Talk:Western Chalukya Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Western Chalukya Empire is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Marathi

कल्याणी चालुक्य राजा सोमेश्वर यांच्या 'मानसोल्लास' (११२९) या ग्रंथातील मराठी गीते म्हणजे मराठी वाड़्मयाच्या आरंभकालीन पाऊलखूणाच म्हटल्य पाहिजेत.

Marathi songs in Kalyani chalukya king Someshwar's Manasollas (1129) should be termed as stepping stone of Marathi literature. 59.95.28.231 10:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citatons and decency

This is an English language wikipedia and citations should be in English for all to read. This article is not meant just for people proficient in Marathi to read. Please bear this basic decency and learn to live by the rules of wikipedia.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marathi citation

Based on advice by admin:utcursch, I have removed marathi citation as English citation exists.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 05:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

addition of both citations will not 'destroy' the article. Any ill-comments or actions about Marathi will be taken very seriously. Vishu123 07:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
morever the 'stepping stone' thing has not mentioned in the Eng citationVishu123

[edit] Remove POV text as well as use of superlatives

It is stated in the article that it was during the times of Vikramaditya VI that the Western Chalukyas completely eclipsed the Cholas. Can anything be farther from the truth? Considering that the Western Chalukyas as per known sources never occupied any part of Chola territory especially in Tamizhagam, no doubt the victory at Vengi would be regarded as important in Chalukya annals. But this victory lasted only 6 years and the Cholas under Vikrama Chola re-occupied Vengi in 1127-28 and right from the times of Vikrama chola till Kulothunga III 1176-1218, the Cholas never gave up control of both Vengi and Kalinga. In fact Kulothunga III is credited with the conquests of Karuvur (Karur) in Kongu nadu, Madurai, Ilam (Sri Lanka) and Kalinga and it is in commemoration of re-enforcing Chola control of Kalinga by him along with the Vengi king that he built the Kampahareswarar temple near Kumbakonam. You have (in your list of photographs), displayed the Srirangapatnam Temple showing its inscriptions and history of it having been initially built by Tirumalaraya and with later additions to the temple having been made by the Hoysalas and Vijayanagara kings. Similar evidence is displayed outside the Kampahareswarar temple.

what I mean is that a victory for just 6 years never meant convincing eclipsing of the Chola empires and it amounts to propagation of POV, is posting of texts detrimental to the rivals of the Chalukyas and to empires and people of non-Kannada country origin. Hence this portion of text should be removed immediately.

The fact of history is that within two decades of Vikramaditya VI's death there was complete instability in the Chalukya territories with the capital itself being occupied for close to three decades from around 1155 onwards by the Kalachuri kings, with other feudatories like the Nolambas and the Hoysalas rapidly gaining strength at the cost of the Chalukyas in Kannada country.

Another objectionable portion is the mention of events around the end of the 12th century where is mentioned very wrongly and inaccurately, perhaps with malicious intent that the concerned period saw the demise of both the Chalukyas and the Cholas with a further deliberate and maliciously intended insertion "with the parts of the Chola territories being occupied by the Pandiyans".

I want to ask that indeed the Chalukyas ceased to exist having existed for namesake from about 1175 onwards and finally being routed by the Hoysalas, Seunas and the Kalachuris with probably the Kalachuris emerging the strongest in this tripartite struggle for supremacy. Later of course Hoysalas created a separate domain for themselves mainly in the southwestern parts of Kannada country.

So if the Chalukyas ceased to exist in 1189 and were defeated by three other kingdoms viz. Hoysalas, Seunas and Kalachuris, where is the need or what is the justifiable context for mentioning the Cholas. For the Cholas continued to exist well into the last quarter of the 13th century, though they had been weakened very much by the growing power of the Pandiyans in Tamizhagam with their alliance with the Hoysalas itself eventually succumbing to Maravarman, Jatavarman Pandiyan by 1250-1260 AD. So one empire ceases to exist (which is the Chalukyas, the main subject of this topic) in 1189 with the Cholas collapsing only in 1279, what is the need, justification or context of mentioning that the Cholas and Chalukyas collapsed with Chola territories being occupied by Pandiyans?

When considering that this article is an FA, the insertion of derisive, malicious deliberate content with a penchant for always seeking the Chalukyas or Hoysalas to compare with the Cholas on the presumption that mentioning Chalukyas only on adversarial terms but not contemporaneous terms will only enhance their glory, seems very erroneous.

The above two objectionable POV texts should immediately be reviewed by the FAR panel/committee and determine as to whether those portions being objected to by me, deserve retention in this article.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been warring for a month without one single reputable book source. Why is it so hard understand?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)