Talk:Wadiyar dynasty

message: The introduction para is ambiguous. So, is the right spelling Odeyar or Wodeyar? The latter is said to denote a potter community. So why is there a gold pottery wheel in the palace? Is this to indicate that the antecedants of the Wodeyar rulers came from pottery? If so, why then is the clarification about the name Odeyar refering to ruler? -- Fgpilot (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguous introduction

message: could we have a pronunciation, please? Wetman 01:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: Request revert back to change of spelling.
The spelling of a person's name has to be the spelling that the individual has used in their records, 
It can't be arbitrarily be changed to Odeyar from Wodeyar/Wodiyar, just because that is the modern transliteration. If the individuals of the past have used or have been documented to have a certain spelling, that should be the spelling that should be used. -- Hgkamath 05:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling Changed from Wodeyar to Odeyar

message: 1. Hi. I noticed you were adding links in the middle of this article. Please avoid this. Links should be put in the external links or reference section. I authored this article after lots of research and would like to maintain wiki guidelines.thanks.
Dineshkannambadi 19:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wodeyars

message: ===Book by Dr.Meera Pranesh===
Copyright issues w.r.t the book by Dr. Meera Pranesh. But the article's contents are well paraphrased and not verbatim copied. I have ensured this. Therefore, no copyright issues should exist. As such, the author Dr. Meera Pranesh has been extensively quoted to give credit to her work.Dineshkannambadi 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DK Reply Sir, I am quite confident that my citations from Dr. Meera's book will hold, per the regulations of wikipedia.Dineshkannambadi 03:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Rajachandra, the way in which Dinesh has used the book is completely in line with Wikipedia and legal requirements. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: DK Repy Sir, I appreciate your going into such details on the writings of Wilks, Hayvadana Rao etc. I also am impressed by your personal knowledge of the subject. But unfortunately, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which only accepts data from published sources. That many of the family chronicles/manuscripts of the royal family was gutted in a fire is not important to wikipedia. Wikipedia also does not accept word-to-mouth information, even if it comes from the Royal family itself, as that fails WP:OR. 
You are right, Indian history in general is drenched in legends, hypothesis and historical guesswork. But we can only go with what sources we have. I know that Rice mentions a Gujarat origin and I have quoted him to. I am yet to come across a historian who says without any doubts that the founders "did indeed" come from Gujarat. Those who claim a Gujarat origin say "supposed to have come from Gujarat" - because nobody is sure. This is all the more reason to quote their difference of opinion, so that wikipedia rises above the level of a common blog site. Coming to Wilks, I have sourced from the book "Ancient India: Collected Essays on the Literary and Political History of ...." by Krishnaswami Ayiangar.- page 275-276, where the author says that "according to Wilks, the founders were fugitives from the Vijayanagara court, and this seems very likely" and I have cited Aiyangar too. He even mentions the possibility of a Hoysala or Kakatiya connection, but like Wilks, resigns to the Vijayanagara connection. In wikipedia, we cannot push the views of one school and leave out another. I hope you understand. last but not the least, wikipedia allows only summary style articles. Going into details of which manuscript burned down, who was responsible  and what information was lost is not acceptable. Information that is available and well published and discussed by multiple authors (to pass WP:UNDUE) is only acceptable. thanksDineshkannambadi 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: DK Reply Sir, the fact that Nanjarajayya was a soldier of merit, famous writer is already noted in my article (or in my subarticle pertaining to literature). I have even mentioned that the Dalavoy brothers had considerable clout in the Kingdom. But of the various books I referred to, only Kamath and Pranesh mention them, both authors as know are local to Karnataka. None of the other writers even mention them. There is a reason for this - In the world scheme of things and in fitting Mysore Kingdom's history into the world perspective, the Dalavoy brothers are simply not famous enough, or they would have been mentioned. You may claim that they were as successful in war as Haider and Tipu or that Nanjarajayya mentored Tipu, but this has to come from published sources, be popular. When scholars all over the world talk of the "political" history of Mysore Kingdom,  even Chikkadevaraja Wodeyar is not mentioned. Only Tipu and Haider are described. But ofcourse when the cultural history of the kingdom is discussed (which invariably is done by Karnataka scholars), they naturally go into details of the Hindu kings, their musical abilities, their court poets and musicians. I have tried to maintain a balance between the political history and the cultural history. Also, Wikipedia does not entertain personal sentiments about the character of any individual/personality in the article. It only accepts world view. Because two authors I referred to mentioned Tipu's bigoted religious ways, I promptly mentioned it in the article. If you can provide published information about the military successes of Nanjarajayya, we can defnitely include a few lines regarding the issue. thanksDineshkannambadi 03:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Where are the multiple articles?  Please link them here.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 10:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I believe as long you are contributing through reliable sources, it should not matter. Please go ahead. We can discuss it, if required, as the article development progresses. It would also be a good idea, if you can develop the entire section in your user subpage and then incorporate it into the article. But again, that's just an option. Please feel free to edit whichever way is comfortable for you. Thanks - KNM  Talk 04:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. If Rajachandra has sufficient "published" and "verifyable" information on KRW III or any other king from the dynasty, the article may even be considered for a "Featured article" status and be well worth it.thanksDineshkannambadi 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues to be resolved

message: Copyright issues w.r.t the book by Dr. Meera Pranesh. But the article's contents are well paraphrased and not verbatim copied. I have ensured this. Therefore, no copyright issues should exist. As such, the author Dr. Meera Pranesh has been extensively quoted to give credit to her work.Dineshkannambadi 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DK Reply Sir, I am quite confident that my citations from Dr. Meera's book will hold, per the regulations of wikipedia.Dineshkannambadi 03:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Rajachandra, the way in which Dinesh has used the book is completely in line with Wikipedia and legal requirements. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Book by Dr.Meera Pranesh

message: The background of the founders of the kingdom, Yaduraya and his brother, as described by some scholars whom I have cited. Rajachandra believes, that they were from Dwaraka is the only opinion that should be written. He says other opinions by scholars is biased, such as their connection to the Hoysalas or the Vijyanagara court.Dineshkannambadi 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DK Repy Sir, I appreciate your going into such details on the writings of Wilks, Hayvadana Rao etc. I also am impressed by your personal knowledge of the subject. But unfortunately, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which only accepts data from published sources. That many of the family chronicles/manuscripts of the royal family was gutted in a fire is not important to wikipedia. Wikipedia also does not accept word-to-mouth information, even if it comes from the Royal family itself, as that fails WP:OR. 
You are right, Indian history in general is drenched in legends, hypothesis and historical guesswork. But we can only go with what sources we have. I know that Rice mentions a Gujarat origin and I have quoted him to. I am yet to come across a historian who says without any doubts that the founders "did indeed" come from Gujarat. Those who claim a Gujarat origin say "supposed to have come from Gujarat" - because nobody is sure. This is all the more reason to quote their difference of opinion, so that wikipedia rises above the level of a common blog site. Coming to Wilks, I have sourced from the book "Ancient India: Collected Essays on the Literary and Political History of ...." by Krishnaswami Ayiangar.- page 275-276, where the author says that "according to Wilks, the founders were fugitives from the Vijayanagara court, and this seems very likely" and I have cited Aiyangar too. He even mentions the possibility of a Hoysala or Kakatiya connection, but like Wilks, resigns to the Vijayanagara connection. In wikipedia, we cannot push the views of one school and leave out another. I hope you understand. last but not the least, wikipedia allows only summary style articles. Going into details of which manuscript burned down, who was responsible  and what information was lost is not acceptable. Information that is available and well published and discussed by multiple authors (to pass WP:UNDUE) is only acceptable. thanksDineshkannambadi 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yaduraya and his brother: Background

message: Position of Tipu/Haider Ali in the kingdom. I have assured him that no where have I called them Kings of Mysore. On the contrary, I have used to term De facto rulers.Dineshkannambadi 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DK Reply Sir, the fact that Nanjarajayya was a soldier of merit, famous writer is already noted in my article (or in my subarticle pertaining to literature). I have even mentioned that the Dalavoy brothers had considerable clout in the Kingdom. But of the various books I referred to, only Kamath and Pranesh mention them, both authors as know are local to Karnataka. None of the other writers even mention them. There is a reason for this - In the world scheme of things and in fitting Mysore Kingdom's history into the world perspective, the Dalavoy brothers are simply not famous enough, or they would have been mentioned. You may claim that they were as successful in war as Haider and Tipu or that Nanjarajayya mentored Tipu, but this has to come from published sources, be popular. When scholars all over the world talk of the "political" history of Mysore Kingdom,  even Chikkadevaraja Wodeyar is not mentioned. Only Tipu and Haider are described. But ofcourse when the cultural history of the kingdom is discussed (which invariably is done by Karnataka scholars), they naturally go into details of the Hindu kings, their musical abilities, their court poets and musicians. I have tried to maintain a balance between the political history and the cultural history. Also, Wikipedia does not entertain personal sentiments about the character of any individual/personality in the article. It only accepts world view. Because two authors I referred to mentioned Tipu's bigoted religious ways, I promptly mentioned it in the article. If you can provide published information about the military successes of Nanjarajayya, we can defnitely include a few lines regarding the issue. thanksDineshkannambadi 03:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Haider Ali - Tipu Sultan

message: Article on Krishnaraja Wodeyar III. Firstly with the contents and secondly with the existence of multiple articles in that Kings name, neither of which I wrote, but simply linked to.Dineshkannambadi 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are the multiple articles?  Please link them here.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 10:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I believe as long you are contributing through reliable sources, it should not matter. Please go ahead. We can discuss it, if required, as the article development progresses. It would also be a good idea, if you can develop the entire section in your user subpage and then incorporate it into the article. But again, that's just an option. Please feel free to edit whichever way is comfortable for you. Thanks - KNM  Talk 04:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. If Rajachandra has sufficient "published" and "verifyable" information on KRW III or any other king from the dynasty, the article may even be considered for a "Featured article" status and be well worth it.thanksDineshkannambadi 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Krishnaraja Wodeyar III

message: A mystery entry has been made under Arjun Wodeyar as the present scion of the family. I have deleted this entry as this is totally unfounded. Neither Jaya Chmaraja Wodeyar or his son Srikanta Datta Narsimha Raja wodeyar have any nephew, cousin or relative by this time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajachandra (talk • contribs) 21:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arjun wodeyar

message: Feels like this is written to aggrandize some folks. 24.125.38.175 (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs a lot of work

message: How much did the Wodyers have to pay the British annually? Info should be included here 72.76.242.76 (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  revenue payments 

message: Can anyone clean uo the confusion between the two spellings? And change the title accordingly?!Super48paul (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wodeyar or Wadiyar? 

message: HI there. I recommend the usage of a better picture of the incumbent monarch under this page. Having been a graphics designer the picture is visually offloading and a clearer, professional photo would be appropriate. Thank you. --Hari147 (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend usage of better picture 

message: You have introduced a highly contested piece of information about the descent of the Wodeyars with this edit here , without any discussion. This edit has been reverted by multiple editors due to it being a poor source. UPSC PREP BOOKS are NOT a Reliable source. 
If you read the Wadiyar_dynasty#History section of the article, you’ll know that their origins are not clear and most reputed historians dismiss their ‘Yaduvanshi’ origin claim. 
If you still want to claim they are of herder descent, kindly provide a peer reviewed published source written by a historian as an argument in the history section, do not keep vandalising the page and introducing low quality content from poor sources in the introduction.  
It’s very evident from that you’re a member of one of the Yadava subcastes and are POV pushing. Cyberanthropologist (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The “Herder” descent of the Wadiyars 

message: in the section - British rule, there is a statement, “ The next king, Nalvadi Krishna Raja Wadiyar, earned great fame as a saintly King-Rajarishi, and his kingdom was hailed as Ramarajya by Mahatma Gandhi as an ideal kingdom comparable to the one ruled by the ‘’’historical hero’’’ Lord Rama.”
Is it factually correct to call Rama a historical character? It should be changed to a Mythological character. ponnambalamwell known as santhosh janardhanan | talk me 01:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History vs Mythology