Wikipedia:Peer review/Vijayanagara Empire/archive1

Vijayanagara Empire

After putting in several months of work on this article, I have finally nominated it for a peer review. I have tried hard to maintain a balance in information trying to portray this great Empire as a South Indian empire (which helps to keep controversies out). I am looking forward to positive inputs such as improvement in prose, grammar, format etc.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not read the article yet. One question, why there are two sections "History" and "Background"?--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply The Background section deals with mythology of the area, the geography of the capital and issues not directly tied to the empire but of relevance from a legendary /strategical stand point. perhaps it can be renamed "Legends".thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am confused about the relevance of the last sentence regarding Buddhism in religion section. --Blacksun 14:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply The sentence simply means that Buddhism started to decline in the 8th century. I have not read of any popular practice of Buddhism in the Vijayanagara era, though I will double check. Also, the citation says "A 16th century Buddhist work by Lama Taranatha speaks disparagingly of Shankaracharya as close parallels in some beliefs of Shankaracharya with Buddhist philosophy was not viewed favourably by Buddhist writers, Romila Thapar, The Penguin History of Early India, From Origin to 1300 AD, 2003, Penguin, pp 349-350, 397". Here it has been pointed by Dr. Thapar that Buddhists (apart from other Hindu Philosophers) believed Sankaracharya being strictly monistic may have had beliefs close to Buddhist belief, which did not go down well with them, as the Buddhists of his time felt Shankara was using Buddhism's strong points in his philosophy.

This paragraph needs some more info on growth of Islam and Christianity in South India which I shall add today.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But why do we care about Buddhism declining in 8th century in the context of this article? --Blacksun 14:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply->The issue of Buddhism cropped up under Hoysala Empire (11th-14th century). I was only covering all bases. If it is considered unimportant, I can remove it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 20:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyedits user:Mattisse will be helping us with the copyedits to this page. She does a good job and I trust her.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Format

non-indented headings are main sections
Items in (( )) are attached subarticles
Indented items are subheadings under main sections
sorry to take up so much space

• LEAD
• HISTORY

((ORIGIN OF VIJAYANAGARA)) ((Choice of Capital)) ((Battle of Talikota))
summarise existing content

• ECONOMY

extracts from Ancient City of Vijayanagara and Life in Vijayanagara Empire+other sources

• ADMINISTRATION

extracts from Life in Vijayanagara Empire+other sources

• CULTURE
  • RELIGION

((Haridasas of Vijayanagar Empire))
summarise existing content

• • SOCIETY

extracts from Ancient City of Vijayanagara and Life in Vijayanagara Empire+other sources

• • LITERATURE

((Vijayanagara Empire Literature))
focus on trends

• • ARCHITECTURE

((Vijayanagara Architecture)), ((Vijayanagara)), and ((Hampi))
summarise existing content

• LANGUAGE

The ((choise of capital)) will be a page created out of current "BACKGROUND" section. the two sections Ancient City of Vijayanagara and Life in Vijayanagara Empire are currently sitting there with mixed information. If anyone has any further ideas, please feel free to share it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 02:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Something close to Hoysala Empire and other FA articles on Indian kingdoms should do? --Blacksun 14:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply. Ok. The proposed format resembles Hoysala article closely. This format change may take a few days but I will work on it quickly. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 14:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, following this proposed format would be better. Slowly an ideal format for indian kingdom articles may emerge.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi it may look that I am taking a revenge against Mr.Kannambadi but i really want to give my opinion for the sake of respect of history. I own a reference text about ancient India which is based on bibliography and not original research which is prescribed by Nagpur university and as ref by Pune university. (Bharatacha Itihaas by Dr.Kolarkar) It doesnt have a word about Kannada in it(in Vijayanagara empire section). It talks about growth and enrichment of Telugu language only. So probably like other articles this article is fallen prey to regional chauvinism of few editors. 59.95.20.149 11:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply The above unsigned message is from a user who has been indef-banned for obstruction and sock-puppetry and is the same guy who tried to obstruct the Hoysala Empire FAC.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 02:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The comments received in the PR in no way have any bearing on the pssoible future FAC of any article, and thus, attacks are irrelevant. If a sock is used on FA, or an attack is made in an obstructionist manner, User:Raul654, the person who makes the verdict, will ignore. He is a long time arbitrator and isn't going to be fooled by an SPA attack or criticism which is not an "actionable objkection. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Woah!! My blocking and so called obstuction is irrelavent here. Comment on content, not editors. I have not voted and I am neither a sockpuppet. It is the gang of Mr.Kannambadi and others who's trying hard to hide the truth. Btw the talk page of Vijayanagara empire is open for all to see if i am lieing or not. Of course the old tactics of sockpuppetry. It takes nothing to allege anyone,so perhaps bl is sockpuppet of dinesh!!