is right now at the bottom of the Chalukya page. Changing Chalukya to Chalukya Empire/Dynasty is fine with me. Also, there are some users who have shown a history of animosity towards my edits, calling my sources "fanatic", "unreliable", "biased" etc. we need to deal with such people sternly considering we share some sources (Prof. Sastri), unless they can come up with English language citations to provide additional verifyable contrary info. Dineshkannambadi 17:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

Thanks Dinesh. That will help. - KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} 01:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

There seems to be a conflict on the origin of the name "Chalukya". While one paragraph says,

"Scholars have proposed that the word Chalukya originated from Salki or Chalki which is a Kannada word for an agricultural implement"

the other paragraph says,

"The name Chalukya seems to have been derived from the word 'Chalkya' which was the original form of the dynastic name".

Does that combinedly mean, the word "Chalkya" (which was the original form of "Chalukya") was originated from Salki or Chalki? Either way, we will need to try removing the inconsistency. - KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} 01:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply--> You are right. I posed this enquiry last night to Parthi (Venu) as to where this info in this section came from. He said it came from ourKarnataka.com link at botom of main page.(History of Karnataka). I shall look into this one. Either way it is clear that the two similar sounding names point towards an agricultural background. Chalki--> Agri instrument, Chalkya-->land division. My source (Dr. Kamath quotes a scholar Dr. N.L. Rao having derived the word Chalki from salki.) We shall rectify this minor issue today.Dineshkannambadi 12:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Chinese traveller

My source spells him as Hiuen-Tsiang. But the hyperlink KNM has pointed to says Huen Tsang. I looked at the contents of the link page for the Chinese traveller and looks like the dates of his encounter with King Harsha also matches, though there is no mention of his visit to Badami in that page. We need to make sure we are pointing to the same Chinaman's page. Dineshkannambadi

The person is same. If the sources in this article has referred as "Hiuen-Tsiang" then let us use the same name to be consistent.

As mentioned in that article itself, the name was written and used in several different spellings like below:

Hhuen Kwan, Hiouen Thsang, Hiuen Tsiang, Hsien-tsang, Hsuan Chwang, Hsuan Tsiang, Hwen Thsang, Xuan Cang, Xuan Zang, Shuen Shang, Yuan Chang, Yuan Chwang, and Yuen Chwang. In Japanese, he is known as Genjō or Sanzō.

I am providing redirect from Hiuen-Tsiang to Huen Tsang. This should resolve the hyperlink issue. - KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} 01:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Chalukyas or Chalukya Dynasty

I dont see any set name for them. Depending on the context, they are either called Chalukyas, Chalukya Dynasty, Chalukya Empire, Chalukyas of Badami and Chalukyas of Kalyani.

I think Chalukya Dynasty may be a general way of covering all three dynasties. When one says Chalukya Empire, it normally means Chalukyas of Badami and Chalukyas of Kalyani, for their size and achievements.

Then there are the Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi. It was never clear if they were independent, allies, feudatories. They seem to be all of it over the 500 years they ruled, merging with the rulers of Western Deccan and deep South based on political developments. Should they be a seperate topic? Probably not. Which is the reason we have provided a main article for them.

The page currently highlights the Chalukyas of Badami and Kalyani, the two main empires with a link for Eastern Chalukyas who were partially covered in the Chola page also (with good reason).

We make it Chalukya Empire if we focus on Badami and Kalyani We make it Chalukya Dynasty if we want to discuss a bit about Eastern Chalukyas as well(which we have). We dont want questions raised about absence of Eastern Chalukyas on FAC day. So Chalukya Dynasty seems apt.Dineshkannambadi 12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I guess, Parthi too has suggested the same above, and I supported it and requested other editors, if they have any opposition for having this article under the name "Chalukya Dynasty". There is no opposition so far, and we should be moving the contents now to Chalukya dynasty (page already exists) and provide redirect from Chalukya and Chalukyas to Chalukya dynasty. Okay with everyone? - KNM ^Talk 06:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Article title is now Chalukya dynasty. Have provided redirect from earlier title, Chalukya. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks KNM. I think we are now ready to go into peer review. Would you like to do the nomination? I think as Dinesh has worked on the article most, it is appropriate for him to nominate.

Happy Diwali BTW:) - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 00:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Parthi.

I agree too! It would be lot more meaningful, if Dinesh nominates this article. Dinesh, please go ahead. Good luck. - KNM ^Talk 00:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

I am unable to verify this info for most part. I have put in italics what I CAN verify and in BOLD what I CANT.

Etymology: The name Chalukya seems to have been derived from the word 'Chalkya' which was the original form of the dynastic name. Like the Chutus and Kadambas, the Chalukyas were an indigenous tribe. They rose to importance in the later Satavahana period and asserted their independence after the downfall of the central empire. The Hyderabad plates of Pulakesi II calls them Harithiputhras of Manavysya gotra hence directly connecting them to Kadambas and Satavahana. (this is already stated elsewhere with a citation)

In the Maruturu inscription of Pulakesi II, a village that was granted by him is presumed to be situated in the Chalukya Vishaya. It is therefore clear that the original word of Chalukya was applied to a territorial division or a Vishaya of a kingdom. The territorial division came to be known as Chalukya after the Chalukyan clan.

The provenance of the Maruturu grant and also the other factors mentioned in it clearly prove that this Chalukya Vishaya must have comprised portions of the ceded districts of Andhra Pradesh including perhaps parts of the Mahboobnagar district of Telangana, proving that the Chalukyas were the original residents of this area.

According to the earliest Chalukyan legend preserved in a Kannada inscription dated 578 C.E. at Badami, the Chalukyas were worshippers of the feet of the god Kartikeya and belonged to Manavyasa Gotra and had themselves purified by the performance of several vedic rites. They were Kshatriyas. They were nourished by the Sapta matrikas (the seven divine mothers), acquired great merit and prosperity and obtained the Varaha Lanchana (the emblem of the boar) from Vishnu. (the italics here info appears in Dr. Kamath book)Dineshkannambadi 13:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Who uses this reference book?

-->Durga Prasad, History of the Andhras upto 1565 A. D., P. G. Publishers, Guntur (1988) Parthi, did you reference this book? I dont see any citations form this book. Maybe it should only be in the page for "Eastern Chalukyas".

Dineshkannambadi

You are correct. It was mainly for Eastern Chalukyas - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

I suggest that any material that cannot be cited be removed. Opinions?Dineshkannambadi 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not a general practice. Atleast, not until an editor contests/questions the material either here in the talk page or by using {{fact}} tag in the article. - KNM ^Talk 00:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

The article looks really good. I will go through it is more detail over the weekend. You can however start the peer review process. We can do the copyedit parallally. I would also recommend the following to guide us in the copyedit process:

• WP:LEAD for guidelines for the Lead para
• An article from a well known FAC reviewer on writing successful FACs and good English in general.
• Wikipedia:Featured article advice
• User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them

Good luck! Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 01:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

uncited material

KNM, I had removed it before you told me not to. Its one thing if the stuff were put in by one of us, without citation. Its different when we dont even know who put it there. What if it came through in peer review and got cought in controversy on the day of FAC?Dineshkannambadi 02:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

I have completed the process for requestDineshkannambadi 16:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have left a relevant comment about this article in the featured article review of Indian Standard Time at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Standard Time. Please take a look. Dekimasu 01:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

As we saw several improvements/modifications/changes over the infobox area, I felt its time to create a template for its own so that all the future changes/updates go there instead of modifying the main article all the time. I have just created the infobox template, {{Chalukya infobox}}. This is inline with Chola dynasty featured-article which had used an infobox template ({{Chola infobox}} specific to Chola dynasty. Please take a look at the new infobox template here, and discuss the changes / further improvements in that talk page. Thank you! - KNM ^Talk 05:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment KNM, The new template above mentions Vengi and Basavakalyan as other capitals. But this is not accurate. Vengi may have been a provincial capital upto Pulakeshi II (called Vengi Mandala by Dr. Kamath), but then there were many such provincial capitals. After his death it became regal capital of Eastern Chalukya kingdom and later moved to Rajamundry I believe. Even the becoming of independent kingdom was not abrupt as Vikramaditya II had the area under his control. Its was gradual. One sees the Eastern Chalukyas really asserting themselves during the rule of Rashtrakutas and Amoghavarsha I had to make him an allie. Basavakalyan came into picture only during time of Somesvara I around 1050 CE during Wastern Chalukya rule while Manyakheta was their original capital (after take over from Rashtrakutas in ~973CE). There is a seperate template for those kingdoms in their respective pages. However, we can change the existing info box Header and call it "Chalukya empire" instead of Badami Chalukya empire, mention all three kingdoms, their capitals and official languages which would probably make it too verbose. This is why I created a seperate box for each sibling dynasty in their respective page. The map that Parti drew up showing extent of Badami Chalukya rule is a clubbed version of all of these above events and as such mentions the extent around 640.Dineshkannambadi

Hi Dinesh, the infobox template has been modified now. The "Other Capitals" information has been removed. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 15:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there will be confusion with the FAC review if the title of the article and the info box differ too much. The infobox title should be 'Chalukya dynasty'. The fact that there are sibling articles on the Western Chalukyas and the Eastern Chalukyas shouldn't really matter. This is after all a summary article on the entire Chalukya history. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. - KNM ^Talk 04:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Mahakuta Pillar

I have created a page for Mahakuta Pillar with what inforamtion I could muster.Dineshkannambadi 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

To link, or not to link? (years)

Regarding this message that Dineshkannambadi left on my talk page:

Sir, I see you have been making lots of edits regarding "dates". Just a week back another user removed all the wikilinks I had for dates like 543 CE. He insisted that unless dates have significant meaning it should not be linked. You have put them back. I am not sure where this is headed and I certianly dont want this to become an edit war on "dates" as the article has just come through successfully on FAC review. Please see the WP rules for dates and make sure this matter is put to rest. I like the 9th century kind of links though.Dineshkannambadi 22:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't go deeply into the tedious background of the matter, but the upshot is this:

• It is okay to have years wiki-linked.
• It is also okay not to have them wiki-linked

But it was not okay for the fellow who "insisted" (or for anyone) to take an article he had not otherwise been editing and strip it of all the wiki-links to years. He's been warned against doing so many times, and gotten in a certain amount of trouble about it. He also was mis-informing you when he "...insisted that ... [these] dates ...should not be linked." That is just his personal opinion. It does not represent a consensus among Wikipedia editors, much less a Wikipedia guideline.

As you seemingly have guessed, there has been some controversy on this point, within Wikipedia: In short, some editors think that years should not be linked, and some think that they should. So far, no consensus has been reached about it. So the situation is alike to that of a number of other stylistic points, such as BC/AD versus BCE/CE, or British spelling versus American spelling. As with these other cases, folk are not supposed to go around changing articles from one way to the other.

So I basically undid the illicit link-stripping of that other guy.

It is really up to you and the other editors who have been working on this article to decide whether to have these links or not. Don't feel obliged, one way or the other, and don't let anyone tell you how it must be. Don't feel obliged to fuss over it, either, as the article is just fine as it is now, with regard to date-linking. -- Lonewolf BC 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Post-script: I guess I should have mentioned that where the same date appears more than once, close together, it is not considered necessary or desireable to wiki-link it more than once. This is the same as for wiki-links in general: Link a given item on its first occurrence within an article, and perhaps link it again lower down, if the article is on the long side, but do not link the same thing repeatedly within the same paragraph. No more than one copy of the same link should be in the reader's view at a time (at least in the main text of an article; myself, I make an exception for dates in the captions of images, etc.).

Anyhow, I reverted the wiki-linking of three dates you did just a short while ago, because they were repeat-links of the same year in the same paragraph. I hope you don't mind. If you really want to have them linked, for some reason, then it's no big deal if you change them back. I really recommend that you leave them not linked, though.

Best regards, Lonewolf BC 10:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Seleukia"

This is with regard to the following passage in the article,

"An alternate argument is that the Chalukya were descendants of the "Seleukia" tribe of Iraq and that their conflict with the Pallava of Kanchi was, but a continuation of the conflict between ancient Seleukia and "Parthians", the proposed ancestors of Pallavas. However, this theory has been rejected as it seeks build lineages based simply on similar sounding clan names."

This seems a little unclear. Plainly, "Seleukia" refers in some way to the Hellenistic Seleucid Dynasty, or to the empire they ruled (consisting, at first, of most of the Asian provinces conquered by Alexander), or perhaps more specifically to the city of Seleucia, in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). It is not clear, though, exactly what connection the hypothesis would make. Does it suggest that the Chalukya were actual Seleucids (descendants of Seleucus)? Does it suggest that they were merely from the Seleucid Empire, perhaps some other noble Macedonian family, but not actual Seleucids? Does it suggest that they were from the city of Seleucia, in particular? What, exactly?

There are also some other problems with the passage, which contribute to its lack of clarity: "Seleukia" was not a tribe, but a city. The Seleucids were a dynasty -- a ruling family -- but I have never seen them called a "tribe", either, and it seems unfitting to do so, whereas a tribe is generally a greater social unit than an extended family, albeit that both are based on descent (whether real or supposed) from a common ancestor. I suppose that "Seleukia" could serve as a name for the Seleucid Empire, but I have never before seen it used in that sense. Although the city of Seleucia was in what is now Iraq, the Seleucid Empire covered much more territory than that, and "Iraq" is an anachronism, the area being "Mesopotamia" at the time.

So I think that passage needs re-writing. I hesistate to edit the article itself, because I do not know this material on Indian history, but here is a try, for the consideration of other editors:

"An alternate hypothesis is that the Chalukya were descendants of the Hellenistic Seleucids, with "Chalukya" deriving from "Seleukia". This idea further proposes that the Pallava of Kanchi descended from the Parthians, and that the conflict between the Chalukya and the Pallava was a continuation of that between the Seleucids and the Parthians. However, all of this has been rejected by historians, as it is based nothing more than similar sounding names."

Actually, this whole hypothesis seems fairly cranky to me, and I accordingly suggest that it be relegated to a footnote.

Cheers. -- Lonewolf BC 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply The source I have says nothing more about the topic. If "Seleukia" tribe of Iraq seems vague, it probably means descendents of the people of the city called Seleukia. I hate to extrapolate.Dineshkannambadi 03:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvements

Please have a look at this. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply--> I have played down the adjectives in the lines under question.Dineshkannambadi 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fanatic

Who is this fanatic fellow ,trying to project Chalukyas as native of today's states whether Karnataka or Maharashtra.I think these states were formed in 20th century .Why to hijack the past.Better to say that both states share some common history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.184.180.191 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Nobody is being a fanatic. Only cited and verifyable information is being put forward. If you have any valid information that contradicts it, in English, bring it forward. Dont call people Fanatic just because the content does not suit your taste or ego. Also, please have the decency to log in so we can discuss.Dineshkannambadi 16:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong information

I do not understand that who is putting wrong facts about Chalukyas.No doubt they supported Kannada.But that does not mean that they are a 'patent' of present Karnataka state.Is it not that Huein-Tsang mentions him a king of Maharashtra?Does not Aihole speaks Pulkeshi as king of 3 Maharashtras compromising 99,000 villages? Does not it form one of 96 royal clans of marathas? Better to say that present state of Maharashtra and Karnataka share some common history than hijacking and projecting a complete lopsided view.Anyhow I leave to conscious of someone who is building this new hypothesis.Dbkasar 11:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply There are no wrong facts. All information is sourced from well known historians and citations provided accordingly along with author, publication, book name, publisher,page number. These are not the opinions of the writers of this article, but the opinions of the scholars. Huein-Tsang mentions Pulakesi as ruler of 3 Maharashtrakas simply meaning 3 great provinces, nothing more. The descendents of Chalukyas are spread over the whole of the Deccan and outside also and that is immaterial to the topic under discussion. In Karnataka their descendents are called Kurubas, Gowdas, Gavundas, Heggaddes etc. In other places they have other names. Nobody is trying to patent anybody. Caste has no connection to the Kingdom under discussion. Views dont become lopsided just because it does not agree with your opinion. All information is cited from valuable sources. We have been thru this discussion with you on many occassions but you dont seem to understand. The issue is not the common history during this time between Karnataka, Maharashtra, Andhra and MadhyaPradesh (all the which the Chalukyas ruled at their peak). If you have a problem with historians calling the Chalukyas as "Kannadigas" or "natives of Karnataka", I suggest you take it up with the historians, not with me. The Chalukyas (both Badami and Western) encouraged Kannada language, built most of their monuments in Karnataka, their courts were adroned with great Kannada poets. Whom they shared their history with or what caste they came from is of no consequence to historians.

Last but not the least, I hope you were not the person who called me "fanatic" in an earlier message on this talk page. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

.

Descendents of chalukyas

ATTEN-Dinesh and others

I have added the following para based on sources .If someone know more of chalukyas's descendents, may please add. dbkasar Descendents of Chalukyas As on date , Chalukyas by the same name forms on major clan of 96 royal clan of Marathas.His holiness Shri Gagangiri Maharaj, a well known Yogi , having a considerable following is a direct descendent of chalykya branch starting from Pulkeshi II.There may be other branches of chalukyas like Solanki or any other over Decan plateau.

I have restored the previous version, which had all the information correctly cited. The above information is not cited, so it has been removed. If you have any reliable and verifiable sources for the above information, please state them. -- Naveen ^(talk) 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear DbKasar, Please ensure that all info is correctly cited from verifyable sources. If it is a marathi language web site, apart from being accessable, it requires translation into English and should have a reputed author (not yourself) and a publisher, date of last update and other verifyable info, meaning it should not be from a blog site. It cannot be a pet theroy of yours as it becomes "original research" which is not acceptable to wikipedia. It cannot be something somenoe told you either. If it is an English book it should have author, publisher, page number, year of publication etc. If it is a Marathi book you are sourcing from, it should have the same proof that is required of an English language book and a translation. For more details please talk with administrator User:Utcursch who himself is a native Marathi speaker and he will advice you appropriately. I hope this problem ends here. Thank you.Dineshkannambadi 01:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!! Atleast there is someone who is taking note of blatant lies put forth by few editors. Dear Kasar I have got a book of Mr. C.V Vaidya which will bring out the truth. Please contact me at vishuba2007@rediffmail.com I am now concentrating on Rashtrakutas and Yadavas of Deogiri. Vishu123 04:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation translations for my edits

If anyobne has doubt on my translations then they should contact any Marathi native which they trust. Dont revert! I have not gone deep to the book,I will be adding more details int his article and other articles soon.

Book name- Medival India translation in Marathi (Madhyayugin Bharat) Writer/Publisher -Noted historian Chintaman Vinayak Vaidya (F.E 1923)

महाराष्ट्रातील मध्यतुगीन राजवंश मराठे क्षत्रिय होते. Maharashtra's medieval empires (rashtrakutas chalukyas yadavas) were Maratha Kshatryias.

डॉ भांडार्कर यांनी सुध्दा चालुक्य, राष्ट्रकूट इत्यादि राजवंश मराठे क्षत्रिय आहेत हे मान्य केले आहे. Dr.bhandarkar too agrees that rashtrakutas chalukyas yadavas) are Marathi empires.

ते महाराष्ट्राचेचे लोक समजले पाहिजेत हे उघड आहे. They should be considered Maharashtrian people,as obvious.

त्यांचे फौजी व मुलकी अधिकारी महाराष्ट्राबाहेरुन येत होते असे मानण्यास बिल्कुल आधार नाही.त्यांचे कायमचे वास्तव्य महाराष्ट्रात असून त्यांची ड्रुष्टी महाराष्ट्राबाहेर गेली नाही. त्यांचे शरीरस संबंध बहुतेक महाराष्ट्रातच होते. There is no proof to assume that their military and personnals were from outside Maharashtra. they were the permanant residents of Maharashtra and they never looked outside Maharashtra. (Their) most marraige relations were in maharashtra . ख्रिस्त-पूर्वकाळी प्रथम आर्य उत्तरेकडून महाराष्ट्रात आले आणि येथे मराठे बनले त्यांपैकी हे चालुक्यादि राजवंश आहेत. They came in MH before Christ (ancient times) and then came to know as Marathas and Chalukyas aee one of them.

या चालुक्यांचे पल्लव राष्ट्रकूट, कदंब, सेंद्रक इत्यादि निर्भेळ मराठे कुळ यांच्याशी संबंध झाले आहे यांत शंका रहात नाही. These Chalukyas have had relations with pallavas, rashtrakutas, Kadamb, sendrak which are pure Marathas.

ही गोष्ट नाशिकच्या लेण्यातील  सातवाहनांच्या लेखात 'अह्तिय दपमान दमन्स्य' ह्या शब्दात अपष्त नमूद आहे. हा पुरावा इ.स.१००च्या सुमाराचा आहे.

त्यानंतर शबर भाष्यात (इ.स.४०० सु), त्यानंतरचा पुरावा फ़्युएनत्सांगचा (इ.स.६४०) याने ,त्यापुढील सर्वात श्रेष्ठ पुरावा कुमारिलभट्टाचा (इस७०० सु)/ Maharashtras have had Kshatriyas which is proved by carving in Nashik( satvahaans अह्तिय दपमान दमन्स्य) This proof is from 100 A.D Shabar Bhasya (400 A.D) Hyun tsang (ad 640) Kumarilbhatta (ad.700 approx)

आमच्या मते ते महाराष्ट्रात आलेल्या प्रथम आर्य लोकांपैकीच आहेत, according to us, chalukyas are one of the first arrived aryans of maharashtra

Stop reverting cited info at once. even I can follow the suite. Discuss here before editing. If u doubt my translations u r welcome to take help of Mr.Utkarsh or any other Marathi speaker. I will be adding more information as I continue reading the book. I am adding the Marathi script as kannada script exists in yadavas article because of supposed kannada origins Vishu123 17:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

DESCENDENTS OF CHALUKYAS

Atten-Dinesh and others I have added the above mentioned para with references .I think it is sufficient .If any doubt is there,please discuss here. Please note that we should be open minded .And moreover history is not static.New facts do come up as a result of new research .It is not necessary that the name of a historian may be great , but may not necessarily know each and every fact of chalukyas or anyone else.So let us not bank on limited information.dbkasarDbkasar 10:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted for these reasons. One citation is a self translation of a Marathi book. Use English language books and publications as far as possible because this is an English wikipedia. A Marathi book is only open to you and so also its translation. Please talk to admin user:utcursch, a native marathi speaker before making any more edits. Once again I would like to remind you that the descendents of the Chalukyas are perhaps spread all over India, not just Maharashtra. You seem to have difficulty understanding that the article in question has to do with the Empire, not who their present day descendents are and where they are. We have been going thru this for almost a year. Also the web site you provided is a blog site of a guruji, points to a Pulakesi of 12th century (1100AD). There are no shortage of Pulakesi's in India's history as it was a commonly used title. Here in this article we are discussing about Pulakesi's of 6th and 7th century. Dont mix Pulakesi's. Also the guy user:Vishu123 who was encouraging you "stand up" has been indef-blocked for disruption activities and sock puppetry. Just to let you know. I have left a message about your case with admin:utcursch and see what he has to say about this Marathi book and also the web page which has no author and could be created by anyone. In the past you have been requested not to use original research like the page you created "96 maratha royal clans and Nordic clans".thanks.Dineshkannambadi 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a message that user:utcursch left for user:vishu123 regarding using Marathi books.

“ Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. ”

Please try to maintain English wikipedia quality and refrain from using native language books.Wikipedia gives users some felxibility but that does not mean you can abuse it. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

For most non-English speaking country related subjects, the best sources are non-English, and I see no problem in using them. Most articles on, say, russian history would not be written adequately without using Cyrillic sources, and the same is true for many Japanese and Chinese subjects. But they do need to be appropriate for the general reader, and therefore I do appreciate having them translated. Anything used in-line in the article should be translated as well as given in the original. I think the same should be true for the authors and titles of books, so the English speaker can see at least the approximate nature of the sources. If there are translations available they should be used in addition or instead. I think all of us have an interest in other cultures than our own, and want to be able to read about them, but also want to read articles to be based on the best sources available. At least this is how I interpret the guidelines.DGG 17:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This dynasty has ruled both modern states of Maha and k'taka. Some editors are using 'English' books but having 'regionalistic' view,so in order to put in the views of Marathi historians,its obvious to use them. i have provided translations whenever i have quoted them.I have also got the English translation of a original Marathi book as well. I am reading it at the moment and shall add it as well after i finish. Sarvabhaum 05:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have copied and pasted your web page link that claims the descendency.Dineshkannambadi 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Maharaja takes keen interest in the History of these periods. His knowledge & insight of the working of these periods is awesome. When he speaks about them, it is as if he was in that era. Shri Gagangiri's Links with history Span three periods from the era ":

1. Samrat Chalukya Pulkeshi in the 1100's

2. Sardar Nagojirao Patankar

3. Pant Amatya Bavdekar, Samarth Ramdas & Shivaji Maharaj.

• My comments

This is clearly not historical research and even the date is different from that in this chalukya dynasty article. Pulakesi lived in the 6th-7th century. Also this is possibly the Guruji's opinion. Where is the historical proof from a historian of repute about this? All historians should be of some repute or the quality of wikipedia comes down.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbkasar plz go ahead and counter with psychopath. Dont let his rhetoric affect. This people operate in a gang and with elitist attitude think that they are 'great historians'. Mr.Kannambadi is a notorious editor with some odd books of suryanath kamath a unknown indigenous kananda fanatic writer he's disrupting all history articles and adding his nonsense everywhere. Even few Marathi editors had compalained about it with some telugu editor at Viajayanagara empire.But the real shameless chap he is,despite others taunts about kannada and kannadigas he is carrying out his nonsense. Quality of wikipedia has come down because of such idiots who use other idiot books.

Mr.Kannambadi i warn u to stop taunting Marathi language and books. Ur kannada language is dead and obsolete which is not our concern. Hence take a chill pill and get some good books not like kamath which only idiots like u read. As a telugu editor commemnted its natural for u guys to feel inferior since u lack great history and hence this tactics. Plus this is not kannadapedia, add that dirt to kannada wikipedia. If u insult Marathi language anymore I promise I will answer more explicitly. Beware! 59.95.3.193 05:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Descendents of chalukyas

Atten-Dinesh and others. When we are talking of origin of chalukyas , why not to talk of their end ie.descendents ? As far as Guruji is concerned ,please note that he is not a kind of fraud .He is quite famous .His ashramas are at Khopoli, near Mumbai and Gagangiri in Kolhapur.His family known by the name Patankar is a royal one .How one can say that they are not connected with Chalukyas.If Shivajirao Chalukya, an MLA from Latur or His holiness Shri Gagangiri are not descendents from Chalukyas ,then who are they ? Is it that all chalukyas have died or what? When we talk of a dynasty , we must see its end to understand its origin.How Darwin has arrived his conclusions in the 'origin of species' or how william jones and others arrive at the conclusion that Sanskrit and Latin belong to one group.---To be frank our many historians are bookworm and had hardly traveled amomg those people about whom they are writing.-- I doubt their credibility as you say that of GURU.---Ultimately please note that whether marathas are connected with chalukyas or not , or vice versa does not make differnece to their status as imperial power.Both were great powers and had ruled over vast tracts of this country.---But then as a sincere student of history we must try to establish linkgaes beween these various powers or atleast their legacy.One should not impose modern identities on old one.We can discuss it again.--Dbkasar 06:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If you can cite some reputable sources and references in English to support your claim for these descendents of Chalukyas, then please provide them. Mere conjecture is not enough. We only report what information is already available out there. We don't make conclusions. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This message is for the banned anon user (vishu123) to stop using filthy language. This issue is best sorted out by the admin(s) and hence I have left a message with user:utcursch. We can bring in other admins as well to decide if the citations provided by Dbkasar is valid or not. In English language wikipedia, it is our responsibility to use English language sources that can be to some reasonable extent accepted as historical information, not original research. Nobody is demeaning Marathi or any other language. My reaction would be the same for citations from other language books too.Please help uphold the quality of citations on English wikipedia.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Chalukyas's descendents

Atten--Dinesh As I have mentioned above I am not bent upon connecting marathas and chalukyas by quoting unreliable data or putting forth any new research .But why to avoid the information which is availble since the ages?For example chalukyas form one of 96 royal clans of Marathas as attested by all records including Tanjavar inscription and older records.Even Govt of India has notified the list in 1956.See if you all are bent upon to show by any means that Chalukyas are not connected with marathas .Then I leave it here to consciuos.There is no scholarship in presenting one side view of history.The problems with historians like Thapar is that they are not well conversant minute customs of Indian society unlike British historians.For example you just compare her writing about marathas with Grant Duff or Kinkcaid ,you will understand her limitations and lack of in depth schoalrship.So to rely solely on such historians is not a good thing atleast here.Encyclopedia gives a neutral view.Why we should be exception.We can discuss.Because discussion gives more insight and information which is not known to us or not availble in the books read by us.okDbkasar 08:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to include inputs from Grant Duff or Kinkcaid or anyother British author if you can bring citations from their books. Native language books that go into fundamental depth are also open to political manipulation by local governments. If the Indian government has certified that one of the Maratha clans are descendents of the Chalukyas, please provide a gazetted citation in English for it. Also its important not to get into "minute customs" as this is not the purpose of wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia which sees the "big picture". Please dont listen to this anon user (Vishu123) who is trying to create a controversy between users soley for his own political gain. He has been warring on Karnataka articles spanning many topics and none of the admins are willing to support him now. By the way, the other user talk/contribs who requested you to use English sources is not from Karnataka, nor is he a Kannadiga. He is an experienced editor with 4 FA to his credit. Let us learn to respect the experience of others and maintain high quality.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I will come back .Meanwhile there is an ajanta cave painting in which it is shown that Pulkeshi is receiving Iranian merchants or dignitaries.That painting can be included .ok dbkasarDbkasar 17:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the image of the painting.It would make a good picture. In fact info on the Ajanta cave painting is already included in the article under Architecture. If the Indian government has certified that one of the Maratha clans are descendents of the Chalukyas, please provide a gazzetted citation in English for it. Also its important not to get into "minute customs" as this is not the purpose of wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia which sees the "big picture"thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just one more request, please do not provide citations from "snippets", meaning google search pieces of info that do not provide any context to the citation. Please find the book you want to cite from and read it so you get the full context of it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Plz dont listen to this dumb kannada vandaliser. Google books can be used but he's so shameless to not acknowledge what is written in wiki policies.

Native language books that go into fundamental depth are also open to political manipulation by local governments

Suprisingly mr.kannambadi used books of kannada historians who's existance is not known outside their state. plz go forward and use the citations. 59.95.30.162 06:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

All my books are in English. What language the historian speaks at home is not important.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Atten-Dinesh.The image will be provided shortly.Meanwhile I have added two lines in origin of Chalukyas.It is based on the wall inscription of the famous Briheedshwar temple of Tanjore.Its translation is availbale in Tamil and English in Saraswathi Mahal library, Tanjore.ok.dbkasarDbkasar 16:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your citation

"ref name="Shalke">Tanjore inscription on the walls of famous Brihadeshwar temple completed on 13th Dec 1803,its translation in English is made by Shri V.Srinivasachari and Tamil version is made by Shri S.Gopalan, in a book titled Bhosale vansha charita, reprinted by Director of Sarasvati Mahal Library,Tanjavar(1990)"

The Brihadeshwar temple is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and was built in 11th century. Not 1803 AD. What is the English language book called. Who is the publisher, which year, what is the ISBN/OCLC/ID number, what is the page number? You citation is incomplete.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing cited info at once.Thanks. Sarvabhaum 06:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

please note that the temple was built by Cholas.But after them nayak and maratha(shivaji's step brother Vankyoji bhosale) ruled over Tanjore.They also further expanded the temple complex.The said book was published Saraswathi Mahal library,Tanjore.Its title is'Bhosale vansha charitra'.Its 3rd edition printed in 1990 and published on 23.8.90.Total number of pages 292.On page number 16 it is there.dbkasarDbkasar 09:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Dbkasar can u plz see this page as suggested by Mr.Venu. Also plz tell me if u have Thanjavur, especially thanjavur Marathi dialect related books with u? I could not get it in Pune.Sarvabhaum 09:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have visited the site.The said book mentioned by me is availble with me.It was purchased from Tanjvar.I am Mumbai based.If someone want it, I can send its xerox or can e-mail its scanned pages.You may find it or atleast about its inscription in'Bharat Itihas sanshodhak mandal'pune.

But in the interest of knoweldge, do not delete maratha-chalukya connection.Shall we visit 'Tanjore' to verify its data?.dbkasarDbkasar 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss with user:Nichalp if you want to send scanned pages from your book. He is the one who will finally approve or disapprove the citation.He will tell you waht you need to scan over also.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 14:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK.I am quite busy nowdays.Meanwhile can someone put the famous painting of Ajanta, in which pulkeshi is shown with a persian embassy.(atten-dinesh)dbkasar59.184.189.160 11:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Chalukyas

Ancestry:

Chalukyas were migrants from North West India along with Pahlava-Kambhojas. They served as vassals of Andhra Satavahanas in Palnadu region (Pallavas) and Renadu region (Chalukyas). After the decline of Satavahanas, both the groups became independent. Pallavas expanded southward and pushed Chalukyas westwards.

New home of Chalukyas:

The word 'Chalukya' seems to have been derived from the word 'Chalkya' which was the original form of the dynastic name. Chalukyas rose to importance in the later Satavahana period and asserted their independence after the downfall of the central empire. In the Maruturu inscription of Pulakesin II, a village that was granted by him is said to be situated in the Chalukya Vishaya. It is therefore clear that the original word of 'Chalukya' was applied to a territorial division or a Vishaya of a kingdom. Like the Pugiyas, the Hiranyakas and the Dhanakas of the Ikshvaku period, the territorial division came to be known as Chalukya after the Chalukyan clan. The provenance of the Maruturu grant and also the other factors mentioned in it clearly prove that this Chalukya Vishaya must have comprised portions of the ceded districts of Andhra Pradesh (Rayalaseema) including parts of the Mahboobnagar district of Telangana. Hence, the Chalukyas were the original residents of Telugu country (Durga Prasad, The History of Andhras, Page 86).

Kumarrao 06:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Natives of Karnataka Irrespective of where they lived from 10,000 BCE to 450AD, they lived in Karnataka there after making them natives of Karnataka. Thats the begining and end of it. The article is about Badami Chalukyas, not Cudappah Chalukyas of 2nd century.Dineshkannambadi 13:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Right input

The input I made with two proper citations merges into the body of the article. I also mentioned that the matter needs further research? Why this is being deleted? Is Wiki personal property?Kumarrao 08:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Its being removed per WP:UNDUE. Dineshkannambadi 12:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

---Please do not revert my edits without explaining how the websites www.kamat.com and www.ourkarnataka.com qualify WP:RS. You cannot simply brush it away as my persnal opinion. Whats is the difference between the reliability of the website (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1a.html) and the websites I am questioning? I have not disturbed any of the citations you provided on the basis of published books irrespective of their authenticity or reliability.

You also committed an unethical act of deleting my input in the talk page. You got to explain this act too. I paste my input back here.

"Harping upon uncertain theories and hypotheses is not history. An explanation is needed to clarify how personal websites such as 'kamat.com' and 'ourkarnataka.com' can become WP:RS. Statements from authentic historians and sources, although few, must be respected. Sometimes, a single inscription from the historic past can become a cornerstone of history. How can you brush away an inscription of Ikshvakus about Remmanaka? How can you ignore Maruturu inscription? Do inscriptions provide false accounts of history? If one chooses to question the inscriptions, it must be done with supporting facts but not guesses made by 20th century local 'historians'. Names sounding -am are either Tamil or Telugu. I am sure the author Knows 'Arasa' is a Tamil word for King and that Tamil is much older than Kannada"

Kumarrao 06:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The website you cite, [1], is run by a member of the Engineering faculty at Newfoundland U. Dinesh is citing Jyotsna Kamat, who has a PhD in history and is associated with historical research at Karnataka University. There is a difference in reliability. Hornplease 07:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with user:Hornplease. Some users dont see the difference between a historian and an Engineering student. Is it so hard to understand WP:UNDUE.Dineshkannambadi 14:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a pity that one does not know the difference between 'Faculty' and 'student'. If Adluri is a faculty member he must have been a PhD. I wonder how Kamat's status world be more exalted than that of Adluri. If software engineers can contribute countless articles on history citing two books and two websites ad nauseum, how one can denigrate Adluri? User:Hornplease got to look into this. Kumarrao 18:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First point - there are two Kamat(h)s here. One is Dr. Jyotsna Kamat and the other is Dr.Suryanath Kamath. They are not related. Both have PhDs and both have PhDs in HISTORY - not civil engineering. Their field of study is history, specifically Indian history and not "structures" or "strength of materials" or "finite element analysis". Sarvagnya 21:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Adluri, Adluri, Adluri, keep chanting... Why do you want to contest the point, again and again and again? Get one WP:RS citation that says the same thing as Adluri and till then stop vandalising pages with Adluri nonsense, Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Amar, it is not enough if he gets one book that authenticates that web site. It still wont meet WP:UNDUE. He has to get atleast a couple of reliable sources for that info to go on the article and even then it will only be added as additional information only to the existing possible early origin theories. Early meaning, prior to 5th century. The fact that they were natives of KA in 5th century onwards in undisputable as even Pulakesi I's grandfather Jayasimha followed by Ranaranga ruled from Badami-Aihole. Kumarao is just wasting his time cribbing and complaining for nothing.Dineshkannambadi 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And just to humor Kumarrao, Both Kamaths are winners of many awards for their contributions to History. Suryanath Kamath [2], [3] (1973) winner of Sahitya academy award and Mrs Jyotsna Kamat, winner of Karnataka Literary Academy Award 1988. For a list of all her awards, please read [4]. Ofcourse Kumarrao does care for all that, he is just following in the footsteps of his guru user:Sarvabhaum who brain washed him to be anti-Kamath. What Kumarao does not seem to understand is that I have cited over a dozen scholars, not just the Kamaths. Lets leave this topic alone and better not encourage a troll.Dineshkannambadi 21:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This kind of unfair and combined assault does not behoove well of anyone of you. If Kamat(s) can be reliable for you and Wiki, so is Adluri. Instead of replying to the point raised by me you provide long-winding & confusing arguments. User:Hornplease said that Adluri is a Professor of Engineering (Faculty) but not a student, as all of you have been harping upon. If an engineering professor is not entitled to compile (Adluri frankly admitted he only compiled his account) history how some of you who happen to be software engineers are fit enough to do the same on WP? Any reader of your Wiki articles can easily point out that more than 95% of your citations belong to two books and two websites. I do not deny that you sprinkle some stray references here and there. What bothers me is your pathological allergy to viewpoints that vary from your hypotheses. Kumarrao 14:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the self-reverted edit of DK. Please keep in mind that Adluri, though an enginner like you, did not create history but compiled contributions of reputed historians.Kumarrao 13:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Idiot telugus kumararao and his friends--------------

Idiot Kumararao..first understand that chalukyas are kannadigas by origin..they used kannada as administrative language...as they also ruled other parts of the country they supported respective languages in those regions at some points of time...It is same story of Vijayanagar Kingdom..kannadiga rulers were not fantics like you and they big hearted kings who ruled large kingdom..So irrespective their origin(kannada,tulu) they supported many other lanugages..U telugu assholes..u r mind and culture sucks to the core..u r fit to increase u r populate that's it..if u go to andhra you will find most of the inscriptions either in kannada and tamil as much as telugu perhaps more...

---

Mr. Dineshkannambadi I am thoroughly impressed with your professionalism and style of reasoning out, you have been polite and have have provided valid resources to back your arguements, this I am sure definetly takes a lot of interest and reading in this subject. RNB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.130.171 (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Indian Kingdoms and Borders, 600 AD

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/india_parthian_colony1.php

Unknown map source, India in 600 AD

I have 2 different source maps for the borders of India, circa 600 AD, and they both show major differences. The first map's source is listed, I don't remember my source for the 2nd map. Also, looking at the www.WorldHistory.com map of India in 586 AD, it is also different from these 2 maps. Which of these maps shows the correct borders for India in 600 AD? Thomas Lessman (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Idiot Kumararao..first understand that chalukyas are kannadigas by origin..they used kannada as administrative language...as they also ruled other parts of the country they supported respective languages in those regions at some points of time...It is same story of Vijayanagar Kingdom..kannadiga rulers were not fantics like you and they big hearted kings who ruled large kingdom..So irrespective their origin(kannada,tulu) they supported many other lanugages..U telugu assholes..u r mind and culture sucks to the core..u r fit to increase u r populate that's it..if u go to andhra you will find most of the inscriptions either in kannada and tamil as much as telugu perhaps more...

Extent of the Chalukya

In the map provided the Chalukya Empire's extent is mainly in southern India. But we know for a fact that they controled much of Nepal up to Rajasthan and Punjab which is not represented in the map. Can a new map be drawn to show the full extent of the empire. Thank you (GB (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Some copy editting possibly needed

Excellent work on this article, but in the second paragraph of Sources of history the second sentence sounds a bit odd to my ear. A comma after traveller, or possibly a rewrite might be in order.

Travelogues of contemporary foreign travellers have provided useful information about the Chalukyan empire. Hiuen-Tsiang, a Chinese traveller had visited the court of Pulakesi II.

Suggestion 1: Hiuen-Tsiang, a Chinese traveller, had visited the court of Pulakesi II.

Suggestion: The court of Pulakesi II was visited by the Chinese traveller Hiuen-Tsiang.

Just a thought ^^

Waygugin (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "The Chinese traveller Hiuen-Tsiang had visited the court of Pulakesi II.". I think it's fine to boldly make minor corrections like this directly, even in Today's Featured Article. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Pointers

I'm somewhat confused by the heading "Badami Chalukya country". For one thing, why does it have bolded pseudo-sub-headings? Headings are supposed to make more or less immediately obvious what the section is about, but this one doesn't seem to make that too clear. Non-headings of this type are generally discouraged (to the best of my knowledge), so what are they doing in an FA?

Also, why are the external links formatted with a template intended for citations? The retrieval date for what is technically non-essential web links seems very non-standard and quite superfluous.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Chalukya dynasty was ended by Abhiras.

The rule of the Chalukyas in Saurashtra was put an end to by the Abhiras in the third quarter of the tenth century.

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=aD2QTbWFJcLMcL7FnYYK&ct=result&id=s1WgAAAAMAAJ&dq=krishna+was+abhira&q=+abhiras

The Age of imperial Kanauj

Early history

The beginnings of Chalukyas can be traced to Satavahanas under whom they were satraps. Inscription of Naagarjunakonda clearly shows an evidence.Kumarrao (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Durgaprasad is a well-known Professor of History in the University of Hyderabad. Unknown User should restrain himself from deleting well-sourced information without discussing in Talk page.Kumarrao (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Only credible sources please

Hi Mr. Kumarrao. Durga Prasad is not a credible historian. I have carefully looked at the pdf file, which at best can be called shabby. I was astonished to see that even the typing of the text was replete with typos, the author has repeatedly used an "!" mark instead of "I". Here are the reasons why you should not be using this source. I am enumerating them in case this issue goes to an administrator who can help you understand WP:RS better.

1) It is a shabbily typed out file and the author himself says he not an expert on this subject and has done no research on it, but rather gathered the data from other books. So It could just be his own POV. It appears that he may be a school teacher or at best a lecturer. Here is a copy of his admission,

Quote: "! do not claim that this is an original contribution on my part in the field of historical research. I have simply tried to give a dependable compendium of the best works on the subject covering all aspects".

2)The content has no ISBN/LCCN/OCLC or any other form of identification to give it credibility that it was ever published. Anyone can edit a PDF file without too much effort and provide the names of a few published books as references. All it takes is some software.

3)I did a google books search to see if either this book has ever been published or if the author Durga Prasad has authored or co-authored any other book on Andhra history or in general, Indian history, but came up with nothing. Clearly this guy is not what you claim him to be.

4)Even in the unlikely event an admin admits this source, you must have heard of WP:UNDUE. In this article, as I can see, there are numerous other "early origin" theories, including possible connections to "Seleukia" tribe of Iraq, Andhra Ikshvaku (from an Ikshvaku inscription of 2nd century), northern origin theory originating from Ayodhya and the Gurjaras of Gujarat. All of these have been well cited with book sources from well known historians and their theories described only as possibilities giving each theory no more than a few lines under the original FA lead paragraph. However, you have conveniently made the Andhra Pradesh origin a surety and have created a new para called "early origin", perhaps with the intention of creating a mind set to the prospective reader about their early origin.

5)Some of the statements you added have already existed in the original article, such as their possible connection to Andhra Ikshvaku, migrants from north west and adversaries of the Pallavas, which indicates you may have never bothered to read the article. However, just because a few theories match between Durga Prasad's PDF and the original FA, it does not give credibility to the PDF file itself, based on points 1, 2 and 3.

I sincerely suggest you stop the reverting me. Wishing you the best of luck on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.208.174 (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Seleukia/Seleucid was not a "tribe" and they were Greek/Hellenistic dynasty

Both the town "Seleukia" in Iraq and Seleucid ( Greek ruler of Iran) are derived from the same Hellenistic dynasty and has nothing to do with a tribe. Chandragupta Maurya defeated Seleucus when he tried to invade India.

Wrong information should be removed because it only confuses people as there is no "tribe" called "Seleukia" during ancient times. Even if they were descendant from Seleucus they should have propagated Greek and Persian language and coins imprinted with their imagery, clothing and headdress. Lewis's theory is wrong and should not be promoted than it already has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.146.123 (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Old discussion with bad source

Hi Mr. Kumarrao. Durga Prasad is not a credible historian. I have carefully looked at the pdf file, which at best can be called shabby. I was astonished to see that even the typing of the text was replete with typos, the author has repeatedly used an "!" mark instead of "I". Here are the reasons why you should not be using this source. I am enumerating them in case this issue goes to an administrator who can help you understand WP:RS better.

1) It is a shabbily typed out file and the author himself says he not an expert on this subject and has done no research on it, but rather gathered the data from other books. So It could just be his own POV. It appears that he may be a school teacher or at best a lecturer. Here is a copy of his admission,

Quote: "! do not claim that this is an original contribution on my part in the field of historical research. I have simply tried to give a dependable compendium of the best works on the subject covering all aspects".

2)The content has no ISBN/LCCN/OCLC or any other form of identification to give it credibility that it was ever published. Anyone can edit a PDF file without too much effort and provide the names of a few published books as references. All it takes is some software.

3)I did a google books search to see if either this book has ever been published or if the author Durga Prasad has authored or co-authored any other book on Andhra history or in general, Indian history, but came up with nothing. Clearly this guy is not what you claim him to be.

4)Even in the unlikely event an admin admits this source, you must have heard of WP:UNDUE. In this article, as I can see, there are numerous other "early origin" theories, including possible connections to "Seleukia" tribe of Iraq, Andhra Ikshvaku (from an Ikshvaku inscription of 2nd century), northern origin theory originating from Ayodhya and the Gurjaras of Gujarat. All of these have been well cited with book sources from well known historians and their theories described only as possibilities giving each theory no more than a few lines under the original FA lead paragraph. However, you have conveniently made the Andhra Pradesh origin a surety and have created a new para called "early origin", perhaps with the intention of creating a mind set to the prospective reader about their early origin.

5)Some of the statements you added have already existed in the original article, such as their possible connection to Andhra Ikshvaku, migrants from north west and adversaries of the Pallavas, which indicates you may have never bothered to read the article. However, just because a few theories match between Durga Prasad's PDF and the original FA, it does not give credibility to the PDF file itself, based on points 1, 2 and 3.

You have tried to use this source numerous times unsuccessfully and this info had been banned by admins as well going back even as far as 2007.Mayasandra (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I happened to come across this thread and ran a few checks. I think user Mayasandra is absolutely right. This source, written by 'Durga Prasad' called "history of the Andhras", is not worth the paper its written on. It is clear he is not a historian. Whether he is a professor or not is immaterial. The author himself clarifies he is not an expert and that he has written up a PDF using other sources. The PDF itself is not published and the content has embarrassing typos. Clearly not a scholarly work worthy of a well cited FA that this article is. I don't think any admin will entertain Durga Prasad's PDF. I believe (going back into the talk history and edit history), Kumarrao has been trying to use (and on occasion sneak in) this unworthy source repeatedly. Mayasandra is also right that Kumarrao is trying to emphasize on one "legendary" theory about the 'early history' of the Chalukyas (2nd-5th century AD) and pass it off as the absolute theory when there are half a dozen such 'early origin' theories. These numerous 'early origin' theories have been already dealt with by the original FA author in a summary style. As such this article deals with their history from 6th century. Interestingly, the original FA author has been thorough enough to mention, among half a dozen 'early origin' theories, the Andhra Ikshvaku theory that Kumarrao is over-emphasizing on. Kumarrao, please help improve wiki ethics so we can all build articles constructively.Holenarasipura (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Seleukia tribe of Iraq

There is no such tribe called Seleukia from Iraq, Seleucid Empire was Hellenistic dynasty (Greek & Macedonian) which ruled much of Arab world & Persia while lost war to Mauryan Emperor Chandra Gupta in what is now Afghanistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.153.232 (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Solankis

This article seems to confuse Solankis with the original Chalukyas. While the Solankis called themselves "Chalukyas of Gujarat," I don't know if there is a formal connection. This needs to be clarified. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The article says "some scholars connect the Solanki's with the Chalukyas" but this is only a legend with mytical connections, with no real evidence. Hence it is included in the "Legend" section for completeness.Mayasandra (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. But, when the article says "Historians D. R. Bhandarkar and Hoernle hold the view that Chalukyas were one of the ruling clans of Gurjaras," which Chalukyas is it talking about? The original ones or the Solankis? There is also another reference to Gurjaras in another paragraph. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion in that paragraph ('Historians D.R. Bhandarkar....") is about the "possible early ancestors" of the Chalukya clan going back the the early centuries of the common era, long before they rose to power as an empire. Scholars have many opinions, this is one of them. However, all these theories are to be taken with a pinch of salt. The history of the Chalukyas is clear only from the 5-6th century.Mayasandra (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There are numerous theories about their early origin and these are no more than of footnote interest. However, a verifiable history of the Chalukya dynasty basically starts from Badami.Holenarasipura (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I have checked, the references to "Chalukyas" in the sources are to Solankis. (Gurjaras weren't even known to exist when the original Chalukyas originated and they certainly weren't present in Karnataka.) So this seems to be a false association on the part of the editors that added this content. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The Solanki's themselves came to power much later, in the 10th century after the demise of the Badami dynasty. So if your sources associate them with the Chalukyas of the Deccan then its okay because often, during the process of building an empire, ruling imperial dynasties appointed family members as governors and commanders in distant lands and forged marital relations there to secure the empire. These distant ruling clans eventually take on a local shape (cultural/linguistic) as must be in the case of the Solanki's.Mayasandra (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the problematic parts to the Solanki dynasty: diff, diff. Thanks. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Telugu was one of the official languages of the Badami Chalukyas

The user "Pied Hornbill" undid my contribution due to a lack of understanding of what constitutes an "official language." He claimed that Telugu was not an official language but only a "provincial language." First of all, this is a flawed dichotomy, as provincial languages that are used in official records are by definition official languages. The wiki page for "official language" states that "an official language is a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other jurisdiction." The Chalukya state was not a unitary state with a single official language.

However, even if we accept Pied Hornbill's false dichotomy, according to his same reasoning, Kannada should be removed from the list of official languages of the Badami Chalukyas. This is because Kannada records are not found anywhere in the Badami Chalukya empire except in Karnataka itself, and in areas that are immediately adjacent to Karnataka (such as Anantapur district in Rayalaseema, in modern-day southwest AP). In Maharashtra, for example, there is not a single official record from the Badami Chalukyas that uses Kannada; instead, all Badami Chalukya records from Maharashtra use Sanskrit. Even in Rayalaseema in modern AP, where we find some Kannada records, we also find Telugu records in the exact same localities, such as the Nandalapudu Inscription of Vijayaditya in Anantapur district, and the Tippaluru inscription of Vikramaditya II in Cuddapah district.

If Telugu was not an "official language" of the Badami Chalukyas, even when Chalukya kings issued records in Telugu in Telugu-speaking regions, then neither was Kannada an official language of the Badami Chalukyas, as no Badami Chalukya king issued records in Kannada in Maharashtra or other predominately non-Kannada regions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civfanatic (talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I am fully aware of what languages was used by the Badami Chalukyas in the various parts of their empire. But that is not the point here in wikipedia. That section of the info box in a FA only lists languages that are :1)Officially used in the royal capital, which in this case is Kannada and Sanskrit 2) Only lists languages that are abundantly and predominantly used by the empire. Vast majority of the Badami Chalukyas inscriptions are in Sanskrit and Kannada (Houben, Jan E.M. (1996) [1996]. Ideology and Status of Sanskrit: Contributions to the History of the Sanskrit language. Brill. ISBN 90-04-10613-8). 3) The linguistic identity of the dynasty also counts. Languages used in the provinces are not to be in the box, unless specifically called as regional languages. Just imagine the number of languages you would have to list for the Maratha empire, or the Roman empire or for the matter the British empire. Some well accepted rules are followed when a language goes through a FA review process and we cant have one rule for the Chalukyas and another for other empires. There are no shortage of Kannada inscriptions outside Karnataka from the rule of the Cholas just as there are no shortage of Tamil inscriptions in Tamil Nadu from the Hoysalas of Karnataka. Get the drift?Mayasandra (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mayasandra: You are wrong. Kannada was not "abundantly and predominately" used throughout the empire, as there is not a single Kannada inscription from Maharashtra from the time of Badami Chalukyas, and Maharashtra made up a large portion of the Badami Chalukya empire. Official languages do not include just those that are used in the capital, though in unitary empires the language used in the central administration is usually also the language used in provincial administration. In the Chalukya empire, however, that was not the case.

Neither the Marathas nor Romans used all regional languages as official languages. The Romans used Latin throughout their empire while the Marathas used Persian. The Chalukyas, however, did NOT use Kannada throughout their empire. The only official language that was used throughout their empire was Sanskrit. Thus, by the logic of Pied Hornbill, only Sanskrit should be listed as an official language, and not Kannada. Anyway, the wiki page for the Achaemenid Empire lists no less than six languages (including even Greek) in its language box; if that is considered acceptable, why can't we include Telugu as an official language of the Chalukyas, when we have Chalukya kings issuing inscriptions in Telugu? Civfanatic (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong actually. The three points I listed above were not to be taken independently, but rather in a combined way and looked at objectively from a birds eye view. Wiki is very clear about its UNDUE policy. This is why we have a review process that runs often into months before an article becomes an FA. The Achaemenid Empire is not an FA and has not been sufficiently reviewed. FA's occupy a special place in wikipedia because they would have undergone extensive scrutiny. There are several Maratha records in Kannada, Telugu and Tamil at the regional level, if one were to study their history deeper than offered by school text books. However, the Maratha empire is a good example you brought up. Their identity is distinctly Marathi. Even if they issued records in Persian (a fall out of the earlier Sultanates). The world and its historians see them as a Marathi speaking dynasty, hence the point 3 I made about family identity. This issue of language in that box has been fought over for several years in wikipedia (since 2006) if I recall and the overall consensus is that only those languages that are used in daily administration (from the world view point of view) and the languages extensively used in the personal records ("shasana") of the Kings/Queens of the dynasty were allowed in that box. This topic therefore needs several books to get a balanced "worldview". You are just digging up a bee hive not knowing the history behind these FA's. I hope you understand this point. The line of argument you have taken is a shake up that brings no worldview.Mayasandra (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mayasandra: You are wrong again, and as expected, you are ill-informed on history. If you are only including languages in the language box on the basis of shashanas (which are not identical to "personal records"), then please tell me what shashanas are written in Kannada, what proportion they are used in relation to Sanskrit, and give me their citation in a compendium of epigraphic sources such as Epigraphia Indica. I know all Chalukya inscriptions and can cite every single Telugu inscription produced under the Badami Chalukyas; let us see if you can cite for us some of the Kannada shashanas produced under the Badami Chalukyas. As for daily administration, Telugu was certainly used for this purpose in the Telugu-speaking regions of the empire. I don't care about your stupid, arbitrary "bird's eye view," whatever that means.

Since you seem to love "featured articles" and view them as some sort of holy standard, let us look at what other "featured articles" include. The article on the Parthian Empire, which is another "featured article," includes Greek, Persian, Parthian, Aramaic, and even Akkadian in the language box. That is no less than five languages, and I am fairly sure that not all of these were used widely and predominately throughout the empire, but perhaps you could explain to us in what "objective bird's eye view" we should include Greek, Persian, Parthian, Aramaic, and even Akkadian as languages of the Parthian empire?

The funniest thing is that the articles on the Western Chalukya and Hoysala empires, which are also "featured articles," do not even include Sanskrit in the language box. The only language they include is Kannada. As you yourself said, "we can't have one rule for the Chalukyas and another rule for others." Why don't you try to actually apply that rule in your so-called "featured articles"? LOL! Civfanatic (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay you had your fun. go call some admins and let us start a thread. BTW, 90% of Western Chalukya and Hoysala inscriptions are in Kannada and so also their literature.Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Pied Hornbill: What do you mean by "call some admins"? Civfanatic (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This is why, Sanskrit was placed first in the box and then Kannada, keeping DUE weightage in mind, even w.r.t the "court language". Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to clarify the point on this issue.Mayasandra (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Oops! looks like someone switched it around. But in this case, it may have been ok because per the well known scholar Romila Thapar (Thapar, Romila (2003) [2003]. The Penguin History of Early India. New Delhi: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-302989-4.), contemporary inscriptions described Kannada as the natural language of the empire. Again, the objective birds eye view!!!.Mayasandra (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you began the debate, the onus is on you to bring in admins if you want to further this debate, unless you want to continue to revert and edit war which wont help you as you appear to be a new user (unless you are an old hat with a new name). You should be aware that new users are first supposed to start a discussion before making bold and brazen changes to a FA without a discussion. I don't think any admin in wiki is going to support your arguements.Mayasandra (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

User Civfanatic, if you are so sure of each and every one of the Telugu inscriptions of the Badami Chalukyas, why dont you produce that info for us with full details (including author, ISBN, page number, publisher etc). BTW you cant use epigraphica Indica as a source because it is an original source. It has to be published in a book by well known scholars. Secondly, looks like you spent more reading on Karnataka FA's than reading up the Jan Houben source I gave you (focus pages 213-243). Be careful what language you use (seems your choice of user name may say it all) on wiki unless you want to blocked by admins. The nature of your language tells me you are not a new user, but an old hat with a new name whose name wouldnot be hard to guess. I will give more details when you call some admins.Mayasandra (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mayasandra: Go look at my edits that you and Pied Hornbill undid. I included two different citations from secondary sources that refer to Telugu inscriptions being issued under the Badami Chalukyas. If you look in Appendix A (pp.272-311) of D.P. Diskhit's book The Political History of the Chalukyas of Badami (Abhinav Publications, 1980. ISBN-13: 9780712801560), you will find a dozen different official Chalukya records that are written in Telugu.

As expected, you have not responded to what I have written. I brought up the example of the Parthian Empire article, which is a featured article and has no less than five distinct languages in its language box. You have not touched this subject at all. And it is quite funny that you think I can't use Epigraphia Indica, which is not just a compilation of original sources (epigraphs), but also contains comprehensive commentary on the inscriptions by professional scholars, including on the relation of the inscriptions to history. Of course, I would not expect you to know this. No matter, I do not need to cite Epigraphia Indica as I know other secondary sources, which I have already provided. Civfanatic (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I have long back browsed that section in Dikshit's book which discusses hardly 60-70 inscriptions, some of which may be in Telugu while Sanskrit and Kannada greatly outnumber it as I recall. But that itself does not mean Telugu was a major language of inscriptions "central to Badami Chalukya administration". For all your confidence, you don't seem to realise that you can't come to your own conclusions that "Telugu was a major language in their administration". It has to be mentioned specifically by historians that "The Badami Chalukyas extensively used Kannada, Telugu and Sanskrit as their language of political discourse" or something to that effect. Houben specifically quotes percentages of Kannada (35%) vs Sanskrit inscriptions (remaining). What you are doing is original research (WP:OR) and that is not acceptable. I can produce nothing less than 15 books that discuss their propensity to Kannada and I don't believe you can do that with Telugu. Historians look at the "large picture". In fact if anything, as a side note, Kannada should be added as a major language of inscriptions to the Kakatiya dynasty page considering that Kannada inscriptions far outnumber Telugu inscriptions between 1000-1175 (Precolonial India in Practice: Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra, Cynthia Talbot, pp34-37).Mayasandra (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mayasandra:As expected, you are still refusing to talk about the Parthian Empire article. What happened to your beloved "featured article" status? Is that not the golden standard according to you? Did you not say that we cannot have different rules for different pages? What happened to all of that, Mayasandra?

Instead of responding to the points that I raised (due to your inability to do so), you have brought up a bunch of irrelevant points.

1) No one has claimed that Telugu was equally important as Kannada or Sanskrit in the administration of the Chalukya empire. What I am claiming is that Telugu was used as an official language in the Telugu-speaking parts of the Chalukya empire, more so than Kannada. Likewise, in Maharashtra, Kannada was not used at all.

2) Whether or not a language is a "major language of political discourse" is NOT the criterion used for determining whether or not a language is included in the language box. Once again, refer to the Parthian Empire wiki page. This is an arbitrary criterion that you have invented yourself, that is inconsistent with other featured articles.

3) You and PiedHornbill cannot even come up with objective criteria for determining which languages belong in the language box. You earlier said that only the "languages extensively used in the shashanas of kings/queens" would be included in the language box, yet you failed to cite any shashanas written in Kannada. PiedHornbill claimed something entirely different, that only non-provincial language should be included in the language box, yet he was oblivious of the fact that Kannada itself was only used provincially in the Chalukya empire.

4) The appendix of D.P. Dikshit's book does not contain "hardly 60-70 inscriptions," but 165 different inscriptions, including all significant records of the Chalukyas.

5) There are only THREE languages used in Chalukya inscriptions: Sanskrit, Kannada, and Telugu (ordered by predominance). No other language is attested in any Chalukya inscription. Given this fact, what exactly is your problem with including all three of these languages in the language box? You have already shown you have no objective criteria for what goes in that box.

6) Yes, Kannada should be included as an official language for the early Kakatiya state, but what is the relevance of that to the current discussion? Try answering my actual questions if you can, instead of raising irrelevant points.

@Civfanatic:, when I said go call neutral admins, that was to help moderate this debate if you continue to edit war or refuse to see some very simple points in this discussion. Usually the article gets locked up in its original state before the debate started. You are basing all your arguments on what you see in Parthian Empire which itself is a mistake because we are not privy to their discussions or how many edits have happened since it became a FA. Mayasandra makes a very important distinction. Historians should explicitly call a language the language of the Badami Chalukya inscriptions/administration/political discourse (usually literature is important to. Inscriptions or shasana of usually two types are seen: shilashasana or tamarashasana) OR the language of the B.Chalukyas, OR the native tongue of the B.Chalukyas, or something that leads us to believe its importance. He is right (as I do some research) that there are no shortage of books that tie the empire to Sanskrit and Kannada but NOT Telugu. You call Kannada also a "regional language" but conveniently ignore that Aihole the original capital, Badami the royal capital and Pattadakal the coronation place were all that region. So its not only a regional language but also the language of the 'capital' with no shortage of royal inscriptions, second only to Sanskrit. You are basing your arguments on one book (that discusses a few inscriptions in Telugu) and one seminar papers that could also be discussing the same inscriptions. Your arguments are not acceptable in any mature debate on the issue. Telugu was only a 'regional language', and the earliest inscription in that language may have come into existence a century after the forming of the empire. Sanskrit and Kannada are the only "official languages" (see India article if you don't like FA's). Its no surprise Thapar mentions an important inscription that calls Kannada the "natural language" of the people (which could imply common language or the Lingua franca across various spoken languages/dialects of the empire). There is no mention of Telugu anywhere that I see as an official language of the empire. There is also the issue of major and minor inscriptions (as in Ashoka's major and minor edicts) that needs to be considered and this is what historians look for. You need to get a worldview on this issue. We are into a weekend, so discussions may be slow. Let's ensure there is no edit warring.Pied Hornbill (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It is clear where this discussion will eventually head, if one does a bit of research. I researched several books including those written by well known historians including Romila Thapar, Sailendranath Sen, Andrea Stanton, Sanu Kainiraka, Suryanath Kamath, A.P. Karmarkar, Jan Houben and Siba Pada Sen, to name a few. Most authors who dwell on the Badami Chalukya inscriptional language are clear about the prominence of Sanskrit and Kannada (with no mention what-so-ever about Telugu). Some of these writers further call the dynasty kings native Kannada speakers (D.C.Sircar, Kamath, K.V.Ramesh, Karmarkar, Sen to name a few). There are many more authors I have not bothered to mention who follow the same thought, to keep this simple. So clearly, there is no argument about which languages dominated in the B.Chalukya era and which should exist in the FA title box. Sorry user:Civfanatic but your arguments don't hold water.Mayasandra (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I have done more research than you will ever do in your life. Try responding to my actual points which I have posted instead of attacking a strawman. And what happened to your precious "featured article" status that you were trumping up so much not long ago? I see that you have completely kept quiet about "featured articles" after I brought up the Parthian Emopire article. LOL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civfanatic (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That should put this debate to rest.Pied Hornbill (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Watch you language unless you want to be blocked by admins. Stop the edit warring. You don't have any secondary sources to support you claims.Pied Hornbill (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

If yo have done more research than Mayasandra and I have, why don't you produce it.Pied Hornbill (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Civfanatic: You proved my point right there. Epigraphia indica is a primary source ("close to the event") and is invalid unless strongly supported by Secondary sources and Tertiary sources (historians who make sense of the primary source). Also the 3 or 4 citations that you provided is each a separate inscription itself (and perhaps the only ones available in Telugu out of the 160 odd Badami Chalukyan inscriptions in all). Please don't assume that just because most Chalukyan Sanskrit inscriptions were written in the Kannada-Telugu script, the credit goes to Kannada or Telugu languages. The "language of the inscription" has to be Telugu or Kannada. According to Jan Houben, 35% of B.Chalukya inscriptions are in Kannada language and the rest in Sanskrit language. You can't claim an inscription to be a citation. It is a "physical entity" and hence adds up to WP:OR on your part. The very reason not a single scholar I can find actually calls Telugu the official language of the Badami Chalukyas is due to the paucity of Telugu inscriptions. The 3 inscriptions you posted are from Telugu speaking regions and from the 8th century (Vijayaditya and Vikramaditya II) who ruled in the last few decades of the empire. I have always maintained that a few Telugu inscriptions may be available here and there, but not as a 'national language' of the empire or from the royal capital, but only as a provincial language. Even if one were to come up at Badami, numbers matter. You are not willing to accept this. A quick look up on google into the book published by Dikshit (that you quote), it is pretty much the same stuff with most inscriptions being in Sanskrit and Kannada languages. wikipedia only records major events (especially in a FA) and minor events have to be either left out entirely or specifically stated so.Mayasandra (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mayasandra: Once again, Mayasandra has refused to answer any of my points, and has instead engaged in his usual spree of fallacious arguments. Let us look at Mayasandhra's "arguments" one by one:

1) Mayasandhra claims that using primary sources is "invalid." However, official Wikipedia policy says nothing of the sort. The Wiki policy page [[5]] says that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." (emphasis mine)

ii) Mayasandra does not understand what a primary source is. The sources that I provided are not just primary sources. An example of a primary source would be the raw inscription itself (or a translation of it), but I have not cited simply the raw inscriptions. What I cited in Epigraphia Indica were the raw inscriptions along with commentary by epigraphists, who affirmed that the language of the record was in Telugu. A person without specialized knowledge of ancient Indian languages would not be able to identify the language of an inscription as Old Telugu, but if he reads the commentary of the professional epigraphist, he would know what language was used in the record.

2) The citations that I provided are not the only Telugu inscriptions. Had Mayasandra bothered to do any research, or even look closely at the sources that I myself have provided (which he obviously did not), he would realize that Telugu inscriptions make up about 10% of the total Chalukya inscriptions. The distribution of Chalukya inscriptions by language is roughly 60% Sanskrit, 30% Kannada, and 10% Telugu. Jan Houben is wrong, and I have proved that by citing relevant sources regarding Telugu inscriptions. Out of all Chalukya inscriptions, only Sanskrit ones are found throughout the empire, while both Kannada and Telugu inscriptions are restricted to areas where Kannada and Telugu were predominant. There is not a single Kannada inscription from Maharashtra in the entire list of 165 Chalukya inscriptions that I provided; all Chalukya inscriptions from Maharashtra are in Sanskrit.

3) Mayasandra claims that the inscriptions I cited are all from the 8th century, and "from the last few decades of the Chalukya empire." First of all, that is false; even in the four specific citations that I provided, one of them (Chandan stone inscription of Vijayaditya) is dated to 697. In addition, there are other Telugu inscriptions that are older. The Annavaram Inscription and Ramapuram Incription of Vikramaditya I are both from from the 7th century, as is the Viraredipalle Inscription of Vinayaditya (dated 690). Anyway, I am not sure why the dates matter at all. The Telugu inscriptions are from the same time period as the vast majority of Kannada inscriptions. Do you know how many Kannada inscriptions we have from the time before Vikramadiyta I? Less than five.

4) There is no such thing as a "national language" in the Chalukya empire. If you mean a language that was used for official purposes throughout the empire, then the only language that fits that criterion is Sanskrit. Kannada was never used in that capacity.

5) Why are you still refusing to talk about other "featured articles" like the Parthian Empire article? On what basis are you stating that only languages used for official purposes in the royal capital should be included in the language box? Try answering that question first.

Looking closely at the book you quoted: Political History of the Chālukyas of Badami By Durga Prasad Dikshit, this is also a primary source if you look specifically at the chapter pertaining to the inscriptions itself. Here the author details at the B.Chalukya inscritions in a listed manner:

• Bannikop inscription of the time of Vijayaditya Bankapur (Dharwar) Kannada language Archaic Kannada characters.....
• Hire Madhure Virgal inscription Challekere (Chitaldurg) old Kannada language and characters.....

This is clearly a primary source. The only way this can be taken in is if a secondary source meaning another historian testifies that the inscriptions studied by Dikshit proves that so and so language was the official language of the Badami Chalukyas, or something to that effect. Hope you get the picture.Mayasandra (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The same is the case with the other source: A Study of the Telugu Inscriptions of the Chalukyas of Badami, in M.S. Nagaraja Rao, ed., The Chalukyas of Badami: Seminar Papers, 240-250. Bangalore: Mythic Society, 1978. If there were so many Telugu inscriptions, how come scholars from all over the world I quoted are blind to it.Mayasandra (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources

@Civfanatic: This debate has gone on long enough. Please provide a couple of quotes from the best sources you have that say that Badami Chalukyas used Telugu as an official language at their seat of power. Without sources, you won't get anywhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mayasandra and Civfanatic: I am essentially mediating here. Please do not address each other, only me. Civfanatic, I repeat my question. Please provide a couple of quotes from the best sources that say that Badami Chalukyas used Telugu as an official language at the seat of their power. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I have spent a lot of time trying to verify Civfanatic's claim but I don't see it happening. Here is a good reason I called Epigraphia Indica a primary source. Civfanatic quotes the epigraphist D.C. Sircar three times in his four primary source citations but Sircar himself clarifies in his book Indian Epigraphy (1965) on page 48, The copper plate grants issued by the Chalukya of Badami are written in Sanskrit, though most of the stone inscriptions of that age, both official and private, are in Kannada.... Doing research on inscriptions is one thing, but drawing conclusions is a different thing altogether. In fact most of the Telugu inscriptions from that period were issued by the Velanti Chodas and the Eastern Chalukyas of Vengi, both entities being vassals of the B.Chalukyas or Pallavas from time to time. As far as the book by Dikshit quoted by Civfanatic, the the author provides in the appendix the list of B.Chalukya inscriptions which Civfanatic conveniently used for a citation. It is not for us to draw conclusions from a list, but rather leave the job to historians. The same goes for Seminar papers which typically provide details about findings, but drawing conclusions from them is up to historians. For instance, the Bhairavakonda inscription quoted by Civfanatic is actually a Choda inscription according to Sircar's book. Under any circumstance, wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and hence practically a tertiary source where we are expected to maintain a global view of topics.Mayasandra (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is nothing for you to do. The WP:BURDEN is on Civfanatic to provide the sources and quotes for the content he/she wants to add. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Natives of karnataka or maharashtra?

We all have to note that modern states of maharshtra or karnataka or andhra came into being 1960's , so to put earlier royal dynasties as natives of any present day is nothing but a narrow mindness , so please avoid in the interest of scholarship. Hence I have edited as natives of deccan plateau than karnataka or maharashtra .dbkasar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.245.34 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The "modern states" are obviously modern, but the names of these regions have been in use for a long time, and they identify the regions where the respective languages were and are spoken. So I don't see a problem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please note let us not waste time on new modern states .the royal dynasties were not marathi or kannada or telgu . please edit as deccan plateu , if u want to continue 'native of karnataka " then i will add ' native of maharashtra ' .please comment , we can debate here , then only we will edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.245.32 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

What goes in the article depends on what reputable scholars have to say. Not what you and I think it should be. Thank youPied Hornbill (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Such issues also have to weigh in the number of scholars who make a claim (WP:UNDUE), the validity of sources used, not giving importance to blog sites and unpublished sources. The sources preferably have to be "secondary sources" which gain material from "primary sources" after due research.Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Since this user is a sock puppet (User:Dbkasar) of a banned user, should we even bother to have discussion?.Mayasandra (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

please discussion-----whether any royal dynasties say that they are kannad or marathi or telugu ? can any scholar will answer ?

In wikipedia, we follow wikipedia rules which is to accept majority view of scholars. if you don't like the rules, please don't edit here.Pied Hornbill (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Your line of questioning is funny and immature. It shows you don't have any experience editing wikipedia or understanding how historical research is done. Scholars base their opinions by way of field studies which includes inscriptions and literature. If you continue to vandalize the article (and other articles you have been hitting), I will have to ask an admin to block your IP and lock up these articles.Mayasandra (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am watching this IP edits too. Clearly, he has no sources to back him claims. He first needs to understand wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which documents views that can be verified in published secondary sources written by reputed scholars.Holenarasipura (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Topic confusion

The dab at the top of the page states that "This article is about the Chalukyas of Vatapi." However, a significant portion of this featured article deals with the Kalyani and Vengi Chalukyas. This includes the "periods in Chalukya history", "Architecture", "Literature", and "Popular culture". While the first is perhaps understandable, the rest really should not be here. Even the bits in "periods in Chalukya history" that deal with the Kalyani and Vengi Chalukyas should probably be moved into dedicated sections at the end of the article.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chalukya dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206081329/http://www.aponline.gov.in/Quick%20links/HIST-CULT/history_ancient.html to http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/hist-cult/history_ancient.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929092610/http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEK20060226013433&Topic=0&Title=Southern%20News%20-%20Karnataka&Page=K to http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEK20060226013433&Topic=0&Title=Southern%20News%20-%20Karnataka&Page=K
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206081329/http://www.aponline.gov.in/Quick%20links/HIST-CULT/history_ancient.html to http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/hist-cult/history_ancient.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)