Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 180
This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 175 | ← | Archive 178 | Archive 179 | Archive 180 | Archive 181 | Archive 182 | → | Archive 185 |
Talk:Pallava dynasty
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
* Destroyer27 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
This discussion is bound to the Origination or On the 'Origins of Pallava Dynasty'. Very lengthy discussion happened on the Talk page.The discussion was initiated for the addition of Mythological origin. In the course of discussion, the core content of the initial discussion was sidelined and finally ended up pushing a new POV content into the article's Origins section under the term 'Kanchi Theory'.The content is purely based on WP:OR. I have verified both the edited versions as well as original sources and found the content is against my CONSENSUS.The actuality of 'Kanchi Theory' as an 'origination' is not supported by the sources. I believe the 'Possibility of a dynasty which was already existing/originated and later raising to the power in a particular region, post capturing it from other dynasty' cannot be assigned as an origination theory. During the discussion,A new etymology section was also created in the article which is again a POV content relying on poor sources. The discussion moderated was closed off without the acceptance of all participants. I trust DRN team would thoroughly review the sources and its corresponding content and that is why I am raising a dispute over here.I will bind by the final result.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have fully supported voluntary moderation by user Kautilya3 but no CONSENSUS arrived at.
How do you think we can help?
I request DRN team to review the sources and its corresponding content to decide on the actuality of the content written under 'kanchi theory'.
Summary of dispute by Destroyer27
Summary of dispute by Nittawinoda
As Kautilya3 has mentioned below, the other editor LovSLif had a dispute with Destroyer27 regarding the origin section of Pallava dynasty. At this point I did my own research and requested that a few more theories regarding the origin of Pallavas be added. Kautilya3 volunteered to moderate the discussion and I must say that he/she did a pretty good job; was very patient and thorough when it came to hearing both sides and clarifying the references. During the discussion it became apparent that LovSLif wanted to keep only theories that were favorable to him/her, that is in this case the Andhra origin theories and the user rejected other theories proposed by other notable historians like for example:
1. As per historians Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, the original nucleus and domain of the Pallavas was Tondaimandalam, which served as the base for their power. [1] [1]
2. Prof. R. Sathianathaier also maintains that the Pallavas originated from Tondaimandalam [2] [2]
I am satisfied and broadly agree with the draft proposed by Kautilya3. As for LovSLif, the editor does not seem to understand primary sources, original research and npov. He/she insisted on interpreting inscriptions and grants on his own and wants to include or reject theories based upon his own interpretation and is adamant that other theories by notable historians must not be included. Nittawinoda (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Summary of dispute by Kautilya3
I got involved with this page when Abecedare asked me to help to resolve the dispute concerning the origins of the Pallava dynasty. The dispute at that time was between Destroyer27 and LovSLif. Later it became one between Nittawinoda and LovSLif. I asked both the editors to recommend high-level WP:HISTRS that are at the level of "History of India". When the sources they presented were not of this kind, I did my own search and found two multi-volume Histories of India[1] which have chapters devoted to the Pallava dynasty contributed by top Indian historians of the 1960s. The two sets of scholars took opposite points of view. So I said that both the viewpoints were notable and proposed content summarising thei respective viewpoints with WP:In-text attribution. Nittawinoda was satisfied with my summaries but LovSLif was apparently not satisfied. The nature of his objections has not been clear from what he writes. Thus we ended up here.
The content that I proposed is now on the main page: Pallava dynasty#Origins. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I did not get involved with the Pallava dynasty#Etymoogy section. Any disputes concerning it are not yet ripe for DRN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ The two are:
- The History and Culture of the Indian People and
- A Comprehensive History of India sponsored by the Indian History Congress.
Summary of dispute by Abecedare
My role in this dispute has been to (1) as an admin, warn/guide the participants to try to keep the discussion on-track, and (2) request Kautilya3, as an knowledgeable editor in the area uninvolved in the original dispute between LovSLif and Destroyer27, to take a look at the content issues (aside: and I appreciate the time they have devoted to the issue in response!).
I don't have any pre-set views on the central content issue(s) per se, and the DRN should be able to proceed without my participation. Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Pallava dynasty discussion
- Volunteer comment just chiming in to point out that one of the parties to this dispute, Destroyer27 is currently indef-blocked for socking and looking at their talk page I would not expect them to come back any time soon. signed, Rosguill talk 15:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Volunteer Note - The preconditions for moderated discussion have been met, in that there has been lengthy discussion on the article talk page, and the other parties have been notified. There has been an effort at moderated discussion already, which did not result in resolution. A volunteer is requested to try to conduct a second round of moderated discussion. I am not optimistic that a second round of moderated discussion will work better than the first, but we will try. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Possible zeroth statement by moderator
I will ask a few questions to see whether moderated discussion is feasible. It appears that one of the participants in the previous mediation was User:Kautilya3, who was attempting to mediate, and another was User:Abecedare, who is an administrator who sometimes facilitates mediation, so that they were not principals. One of the principals was User:LovSLif. Was the dispute between LovSLif and User:Nittawinoda, or with User:Destroyer27, who is a blocked sockpuppet? If it was between LovSLif and Nittawinoda, will each of them please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think was the dispute, and how the article needs to be improved? Also, if LovSLif is not satisfied with the mediation, will they please state, in one paragraph, how they disagree with the mediation? Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Please reply within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Zeroth answers by editors
- Nittawinoda's comments
As I mentioned above, I agree with Kautilya3's draft of the origin section in the article Pallava dynasty. Currently I do not have a problem as this is what is in the article page Pallava_dynasty#Origins. In addition, I want the following theories added if not already,
1. As per historians Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, the original nucleus and domain of the Pallavas was Tondaimandalam, which served as the base for their power. [3] [1]
2. Prof. R. Sathianathaier also maintains that the Pallavas originated from Tondaimandalam [4] [2]
3. The ancestor of the Pallavas was born out of a union of Aswattama and naga princess (already in article and source provided by Kautilya3)
4. "The immediate conquerors of the Andhras were the Pallavas who seemed to have risen to power suddenly in the south. Starting from Kanchi, their capital, they extended their empire northwards, till it included Vengi Nadu."[3]
5. As per historian C.Rasanayagam, "The Pallavas are considered to be the descendants of Tondaiman Ilam Tiraiyan the offspring of Chola King Killivalavan and naga princess Pilivalai, the latter being the daughter of king Valaivanan of ManiPallavam. The dynasty took its name (Pallava) after the name of the mother's kingdom manipallavam."[4][5]
As per my understanding, LovSlif wants the Kanchi theory scrapped from the article. If he wants the whole section removed then I object but if it is just the nomenclature, for example, I do not mind renaming the "Kanchi theory" to something like "Tondaimandalam origin theory" etc. Points 1, 2 and 3 above are somewhat there in the current version. I would like to add points 4 and 5 if possible. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund. A History of India. Psychology Press, 2004. p. 120.
- ^ H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy. History and Culture of South India, to 1336 A.D. Vivek Prakashan, 1975. p. 188.
- ^ Chenchiah, Bhujanga. A History of Telugu Literature. Asian Educational Services, 1988. p. 21.
- ^ Vidya Dhar Mahajan. Ancient India. S. Chand, 1962. p. 532,533.
- ^ Rama Shankar Tripathi. History of Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1967. p. 442.
- LovSLif's comments
I want to clarify that I do not want complete Kanchi theory paragraph struck.I want the term Kanchi Theory to be excluded as this is not the region of origin.It was the the region occupied at later point to strengthen their position.I also disagree adding D.C Sircar as 'proponent of Kanchi theory'.I have provided my explanation on the same at [5].
I believe below is what should be added to make the article balanced. Here is what should be added.
1. It is agreed that the maternal side of the Pallavas is the Nagas. Well the Nagas were likely Telugu speakers. As per the work of D. Ananda Naidu,Gangisetti Lakshminarayana, and V. Gopalakrsna, who were published by Dravidian University (partly funded by Tamil Nadu's government): "The language of the Nagas appears to be Telugu, which the earliest reference to which is found to be in the earliest Tamil-grammar, the Tolkappiyam (5th Century AD)". [1] B. Ramaraju similarly says that the Nagas were closely connected with Andhra. To quote him, "This is a prehistoric celebration of Naga or serpent-worship observed throughout Andhra. Buddhistic and other records mention that once Naga tribes inhabited this part of the country called 'Nagabhumi' (land of the serpent god). Every village in Andhra has some or other Naga idol carved in stone or wood.” [2] Hence, this should be added in.
2. I want the Etymology section clarified. The word Pallava is clearly of Sanskrit origin and this should be clearly mentioned. I also want to mention that according to the Velurpalaiyam Copperplates, the first Pallava ruler's father was named Chutu Pallava. This also puts into question their so-called Chola heritage, which they never acknowledged.
3. I want it to be clearly mentioned that no Tamil inscriptions were issued by the Pallavas, that are found to date, until the late 6th century or early 7th century, which is well after they were established. [3]
4. I want to include K.R Subramanian as another historian that supports the Andhra origin theory.
In regards to Nittawinoda's recommendations: - Firstly, Chenchiah Bhujanga is a Telugu language scholar. A prior scholar of the side that I am advocating for was sidelined because he was not a historian but a literary figure. Chenchiah Bhujanga fits in to the same category more or less. His claim to fame is a book about a history of Telugu Literature and he is not a trained a historian, but a scholar on the Telugu language. I will not agree to include him in this article.
- Secondly, Aswattama liason is a legend and not History.Also, the claim about the Pallavas being the child of the Cholas in untenable at best. TV. Mahanlingam, note a Tamilian, writes "The explanation of Naccinarkkiniyar that Ilantiraiyan was an illegitimate son of a Cola king and a Naga princess is "patently absurd". [4] In fact, given the context of the conflicts between the Pallavas and the Cholas, no wonder the Tamil commentators made the Pallavas out to be illegitimate sons.
References
- ^ D. Ananda Naidu, Gaṅgiśeṭṭi Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa, Vi Gōpālakr̥ṣṇa. Perspectives of South Indian History and Culture. Dravidian University., 2006. p. 257.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ B.Ramaraju. Folklore of Andhra Pradesh. National Book Trust., 1978. p. 60.
- ^ T.V Mahalingam. Kāñcīpuram in early South Indian history. Asia Pub. House., 1969. p. 22.
- ^ T.V Mahalingam. Kāñcīpuram in early South Indian history. Asia Pub. House., 1969. p. 16.
By LovSLif (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
First statement by moderator
Okay. We will try moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and follow it. Do not edit the article. Be civil and concise. Remember that civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements have only one value, to make the person posting them feel better, but they do not clarify the issue. Comment on content, not on contributors. (We seem to be focusing on content at this time, which is good.)
The statements made by the editors are long and need to be trimmed. Will each editor please identify one change that they want made at this time having to do with the Origin section? Also, I understand that there are also issues about the Etymology. Will each editor please identify one change that they want made to the Etymology?
First statements by editors should be addressed to me. Do not reply to each other. I am also providing a section for back-and-forth discussion which you may use for that purpose.
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
First statements by editors
- Statement by Nittawinoda
I would like the following theory to be added to the origin section:
"Some historians like C Rasanayagam, M.Srinivasa Iyengar have stated that the Pallavas were descendants of Tondaiman Ilam Tiraiyan who was the son of Chola king Killivalavan and Naga princess Pilivalai, daughter of Valaivanan of Manipallavam in Sri Lanka. The dynasty thus came to be called after the mother's native place.[1][2][3]. According to the Ulas(historical poems in honor of Chola kings) written by poet Ottakoothar, Killivalavan is said to have married a Naga princess by entering the bilvadara(cave) and also it is known that Tiraiyan was the son of a Chola prince who married the Naga princess, Pilivalai by entering the bilvadara in Nagapattinam. So that Tiraiyan was the son of Killivalavan is not without force".[4]
I would like the following change to Etymology section:
"As per historians Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, the name Pallava which means leaves or foliage is the Sanskrit equivalent of the the Tamil word tondai which designates their original domain, namely Tondaimandalam."[5]
References
- ^ Raju Kalidos. History and Culture of the Tamils: From Prehistoric Times to the President's Rule. Vijay Publications, 1976. p. 80.
- ^ Rama Shankar Tripathi (1967). History of Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1967. p. 442. ISBN 9788120800182.
- ^ N. Subrahmanian. Social and cultural history of Tamilnad, Volume 1. Ennes, 1993. p. 71.
- ^ C. Krishna Murthy. Saiva art and architecture in South India. Sundeep Prakashan, 1985. p. 8.
- ^ Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund (2004). A History of India. Psychology Press, 2004. p. 120. ISBN 9780415329194.
Nittawinoda (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Statement by LovSLif
Among other changes, the first and foremost change I want to the Origins sections is the identification of the Nagas as Telugus. Here is the phrasing: "As per the work of various scholars, such as D. Ananda Naidu,Gangisetti Lakshminarayana, and V. Gopalakrsna, the language spoken by the Nagas, who were the maternal line of the Pallavas, was likely Telugu. B. Ramaraju notes that what is now Andhra was called "Nagabhumi", which means land of the Nagas."
In the etymology section, I want the following. The word Pallava is a Sanskrit word that means "leaves or foliage. Tondai is the Tamil equivalent of the word. As per the Velurpalaiyam Copperplates, the first Pallava ruler's father was named Chutu Pallava.
By LovSLif (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Back-and-forth discussion
- Dispute LovSLif's statement (Rebuttal by Nittawinoda)
@Robert McClenon: I dispute the following claims by LovSLif.
- 1. Identification of the Nagas as Telugus - This appears to be original research. I quote from the source provided by LovSLif above " D. Ananda Naidu, Gaṅgiśeṭṭi Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa, Vi Gōpālakr̥ṣṇa. Perspectives of South Indian History and Culture. Dravidian University., 2006. p. 257.":
"In Andhradesa, the Rakshasas, mentioned in the Ramayana, at a later date, appear to have acquired the name of Nagas. The language of the Nagas appears to be Telugu, which the earliest reference to which is to be found in the earliest Tamil- grammar, the Tolkappiyam (5th century A.D.)."
What do the Nagas of Ramayana have to do with the Pallavas? This is completely out of context and has nothing to do with the Pallavas or the origin of the Pallavas for that matter. The Pallavas never mentioned that they married a Naga lady of Telugu origin. In fact, some scholars consider Tondaiman Ilandiraiyan to be the progenitor of the Pallavas and he is said to be the son born out of the union of Chola king Killi and Naga princess Pilivalai of Manipallavam in Sri Lanka. This refers to the Naga people of Sri Lanka and they definitely did not speak Telugu. I request the moderator to review the source more closely before making a decision.
- 2. As per the Velurpalaiyam Copperplates, the first Pallava ruler's father was named Chutu Pallava - Once again this original research. This is based upon the user's interpretation that Virakurcha, whose father is mentioned as Chutu Pallava, was the first Pallava ruler. As per "History of the Pallavas of Kanchi by R. Gopalan, edited by Sakkottai Krishnaswami Aiyangar, page 51, [6]", I quote, "Again in the Velurpalaiyam plates, it is not stated that Virakurcha who married the naga princess was the first member of the family of the Pallavas..". Moreover some historians like Vijaya Ramasamy, R.Gopalan and many more(mentioned above in my first statement) consider that Tondaiman Ilam tiraiyan was the progenitor of the Pallava dynasty.[1][2][3] This being the case, we should not add Chutu Pallava as the father of the first Pallava ruler.
References
- ^ Vijaya Ramaswamy, Jawaharlal Nehru University (2017-08-25). Historical Dictionary of the Tamils. Rowman & Littlefield, 2017. p. 154. ISBN 9781538106860.
- ^ Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (1985). Indian Antiquary, Volume 40. p. 134.
- ^ Tamil Nadu, a real history. Ratna Publications, 2005. 2005. p. 89.
Nittawinoda (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
I think that it will be necessary to place this discussion on hold so that we can find another moderator. I have not yet placed it on hold, pending verification of the need for another moderator. However, it appears that the editors expect me, the moderator, to "review the source more closely before making a decision". As a moderator, I do not review the sources because I expect the parties to be able to explain to me what the sources say. Some moderators will review the sources; some expect the editors to present the information to each other and to the moderator. My concept of the role of the moderator is to facilitate discussion between the editors, not to make any decisions. If the editors expect that the moderator will decide on the content, a different moderator is needed.
Each editor should state briefly whether they are satisfied with my concept of the role of the moderator. If either editor is not satisfied, I will have to try to find another moderator, but I am not optimistic about finding another moderator.
I will remind the editors that ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply to disputes about India.
Each editor may also describe one more point that they would like changed in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
- Statement by Nittawinoda
@Robert McClenon: Yes, you are right. I would like a moderator, preferably someone familiar with India/Indian history, who can review the sources and come to a conclusion, similar to how @Kautilya3: did on the article talk page before the other editor came here. This is because, I believe the other editor, LovSLif, is claiming things that are not stated in the sources and presenting his original research. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator
This dispute is placed on hold while we try to find a moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is a textbook example of how broken our processes of DR are. And, please don't touch this by a barge-pole or so, unless you have expertise in these domains. ∯WBGconverse 13:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
User:KylaHeaton/sandbox
Closed for various reasons. First, this is not the forum to discuss AFC declines. Do that with the declining reviewer. Second, the author has not stated whether they have a conflict of interest, which they almost certainly do. The draft is blatantly promotional. If I had been the reviewer, I would have tagged it for G11. The use of the (R) and (TM) symbols is promotional and unencyclopedic. Discuss with the declining reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
User talk:Elbeavo
Closed as premature. Discuss at the article talk page, Talk:Eran Elhaik. The discussion on a user talk page is not adequate to precede discussion here. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, file another request here after notifying the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|