Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dineshkannambadi (talk | contribs)
Rollbackers
29,841 edits
Undid revision 186492274 by Wiki Raja (talk)
Wiki Raja (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
14,470 edits
m Undid revision 186494068 by Dineshkannambadi (talk)(see talk page)
Line 1: Line 1:
As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign]] your [[Help:Talk page|talk page]] and [[Help:Talk_page#User_talk_pages|user talk page]] posts. To do so simply add four [[tilde]]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a [[timestamp]]. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info read [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]. Thank you. Put the latest comments below previous ones. -- [[User:Jeandré|Jeandré]], 2006-12-21[[User talk:Jeandré|t]]12:03z
As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign]] your [[Help:Talk page|talk page]] and [[Help:Talk_page#User_talk_pages|user talk page]] posts. To do so simply add four [[tilde]]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a [[timestamp]]. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info read [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]. Thank you. Put the latest comments below previous ones. -- [[User:Jeandré|Jeandré]], 2006-12-21[[User talk:Jeandré|t]]12:03z


{{WPTAMCIV}}
{{WPDRAVCIV}}
{{WP India|class=|importance=|karnataka=no|tamilnadu=yes}}
{{WP India|class=|importance=|karnataka=no|tamilnadu=yes}}
{{WikiProject Dance}}
{{WikiProject Dance}}

Revision as of 03:08, 24 January 2008

As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Put the latest comments below previous ones. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-21t12:03z

WikiProject iconTamil civilization Unassessed (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tamil civilization, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Tamil civilizationWikipedia:WikiProject Tamil civilizationTemplate:WikiProject Tamil civilizationTamil civilization articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconDravidian civilizations Unassessed (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dravidian civilizations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dravidian civilizationsWikipedia:WikiProject Dravidian civilizationsTemplate:WikiProject Dravidian civilizationsDravidian civilizations articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconIndia: Tamil Nadu Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu.
WikiProject iconDance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance articles
WikiProject Dance To-do list:

Common spellings

Here is a result of Google searches for common misspellings of the name. This will be useful if in future there's a debate on whether this article needs to be redirected to any other spelling. Also if any other titles need to be redirected to this article. Search done on Aug 6. Jay 16:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"bharata natyam" 20,100
 bharatanatyam 17,300
  bharathanatyam 8,520
  bharatnatyam 7,280
"bharat natyam" 3,700
"bharatha natyam" 3,210
  bharathnatyam 428
"bharata nathyam" 94
"bharath natyam" 89
"bharatha nathyam" 38
"bharat nathyam" 19
  bharatanathyam 14
  bharathanathyam 5
  bharatnathyam 4

Interesting to note that 18 months later, google finds about ten times as many pages. A striking indication of the growth of the Internet within certain communities. 80.0.184.11 01:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo search for

  bharatnatyam 54,600
  "bharata natyam" 35,600
  bharatanatyam 33,300
  bharathanatyam 26,400

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.65.124.86 (talk • contribs) 2004-10-17t03:30:02z (UTC)

Medha Hari

Never heard of this name. Also, why this ugly/advertising image is added here? --Rrjanbiah 09:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Rrjanbiah,
You need to learn more about the contemporary Bharatanatyam. And the picture is not at all ugly. -- 219.65.124.189 10:10, 8 Nov 2004

But, it definitely looks like a WikiSpam. The content of the articles and the pages linked to it [1] seems to confirm that. --Rrjanbiah 07:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Rrjanbiah,|Medha Hari web site pages provide non-commercial information for FREE Serge56

Hi Rrjanbiah! I looked in major directories (Open Directory, Looksmart, etc) and Medha Hari is listed there. Keep yourself updated. Geosammie 04:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its not about being listed on many pages. I am a dancer myself and I looked at the pictures of the dancer. Sorry to say, I did not find them to be graceful or accurate especially the postures of the hips.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.91.233.193 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-30t17:04:17z (UTC)

REPLY TO THE ABOVE: If you are a dancer, I want to see YOUR "graceful lines". I think you are just jealous of how graceful Medha Hari looks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prabhujee (talk • contribs) 2006-02-16t05:05:45z (UTC)

REPLY TO MEDHA HARI ISSUE: The issue is not whether Meda Hari is graceful or not. The issue is whether she is a great enough dancer to be listed on Wikipedia as an authority on the subject. I do not even know who Medha Hari is. However, I do not believe that Rukmini Devi and her belong on the same page, regardless of the contributions Meda Hari has made. Any reference to Meda Hari is just pure commercialism, and not necessary for a general background article.

From Tamil Nadu?

Is Bharatanatyam orginated from Tamil Nadu? Someone at Tamil people added so. --Rrjanbiah 10:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Rrjanbiah,
It appears that you are not familiar with Bharatanatyam at all - 219.65.124.189 10:07, 8 Nov 2004
AFAIK, Bharathanatyam is a Telugu devadasi dance which was commercialized by brahmins like Rukmani Devi. But, neither this article nor any other artcile seems to say that it is Tamilians' dance. --Rrjanbiah 07:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
BharatanATya is a dance form of Karnataka. the very fact that it is Karnatik Music to which this dance form is performed proves this fact. Karnataka music or Carnatic music was structured by Sri Purandara Dasa, the great saint from Karnataka. It is to this structured and sophisticated musical form that BharatanATya is performed. Anyway, there is ABSOLUTELY no proof to the claim that it originated in TamilNadu. Wikipedia is not your DinaMani or Dinamalar or Nakkeeran to print/type anything and everything you like. Keep all your self advancing theories to your tabloids and your textbooks. Changing it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.232.187 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-25t07:31:55z (UTC)
Moreover, even history records the fact that the Kannada Hoysala queen, Shantala/Shantale was an acknowledged expert of this art long before Devadasis started performing in Andhra temples or Krishna and Rukmini brought it to the TN stage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.232.187 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-25t07:34:54z (UTC)

Partisan advertisement and promotional campaign on behalf of medha hari is clearly visible by the link and image of medha hari being put up on the page. In order that neutrality is attained such partisan publicity should not be overlooked. Is wikipedia an advertising platform ? Water Fish 11:37, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-- This is not medha hari's advertising page!!!!!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.191.160.84 (talk • contribs) 2006-12-20t19:42:48z.

For Rrjanbiah: you are Telugu, aren't you? - there is no place for nationalism on Wikipedia

For Water Fish: I do not perceive adding relevant content as SPAM. External links are supported for enriching elements (such as the multimedia content). Before deleting anything, you better think of the benefit of the reader: will the photo be a valuable illustration? Will external links be a valuable extention of Wikipedia? --User:RalphWWW

I agree with Ralph Serge56


Almost all the articles and books I have read say it is from Thanjavur in Tamil Nadu. A simple google search shows a number of pages. Have to revert. I think this article from The Hindu should seal it. http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mp/2003/06/25/stories/2003062500230100.htm Please stop reverting...


- Cribananda 07:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article from Hindu seals *nothing*. It does not speak a single word about Bharatanatya's origins. And even if it did, the author of that article is far from the last word on the subject. STOP MAKING ARBITRARY CLAIMS AND PASSING OFF SPURIOUS LINKS AS PROOF!!. reverting it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.232.187 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-25t08:47:45z (UTC)

RE: SECTION ON BHARATA NATYAM SCHOOLS IN THE US Hello lovers of Bharata Natyam. I added a section on the location of dance schools in the US because I thought it would be useful for people to know where they are. Many times, the public at large is completely unaware of the existence of such schools in the area. This would serve the local community as well as the Indian community. I hope fellow Wikipedians don't mind. --TxLSR 04:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hi, Water Fish and Rrjanbiah. I do not understand why you add external links to other Wikipedia articles but at the same time you are only so good as to indiscriminately erase all external links from the Bharatanatyam article.

I personally added the Mudras.

    • It has nothing to with 'advertising'
    • It has nothing to do with Medha Hari and your hatred towards her

I added the link because most mudras on that site are given short descriptions and photos.

If you continue to erase all the external links indiscriminately (that's vandalism), I will complain to the admins.

Bharata natyam 14:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, 219.65.124.*** also called as User:Geosammie, also called as User:Serge56 also called as User:RalphWWW. It is incredible to make three user pages within a span of 24 hours. People in the wikipedia knows how vandals operate. One is allowed to have multiple id but not to lobby for their own views or advertisement.

By definition, linking to webpages devoted to the promotion of a single dancer is spam. It is surely not helpful and is definitely advertisement. Moreover the wikipedia gives bibliography to textbooks dealing with topics. These Reference textbooks are not spam, they are treatise on a subject.

listing on open directory or Looksmart page or Google and professional directories like Narthaki.com, can be done, it is never taken as a criterion to validate authenticity or to be listed on an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is well aware of such acts by people to legitimise their personal views.

Besides being featured 3 or more times in a newspaper or television is not a criterion to be on an encyclopedia. Many major newspapers and TV channels throughout the world promote young dancers by writing and presenting about them more than one time. if one was to make encyclopedia article about all of them, then they do not even qualify half as much as the virtuosos from conservatories around the world. But wikipedia does not entertain articles even about those virtuosos from great universities.

Medha Hari is probably a young dancer, and definitely not a major dancer. If that is enough criterion to be written about on the wikipedia, then in that case every music student in Julliard School and music conservatories and ballets would have to be written about, and that is definitely not meant for the wikipedia. Water Fish 06:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Deleting other users' comments is inappropriate.

Re: "linking to webpages devoted to the promotion of a single dancer is spam"

I guess it is not "promotion": the first link gives an extended overview of the subject matter, and the second link provides the free video illustrations to the article.

I welcome Water Fish to list other 13-year-old Bharatanatyam "virtuosos from conservatories around the world" if he cares to find any: with the details info on their style and online videos.

I would like to say that Water Fish is not familiar with the topic.

The classical dance column in the national newspaper the Hindu is similar to the Dance Magazine. Any 13-year-old dancer who is reviewed 3 times in the Dance Magazine would be worthy of being listed on Wikipedia. -- JuliaJ 09:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

says who?? says who?? says who??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-25t23:47:41z (UTC)

There are several or should I say numerous young people far younger than age of 13 who are virtuosos. A lot of the students in Julliard School are below 8 and 9 years old. Several articles about these kids come in the New York Times and other prominent newspapers around the world. To write article in an encyclopedia about a person, the person has not only to be a virtuoso but also stand the test of time. That is the reason one does not find articles written about just anybody who is famous. An encyclopedia article is written about a person who retains brilliance over a long time. If a young talent lasts for several decades with the same brilliance then an article could be written about that person. Just being a prodigy does not qualify. One needs to retain that virtuosity for decades before receiving lasting acclaim.

The wikipedia has artilce about prodigies who retained brilliance over decades. Violinists like Yehudi Menuhin were prodigies. Infact Yehudi Menuhin gave his first performance when he was 7 years old. But his entry into an encyclopedia was made only after several decades of continious performance. Water Fish 11:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Promoting young artists is good but refering to them as iconic dancers is Pov. If a picture of ones close ones is put up then it should only be described as a dancer without giving name and without presenting that person as a prominent artist, because that comes about after decades of consistent brilliance. Water Fish 11:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • It is disputable whether "decades of consistent brilliance" are required for one to be recognized as a virtuoso and a prominent dancer. Dancers, after the "decades of consistent brilliance", usually leave the stage, and can no longer be referred to as dancers but as dance teachers and "past celebrities".
    • You cannot compare western ballet dancers with Bharatanatyam dancers. Bharatanatyam is a spiritual discipline, and has nothing to do with ballet, frankly speaking.
    • As for "a prominent artist", one has to look at the list of the artiste's awards, performances, and public recognition in general. If nobody can recognize the name of Yehudi Menuhin in India, likewise, very few may be familiar with the names of the Indian Bharatanatyam prominent artistes.
      • says who?? says who?? says who?? ...Medha Hari is not well known even in India. why well known, she is not even known as an artist. 99 out of 100 people wouldnt even have heard her name...this is nothing by cheap and blatant advertisement—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.232.187 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-26t03:52:58z (UTC)
Regarding "99 out of 100 people wouldnt even have heard her name", I have to say that 9 of 16 people whom I know know some things about Bharatanatyam DO KNOW MEDHA HARI as an excellent dancer. Of course, if by those "99 out of 100 people" was meant a group of Texas cowboys who spent most of their lives in bars...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prabhujee (talk • contribs) 2006-02-16t05:03:05z (UTC)


Thegist 04:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Headline text

Headline text

Headline text

Comments moved from WP:RFPP

Under attack from users Water Fish and Rrjanbiah who indiscriminately erase (but do not add anything) all external links section. The external links contain highly relevant, unique and valuable resources (text, photo and web video). ----Bharata natyam 20:27, 15 Nov 2004

The so called Bharatanatyam external links and Bharatanatyam resources are advertisement and partisan promotion of a dancer named Medha Hari. Such spam cannot be used as a link in the wikipedia. The wikipedia is not a platform for advertisement and promotions. The purpose of these links is to promote the sales of cds and a young performer who is not even a major dancer.

the inward links to page Medha hari has probably been created by the same author, it is very easy to create several links to a spam on the wikipedia. One should not be deceived by them.

the user id User:RalphWWW, User:Geosammie, User:Serge56 User:JuliaJ, User:Thegist, User:Bharata natyam were all created since 13th november 2004. It seems they are all created by the same person who has done considerable vandalism from 219.65.124.***;

By definition, linking to webpages devoted to the promotion of a single dancer is spam. It is surely not helpful and is definitely advertisement. Moreover the wikipedia gives bibliography to textbooks dealing with topics. These Reference textbooks are not spam, they are treatise on a subject.

listing on open directory or Looksmart page or Google and professional directories like Narthaki.com, can be done, it is never taken as a criterion to validate authenticity or to be listed on an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is well aware of such acts by people to legitimise their personal views. Water Fish 19:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) 

   Rrjanbiah/Water Fish,
   why do you delete wholesale the whole secion of the external links? Most of these links 
   have nothing to do with Medha Hari.    
   I personally added a link to the Mudra's web site that you erased.
        So, what is the point?
   The point is that Rrjanbiah-Water Fish erases everything wholesale. 
   Myself, I never 'deleted the reference texts'.
   
   Bharata natyam 02:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey, User:Water Fish,User:Rrjanbiah did you realize that 13th november was because normal people, who work on weekdays, may like to browse the Web on weekends????

Serge56 04:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Graphics

Oh, my dear! Does anybody know when Rrjanbiah is going learn how to insert a picture without distorting the aspect ratio so that the picture looks rather ugly? :-)

Or is he doing it on purpose?

Does anybody find the other image (screenshot of thumbnails) to be appropriate here?

I need a big magnifying glass to see anything!

Cheers!

217.172.70.182 13:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey,
I edited this page, Medha Hari's picture is on this once, but I put photos of some well known dancers including Mahalakshmi and G.Narerndran.
gitac2s— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanyamanoj (talk • contribs) 2005-12-04t04:14:06z (UTC)


DOES ANYONE HAVE PICTURES OF HASTA MUDRAS TO POST? IT WILL BE VERY VALUABLE FOR ANYONE JUST STARTING TO LEARN DANCE. --TxLSR 04:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

The author is blatantly sticking to his cooked up theories and more cheeky, is accusing me of vandalism. I am new to wiki and didnt know of the talk page when i made my first few edits. Later I have discussed my concerns on the talk page too...but have met with stubborn silence. Hence tagging this page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.232.187 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-26t03:59:29z (UTC)

Issue being discussed

  • the author provides spurious 'proof' in the name of two links to advance his baseless argument tha BN originated in TN. my concerns vis a vis this so called 'proof' or links which supposedly 'seal' the deal are somewhere below on this page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.232.187 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-26t04:03:54z (UTC)

VANDALISM!!!

STOP IT!!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! ****PROVE**** TO ME BN ORIGINATED IN TN...I DONT CARE FOR "ALL THE BOOKS" U READ!!! THE LINK YOU HAVE GIVEN IS BULLSHIT!!! YES BULLSHIT!!! WIKI IS NOT YOUR PRIVATE BATHROOM TO ATTRIBUTE EVERYTHING THAT IS GOOD TO TAMIL/TAMILIANS/TAMILNADU!!!

THE LINK THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN AND WHICH YOU SAY 'SEALS' THE MATTER, DOESNT SPEAK A WORD ABOUT BN'S ORIGINS!!! I AM REVERTING THIS AND IF YOU TELL ME ITS VANDALISM AM GOING TO THE ADMINS!!!

WHEN I CHANGED IT THE FIRS TIME U SAID I HAVE TO DISCUSS IT IN THE TALK PAGE BEFORE I REVERT....THEN I CAME AND POSTED IN THE TALK PAGE TOO. NO REPLY FROM YOU...THEN I CHANGED THE ARTICLE AND YOU COME AND TELL ME ITS VANDALISM!!! GO TAKE A JUMP!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.232.187 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-25t10:14:59z (UTC)

Neutral pov

I'm going to work on moving this article to a neutral point of view. Any help is appreciated. Cribananda 23:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It IS from Tamil Nadu and here are the links

I hope the bbc and The Hindu websites are proof enough, and that this will seal the controversy. Before reverting PLEASE CITE YOUR SOURCE. I'm getting tired of this...

http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mp/2003/06/25/stories/2003062500230100.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/features/2003/03/annapurna_dance_03.shtml#theorigin

Cribananda 07:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

like the other user says, the hindu article does not speak abou BN's origins at all. so dont cite that for reference. it does not mean anything.
as for the bbc article, it only talks about some Lord Shiva/cosmic dance legend/mythology. Legend and mythology isnt exactly history and is far from a verifiable fact. India is a land of a zillion legends and unending mythology....every state/city/town/village has its own legends. So dont confuse issues to suit your convenience.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-25t17:29:04z (UTC)
also the bbc article only says that the original manual is *NOW* in tanjore. it doesnt mean it was written in tanjore. and even if a manual is written in tanjore doesnt mean the art form should have originated there. and there is not way to say if that was the only copy of the manual that ever was written or existed...several such manuals might have been written in different places across india and they might just have been lost.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-25t17:32:20z (UTC)
Remove that claim. if you persist with your unsubstantiated claims that will give the licence to anybody to make any unsubstantiated claims...and when they do that if you complain of vandalism, that i should say is cheeky...not to mention, juvenile.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-25t17:29:04z (UTC)

Bharatanatyam is real. Anyone in south india and sri lanka can tell this.

It is very famous. I cannot cite sources as it is a local tradition, If anyone feels it is a hoax,they should come to south india. Ask anyone from south india ,they would have seen bharathanatyam. It is a very difficult dance to perform. Pojojo 05:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Degree Program in Bharatanatyam?

A degree programme for Indian dance (Bharatanatyam) has been created by the Alagappa Performing Arts Academy (APAA) of California, USA and the Alagappa University, Karaikudi, India. The courses offered include: Certificate in Bharatanatyam (one-year programme), Associate Degree in Bharatanatyam (Two-year programme), Diploma in Bharatanatyam (three-year programme) and B.A. degree in Bharatanatyam (four-year programme). For more info, contact: info@alagappaarts.com,More info on the degree programme is available at http://www.bharathanatyamonline.com.

This sounds a LOT like an advertisement for the college that offers a degree in Bharatanatyam. I propose changing the section to simply say "The popularity of Bharatanatyam is evident from the fact that some universities even offer full degree programs in it."Adityan 18:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to request the Alagappa Performing Arts Academy to stop their commerical spam on Wikipedia. Prabhujee 04:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slapping a hoax tag on a page is not an appropriate action because you disagree with one statement on it

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.0.184.11 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-06t01:33:53z (UTC)

Languages Used

bharatanatya is performed to karnatic(karnataka) music...and karnatic music was formulated and given a shape/grammar/syntax by the great Kannada saint and Father of Indian Classical Music, Shri. Puranadara Dasa...and Purandara Dasa composed *solely* in Kannada....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.232.187 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-09t08:18:18z (UTC)

STOP MAKING BASELESS CLAIMS IN FAVOUR OF TAMIL...

while i do not disagree that tamil is also one of the languages used in bharatanatya, the claim that tamil is the language that is 'predominantly' used is probablly incorrect!! Avoid making incorrect claims... (Provide citations as needed)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.97.37 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-22t15:56:35z (UTC)

I guess anyone would like to take credit for this ancient art

For the past 20 years i always taught Bharatanatyam was one of Thamils greatest cultural contribution to Indian culture. I guess nationalism,or better southern nationalism, wins.

http://www.tamilnation.org/culture/dance/index.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.214.94 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-07t10:27:49z (UTC)

My reverts

I would like to know what commends this image to its partisans. Some poster painter's garish folly, it arguably depicts an acrobat rather than a dancer. Look at the graceless contortion of the right leg. Is there any Bharatanatyam bangima which requires the knee to be placed on the ground and the foot raised into the air?? Such crap. Please do not revert. ImpuMozhi 12:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ImpuMozhi, regarding Bharatanatyam bangima, I would like to note that this particular image is valuable as it illustrates the particularities of the Mellatur (Mangudi) style of Bharatanatyam. You cannot expect everyone to display the Kalakshetra-style postures.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SadirAttam (talk • contribs) 2006-05-23t00:56:46z (UTC)
Far too many images, looks like spamming of one URL; I've removed the majority -- Samir धर्म 00:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bharata Natayam and Tamil Nadu

Is there a reason why you keep taking Tamil Nadu out of this article? Kuchipuddi is the dance of Andra Pradesh, Mohiniattam and Katha Kali are the dances of Kerala, and Bharata Natayam is the dance of Tamil Nadu. Is that so hard to comprehend? All the description of the other Classical dances of India explain what state it is from. You make it seem like it is an offence to post that its origins have its roots from Tamil Nadu. Come on now... Wiki Raja 00:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a list of Classical dances of India which mention the state it came from.


Kathakali (Malayalam:കഥകളി ) is a form of Indian dance-drama. It originated in the Indian state of Kerala during the [17th]
century C.E.

Kuchipudi (కుచిపుడి) is a classical dance form from Andhra Pradesh, a state of South India.

Manipuri dance is one of the major Indian classical dance forms. It originates from Manipur, a state in north-eastern India

Mohiniaattam (also spelled as mohiniattam or mohiniyattam; Malayalam: മോഹിനിയാട്ടം) is a traditional South Indian dance form from
Kerala, India.

Odissi The classical dance style of Orissa - the land of temples, the land of sculptures.

Sattriya dance or Sattriya Nritya is one among the eight principal classical dance traditions of India. The others are
Bharatanatyam, Kathakali, Mohini Attam, Kuchipudi, Odissi, Kathak and Manipuri. The dance has its origin in Assam.

Please keep POVs (points of views) outside of wikipedia. Thank you.

Regarding Tamil and Sanskrit in Bharata Natyam

In the first place I do not know why the languages would have to be reverted. Secondly, Tamil was put before Sanskrit on the page since it is the indiguous language of Tamil Nadu. Sanskrit was later introduced to Southern India and is not indigenous to the region. At the same token of resepect, I am in no way putting Sanskrit down since it is a classical language. Much Regards.

Wiki Raja 03:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-arranged the languages as per English alphabetical order.Pls see Carnatic Music for the order in which scripts are written.-Bharatveer 04:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There have been some disputes between those who are against or for Tamil. Also, there have been a couple of people going to the extent to remove the Tamil script and even the place name of Tamil Nadu off this page. But, since you have stated that you are by arranging the scripts in alphabetical order and if that is a wikipedia procedure, then that is fine by me. By the way, please take a look at Kathakali and Mohiniaattam. I have added Sanskrit to both those pages too. Regards.

Wiki Raja 05:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated.-Bharatveer 06:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnatic Music is India-wide, Bharatanatyam is not. --Masatran 03:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring of quotes from original texts (Abhinayadarpanam, etc)

I am amazed that the Vandals of Wikipedia believe that they have the right to alter the origital texts. If a text mentions it that a dancer should "have round breasts" (and not "pendant breasts"), no vandals have the right to edit it even if their wives have drooping breasts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natyadharmi (talk • contribs) 2006-12-14t02:13:18z (UTC)

If you do not want this text altered by other users, then please quote the source where you got the information which includes that a dancer should "have well rounded breasts" otherwise this will be taken as a perverted form of Vandalism. Also, please refrain from personal attacks as per Wikipedia policy. Thank you. -- Wiki Raja 03:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaksagana: Kannada Classical Dance

Hello all,

I have just created a page for the Kannada Classical Dance called Yaksagana. Please feel free to contribute more to that page. Also added to Bharatanatyam page in the See Also section are the Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam classical dances. Thank you.

Wiki Raja 07:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaksagana is not Dance It is more like Drama which involves some kind of Dance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.95.214.18 (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Please note that Wikipedia articles should not link to:

  1. personal websites, e.g. sites with ~user in the URL
  2. sites hosted on free hosting services such as geocities
  3. commercial sites which sell any product, including videos, even if they have free trailers

I ask SAntap to please stop reverting my edits and FIND BETTER EXTERNAL LINKS!!! A Ramachandran 11:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since multiple editors keep restoring commercial and other inappropriate links, I've brought the situation to the attention of WikiProject Spam here. Please note that removing the tag while the isssue is still under dispute is vandalism. Also note that calling my good faith attempts to remove inappropriate links "vandalism" is a violation of the no personal attacks policy. Any further actions of this sort will result in warnings and reports, potentially leading to blocks. Don't do it. A Ramachandran 15:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Deleting inappropriate links in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines is never a personal attack and never vandalism. Making false accusations of either, however, can get users sanctioned.
  • A Ramachandran has removed a number of inappropriate links. A few of the most flagrant examples:
    • Links to video stores -- free trailers are never a reason to do this.
    • Links to dancers' promotional pages
    • A link to webvoter.net -- for Pete's sake, this is an encyclopedia.
    • One site accused of copyright violations by another editor: site.voila.fr/bharatanatyam-dance
Take a look at some of Wikipedia's rules.
A better place for many of these links is the Open Directory Project (a.k.a. Dmoz]). This article is already linked to the appropriate Dmoz page. Links to Dmoz are strongly encouraged as an alternative to adding lots of inapprpriate links to Wikipedia; see "What should be linked" for more about this.
Please let A Ramachandran and other WikiProject Spam volunteers continue their work unhindered. --A. B. (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I believe that, as long as a link is VALUABLE (i.e. highly relevant and providing useful additional info) and IS NOT commercial (i.e. they don't sell anything), it does not matter if the link is hosted on a free server or paid, geocities on aol. It is ridiculous!
Please stop the covering the vandalism with a pretext of fighting "spam"!
Bilylivka 03:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It is outrageous that some idiots think they can use "for Pete's sake, this is an encyclopedia" as a valid argument to continue their vandalism!!!
Bilylivka 03:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bilylivka, you are absolutely right -- were I vandalizing, "for Pete's sake, this is an encyclopedia" would be a pretty poor argument for doing so!
For that matter, it wasn't a very good argument for deleting the webvoter.net link either, so it's a good thing I also cited the policies and guidelines above very extensively. I know you're brand-new today to Wikipedia, so you may wish to read them closely, especially the External Links Guideline. Once you've read over them, I think you'll understand why these links don't meet the rules.
In the meantime, know that folks take vandalism and accusations of vandalism very seriously on Wikipedia -- here's what the No Personal Attacks Policy says:
  • "A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack if it's concerned with clear vandalism, although otherwise it is. "Vandalism" imputes bad intentions and bad motives to the person accused. If the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for what is and isn't vandalism."
Also: once in a while calling another editor such as myself an "idiot" is probably not officially a "personal attack" but it is frowned upon. (As it happens, I've occasionally been called an idiot by colleagues, so at least you have some company.)
Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you will enjoy editing here. Regards, --A. B. (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear A.B. & Ramachandran, Please read the External Links Guideline once again. I do not know if you misinterpret them intentionally or unintentionally (maybe you do not understand the English language well?). Toko99 02:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See reply on your talk page. Why don't you respond below where the urls are reasons why they are inappropriate are listed? If you understand better than we do, then please explain for each URL you want to include why it is not commercial, etc.? A Ramachandran 02:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, A Ramachandran & A.B.! :-) I do not understand why you approve one geocities link but are so much against in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html . This page, indeed, cannot be treated as "personal" as has nothing to do with Medha Hari (no links to her, etc.).
Wikisvenska 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For starters the website is not universally accessible and contains rich media, which not everyone can access. The fact that te whole thing is littered with images doesn't help things - I have a fast connection, good computer, and it froze my browser while loading. Sfacets 02:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisvenska, you raised some of the same questions below as well. I will answer you there. --A. B. (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of standard appendices

There seems to be some confusion and edit warring going on over the order of appendices in this article. Per Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions, the order should be:

  1. Quotations (deprecated)
  2. See also
  3. Notes
  4. References (or combined with "Notes" into Notes and references)
  5. Further reading (or Bibliography)
  6. External links

I have corrected the article to follow the guideline. Further discussion here is welcome, of course. -- Satori Son 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this once again. The above policy is unambiguous and is to be followed on all articles. -- Satori Son 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POVs, SPAM, and Vandalsim

As a reminder to all, please refrain from posting POVs and SPAM on this site. This can also consistute to vandalism. Furthermore there has been sock puppetry going on in this section. Sock puppetry is when a user uses multiple usernames to vandalize this site. The recent actions of these particular users have been reported to Administration. As per procedure I will not name the users on this talk page. Thank you.

Wiki Raja 04:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image use policy

Hi. I just removed two images with digital watermarks:

Perhaps there are other images without watermarks in Wikipedia's image files that could be used here. --A. B. (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These images are excellent, and the watermarks ARE acceptable on Wiki.
Bilylivka 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither you nor I are the decision-makers as to what's acceptable in this case -- Wikipedia policy is. Here's what Wikipedia's Image Use Policy says:
  • "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."
  • "Also, user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page."
--A. B. (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, they really are nice images and I was sorry to delete them -- perhaps someone can see if the original uploaders Anitaa (Image:Bharatanatyam_3.jpg) and Bharatanatyam1 (Image:bharatanatyam_17.jpg) would be willing to make available copies without watermarks. --A. B. (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion of links

FYI, the kalakendra.com site whose links so many editors here have been so often deleting has been proposed for blacklisting WikiMedia-wide -- all languages and all projects (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc.). See m:Talk:Spam blacklist#kalakendra.com. --A. B. (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalakendra.com is now blacklisted.[2][3] This list is publicly accessible and (depending on whom you believe) rumored by some to be used as an input by some search engines in figuring out their own blacklists of spamdexers. --A. B. (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remaining links:
  • in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam-bharathanatyam-bharata-natyam-bharatnatyam-video-dvd.html
  • in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html
    • in.geocities.com/medhahari/ is a promotional site for the dancer Medha Hari. Internal wikilinks to Medha Hari are allowed depending on circumstances. One link to her external web site from her article is OK. In most cases, the External Links Guideline prohibits links from other articles
      • not needed here; also dmoz.org links to multiple dancers' web pages and multiple sources of streaming videos
  • http://www.geocities.com/study_bharatanatyam_online/learn_bharata_natyam_bharatnatyam_bharathanatyam_courses.html
    • Self-published but may meet Reliable Sources Guideline given author's apparent "authority":
      • "Prof. R.Raju teaches at the School of Performing Arts, University of Pondicherry, and was a teacher in the Drama Department of Tamil University, Thanjavur. He is a well-known authority in the field of the classical Indian dance."
        • Current list of these links within Wikipedia -- none besides this article
          • Only external links from this page are to sridevinrithyalaya.org -- what type of organization is this?
            • Comments? (Please place them after this heavily indented and bulleted post of mine so we don't get confused as to who's saying what)
  • http://www.sridevinrithyalaya.org/video.html
    • Links to Sri Devi Nrithyalaya -- what type of organization is this? Is this an appropriate link?
      • Current list of these links within Wikipedia 53 at this time (most of them images and most of the images watermarked)
        • Comments? (Please place them after this heavily indented and bulleted post of mine so we don't get confused as to who's saying what)
  • http://www.tamilnation.org/culture/dance/index.htm
    • Is tamilnation.org an appropriate link?
      • Current list of these links within Wikipedia 437 at this time
        • Opinions? (Please place them after this heavily indented and bulleted post of mine so we don't get confused as to who's saying what)
--A. B. (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (comment further edited by --A. B. (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]


For your kind information, there is NO MENTION OF and NO LINKS TO Medha Hari on in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html
Don't be blind.
Toko99 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Toko99, I see you're brand-new to editing Wikipedia. Welcome.
I may well be blind as you put it, but let's look anyway at the Guideline and some of the links you just added:
  • in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html Bharata natyam
    • Your comment: "NO MENTION OF and NO LINKS TO Medha Hari on in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html"
      • Interesting page: over 235 links are embedded in the source code that a search engine sees. Check these out:
        • in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam-bharata-natyam-bharatnatyam-bharathanatyam-pictures.html
        • in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharata-natyam-bharathanatyam-bharatanatyam-bharatnatyam-photos.html
        • in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharata-natyam-bharathanatyam-bharatanatyam-bharatnatyam-videos.html
        • in.geocities.com/medhahari/index.html
  • http://anigat.coolinc.info/indian-dance/Bharatanatyam_DVD_trailers_Indian_Dance_video_clips_Bharata_Natyam_Bharatnatyam.html
    • As discussed previously, this is tied to the jayq.org DVD sales business. There's nothing dishonorable about selling DVDs, but it does not fit the Guideline you so forcefully told me to read:
      • "Dear A.B. & Ramachandran, Please read the External Links Guideline once again. I do not know if you misinterpret them intentionally or unintentionally (maybe you do not understand the English language well?)"
        • [[WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided|"Links normally to be avoided" -- "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services."
  • Finally, I note that we have a strong policy of civility here. I have a pretty thick skin, but you'll find others may not react as blandly to comments such as "maybe you do not understand the English language well".
Cheers, --A. B. (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except for some image files and the Medha Hari article, in.geocities.com/medhahari/ links have been removed from all the other articles per WP:EL:
Please do not reinsert them in these articles. Thank you, --A. B. (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone give a proper answer to my question before reverting???? Wikisvenska 02:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being unsatisfied with an answer is no reason to revert - please have a look at prior discussion as well as previous reverts, you will see that you are making exactly the same reverts as another user, I'm willing to assume good faith, but wait for a discussion to develop before reverting, thanks Sfacets 02:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


1. Wikisvenska, I already addressed the issue of in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html a day or two ago. Over 235 links are embedded in the source code that a search engine sees. Check these out:

  • in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam-bharata-natyam-bharatnatyam-bharathanatyam-pictures.html
  • in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharata-natyam-bharathanatyam-bharatanatyam-bharatnatyam-photos.html
  • in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharata-natyam-bharathanatyam-bharatanatyam-bharatnatyam-videos.html
  • in.geocities.com/medhahari/index.html

2. You also raised concerns about the link to Dr. Raju's page at:

I specifically addressed this the other day and included a link to the relevant Wikipedia guideline:
"--A. B. (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (comment further edited by --A. B. (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC))"
Let us know your thoughts about Dr. Raju's link after you review the above.

3. Partisans of in.geocities.com/medhahari have never explained why they always change the dmoz.org link to exclude lists of links to other sources of DVDs and trailers. They substitute a link to a directory of dancers only. You did it yourself, changing

to the narrower category of dancers only:

Why? What's your reasoning? The broader category still includes all the dancers of the narrower category -- so why are you doing this?
--A. B. (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medha Hari spam on Wikipedia

Too many indents above, so dont know who's replying to whom. But I get the drift of the conversation and here are my views. This Medha Hari thing and all thos photographs of literal non entities on the page is apalling. This is spam, blatant advertisement and vanity all rolled into one. To the original poster - did you say that this sridevinerithralaya.org site has been successfully blacklistted on wiki? If so, can I remove all those ugly pictures of those non entities that are taking wikipedia and its readers for a ride? I just dont want to be reported for vandalism when I remove all of them en masse. Sarvagnya 05:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medha Hari sites were just blacklisted an hour or so ago. Here's the blacklist request:
sridevinethralaya.org has not been blacklisted. (Should it be?)
I'm just the spam cleanup guy here -- I leave editorial decisions including image selection to others. --A. B. (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for the clarification. But I have a very important question about this article and Wikipedia in general. My understanding and opinion is that every bit or byte invested on the article page should be notable and encyclopedic. My concerns are regarding the half dozen pics on the article page. All of them seem to come from sridevinerithralaya.org. The problem here is that the dancers in the pics are literally 'nobodies' in the field. One of the pics is clearly from some college fest or something! All of them are amateurs and nobody knows their credentials. Having their pics on the article page dedicated to this art may mislead ignorant readers into thinking that they are somehow representative of the art. Which they are not. While many wiki laws and guidelines are there to regulate prose content, can nothing be done about the pictures? Please throw some light on this. Sarvagnya 05:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarvagnya! I don't see "half a dozen pictures" here. Even if there were any, it is an article on Bharatanatyam, and not on hydrocarbons, and hence the need for illustrations, don't you think? I do agree with you that "the pics are literally 'nobodies' in the field", however, don't you agree that the "seniors" (e.g. Padma Subramaniam) would look far uglier, as they cannot even lift their legs? :-) OK, why don't you post Alarmel Valli's picture, for a variety? Maybe, Urmila Sathyanarayans? As for the rest.... You know, after watching those old fat ladies posing as "notable Bharatanatyam exponents", I much prefer to see SriDeviNrithyalaya's dancers pictures! Sethumadhavan33 12:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say Medha Hari sites were blacklisted. Does that include medha.org also? If so, I will be removing a picture taken from that site and plastered on the article page. Sarvagnya 05:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"While many wiki laws and guidelines are there to regulate prose content, can nothing be done about the pictures? Please throw some light on this."
  • See WP:BOLD -- go for it. I appreciate your work on this.
--A. B. (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the reasons how these sites violate any of Wikipedia's policies. Please quote clearly. Bharathathatha 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The article now begins with warning against adding "possibly inappropiate external link to an article". After spending quite a while scrutinizing this discussion page, I fail to see how some of the links, such as the Bharatanatyam page on M.Hari's web site, can ever be "inappropriate". I guess that some over-zealous "spam-fighters" should temper down their zeal and cool down. Jag Ju 10:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking & vandalism of valid external links

Please do not remove Tamilnation.org links as there is no restriction anywhere. What is written in the diff you have given. Its not a community consensus proceedings. Moreover, the admin Blnguyen didn't say a word about Tamilnation.org. Provide 'relevant' diffs before you proceed and blank the material Praveen 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:EL. The link provided is a research paper and has nothing to do with the article. The paper was published 40 years ago, contains original research and biased view of the author. Linking such articles either as a source or external link is against wikipedia policies. Thanks Gnanapiti 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right; that article contains original research about Bharathanatyam. Wikipedia doesn't allow its users to conduct OR not all the people in the world for God's sake. If thats the case, we can not have any article on relativity since its OR. :)))) I can't believe this :) Praveen 19:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all, but an age old "research" paper from a blacklisted site is certainly OR. And please learn to read the diffs properly before accusing someone of lying. Thanks Gnanapiti 19:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Age does not matter here. The special theory of relativity paper is even older. huh. BTW: regarding diff, see my reply below. Praveen 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not accuse some website without proof. Show me proof of your 'blacklist' comment. And, don't show me an user's opinion in a diff. Praveen 19:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


To Praveen:
Have you seen the diff I have provided?
It clearly says as below:
I hope this stops the revert war and addition of the same external link again. - KNM Talk 19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You provided this link before. Now you changed it. Anyways, the discussion you provided is not a community consensus; its merely one user's view point. Nothing more nothing less. There is no ban on tamilnet website itself let alone tamilnation.org. Moreover, the research paper is not related to LTTE which was the subject of your diff. I will also find the same paper from library and provide link. Praveen 19:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saravagina and KNM: If it's not broke, don't fix it. I have left your Yakshagana article alone. I advice you guys to do the same for this article. Wiki Raja 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your Yakshagana article? What are you talking about Wiki Raja? Please see WP:OWN. You really need to read some Wiki policies, atleast from now on. I just removed irrelevant external links according to WP:EL, in order to improve article. Again, please see WP:AGF. The link provided doesn't qualify to be an external link due to it's biased nature and irrelevancy to the article. Thanks Gnanapiti 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but that message was or Sarvagnya and KNM. Why are you answering? Also, it is very strange during mutliple reverts how the three of you take turns. Books along with their page numbers are included for the referenced sources. If you do not consider that proper sourcing, then what is? Your guys POV, simple saying things without providing any references, making up stories as one goes? I have had enough of your guys prejudistic antics. Wiki Raja 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you disputing? Encyclopedia Brintannica?? thats insane. Please write which sources are disputed before putting up the tags. Praveen 21:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some minds are so twisted that they will literally dispute the sky being blue, and the grass being green. Wiki Raja 21:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another basic Wikipedia policy for Wiki Raja - WP:VERIFY. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Gnanapiti 21:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gnanapiti, please see this. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reported to WP:AN. see here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Praveen pillay (talk • contribs) 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Gnanapiti, you are contradicting yourself. I have provided verifyalbe source from the following texts:
  • International Tamil Language Foundation (2000). The Handbook of Tamil Culture and Heritiage. Chicago: International Tamil Language Foundation, p. 1201.
  • Kilger, George (1993). Bharata Natyam in Cultural Perspective. New Delhi: Manohar American Institute of Indian Studies, p. 2.
  • Nayagam, X.S. Thani (1970). Tamil Culture and Civilization. London: Asia Publishing House, pp. 120-121.
It seems that you guys have deliberately removed them which constitutes to vandalism. Another baisc Wikipedia policy for Gnanapiti, Sarvnagya, and KNM - WP:VAN. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Wiki Raja 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed them? When? What? Where? Why? How? Gnanapiti 21:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop playing innocent. Wiki Raja 22:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Man this is hilarious. :D Show me where anyone has removed your references. Give me the diff.Gnanapiti 22:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys have done so here, here, here, and here just in case you all have forgotten. Wiki Raja 22:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone get caught with their hand in the cookie jar? Wiki Raja 02:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, why not stop all these stupid altercations and restore all the relevant external links that really provide the expanded info on Bharatanatyam? Or will it harm someone's pseudo-intellectual pride if he sees, for example, http://in.geocities.com /medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html in the external links??? Mahayogini 14:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to cite material from Tamilnation

The material from Tamilnation is not original material by anyone associated with Tamilnation. It is paper publshed in a conference where peer reviewed paper are presented by reputable authors of the field. Wiki cite has a way tocite such material that is not directly available.

Option 1

ref cite web

Option 2

Forget about the link itself, simply quote from the published paper from the conference. This is more acceptable as long as the material is used for main body of the material.

This is how salvagable material from otherwise non RS sources are used in Wikipedia. RaveenS 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilnation.org is also a virtual library with sources from books, in some cases the full version of particular books are available on that site. Also, there are sources from various newspapers and media around the world on TamilNation. Wiki Raja 22:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute, protection

I see that disputes over this have escalated to the point of article protection, which seems rather disproportionate to the subject. May I suggest that everybody cool off a bit and remember that the world will not be made or broken by Wikipedia's article on a classical dance form.

In general, in a controversial matter we should attempt to cite the differing views, attribute them appropriately, give them "column inches" roughly in proportion to their respective acceptance among scholars, and make sure that our narrative voice does not take a stance on the matter.

That said, it would probably be useful in moving matters forward if someone would attempt a neutral statement of what is currently in dispute, because the discussion above seems to me to shed more heat than light. - Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute stems from following issues.
1. Removal of cited material along with non-cited material which resulted in edit-war [4][5].
2. The questioning of sources for origin of bharathanatyam. The sources are a) Encyclopedia Britannica website. b) The Handbook of Tamil Culture and Heritage.
3. Removal of external link which pointed to a research paper hosted by tamilnation.org website. Praveen 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Jmabel is right that we need a neutral statement here: why not simply state "from South India", rather than "Tamil Nadu"?

My quick impressions, for what they may be worth:

  1. . I would think that the Kilger book should be perfectly citable for what it says. Does the book explicitly tie the dance in question to Bharatanatyam or any other folk or classical form?
  2. . a) The Britannica website is usually a poor choice of source for anything other than dates. They are doubtless an excellent site, but, in general, encyclopedias shouldn't merely cite other general encyclopedias, and in particular, we should be careful about drawing any content beyond facts in the narrowest sense (dates, for example) from what is, in many respects, a rival: we should be rigorously scrupulous about their intellectual property rights, well beyond what is required by the law. b) I know nothing about The Handbook of Tamil Culture and Heritage.
  3. . As I understand it, tamilnation.org would not, itself, be a particularly trustworthy source. What is the publication history of the research paper? Has it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal? If so, it should be citable; someone having an online copy is relevant only in terms of providing a convenience link.

- Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.... please add this template at the bottom of the page. The page is currently locked. Template:{{{Indian classical dance}}} btw, this fight is ridiculous, unworthy of our community. Maddy 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What community? Wiki Raja 05:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding template. - Jmabel | Talk 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) The Britannica website is usually a poor choice of source for anything other than dates. They are doubtless an excellent site, but, in general, encyclopedias shouldn't merely cite other general encyclopedias, and in particular, we should be careful about drawing any content beyond facts in the narrowest sense (dates, for example) from what is, in many respects, a rival: we should be rigorously scrupulous about their intellectual property rights, well beyond what is required by the law. b) I know nothing about The Handbook of Tamil Culture and Heritage.
I have used encyclopedia Britannica as reference since it unequivocally states the origin of bharathanatyam as 'Tamilnadu'. This issue of origin was the major reason for the past edit wars. Since EB is a respectable source, I used it to reinforce the fact in contention. There is no question of copy right here. Praveen 15:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some images

When people are done arguing and the article is unlocked, someone may want to use one of the photos I've placed at commons:Chitra Visweswaran. I won't be watchlisting this, this is pretty far outside my usual areas of work; I had just looked in because I had taken the pictures. - Jmabel | Talk 21:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Chitra Visweswaran, I wonder if we should respect more the Natya Shastra's criteria of who is a dancer and who is not. Could you provide Chitra's earlier photos where she looks more or less in good shape? If you look at the other dance form articles here, for some reason they do not dare to put the out-of-shape dancers' photos there so that people would not laugh at some fat old matrons posing as "senior" ballet dancers, for example. Mahayogini 13:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

  • "Bharata Natyam is the subtle and sophisticated dance art of Tamil Nadu."[1]
  • "It is commonly believed that the name Bharata Natyam stands for Indian Dance. This misconception arises from the paramount status this classical dance style of Tamil Nadu has come to occupy in India and abroad. However, aficionados of the style point out that the term came into usage not more than about fifty years ago. Earlier, it had been referred to variously as sadir kacheri (sadir, dancer, kacheri, audience), chinnamelam (small assembly, as distinct from periyamelam, large conclacve—usually a musicl recital) or dasiattam, from the temple devadasis who performed it."[1]
  • "Actually the Bharata Natyam tradition of Tamilnadu does not limit itself to the solo dances we see generally performed by women. Even in Tamilnadu there survives to this day, albeit in an attenuated form, another variety of Bharata Natyam, which takes the shape of a ballet which is performed by men alone, and which is known as the Bhagabata Mela Nataka. In fact the Kuchipudi and the Bhagavata Mela Nataka both stem from the mother art, Bharata Natyam, and both have much in common in the matter of themes, technique and presentation."[2]
  • "The home of the type of dancing known as Bharata Natya is South India, more specifically the Madras presidency as it was called by the British, or Tamil Nad, as it is now known, the land of the Tamils. Tamil Nadu constitutes the major portion of southeast India. At various periods of history, Tamil kings have stretched their rule to the western coast, far north, and across the sea to the east. The tremendous commercial and religious expansion two thousand years ago, which gave all southeast Asia the stamp of Indian culture it still bears, stemmed first from private enthusiasm of the Tamils and later from the expansionistic courts of their kings. Tamil merchants, priests, warriors, dancers, and scholars spilled over geographical boundaries and, in expanding, shared their culture with vast home and overseas areas."[3]
  • "Among the Tamils of South India dance flourished. Dravidian religious fervor and artistic flair were responsible for this to a great extent. But the Tamils had another advantage. The geographical distance from the Muslim invaders, who began their conquest of India in the twelfth century, enabled them to maintain their culture. Safe from the artistically inimical influence of the Muslims, Bharata Natya prospered particularly in the Tanjore area of Tamil Nadu."[3]


References

  1. ^ a b Samson, Leela (1987). Rhythm in Joy: Classical Indian Dance Traditions. New Delhi: Lustre Press Pvt. Ltd. pp. p. 29. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  2. ^ Banerjee, Projesh (1983). Indian Ballet Dancing. New Jersey: Abhinav Publications. pp. p. 43. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  3. ^ a b Bowers, Faubion (1967). The Dance in India. New York: AMS Press, Inc. pp. pp. 13 & 15. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)


I have salvaged some useful information that was selectively blanked [[6]]. Praveen 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The status of this article

In my view, an important article like this should be in much better shape. Right now it is in a VERY BAD shape. The same with the Carnatic Music page. Some editors don't seem to appreciate the genuine contributions of Tamil culture and they are hell bent in discrediting its role in shaping the cultural history of south India. The parallel seminal contributions of Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam should be made, but why deny Tamil's role and evidences? Multiple views, if they exist, can be elegantly and truthfully expressed in an article without disrupting the information flow or the tone of the article. If there are neutral editors here, they should check out the archived carnatic music page to see who were all active in this heavy anti-tamil attitude and how articles get mangled by this behaviour. On the same score any neutral editor should go back and check Kannada-related pages like Hoysala etc. and see how peacefully they were developed. I would request my kannada-loving editors to be more constructive. I very well know that n-number of tangential comments can be made to outright dismiss these concerns, but I hope that some better sense will prevail. I'm truly concerned that a number of important culture-related pages of south India are ruined this way. Time is precious for everyone. Let there be some constructive and balanced approach. --Aadal 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if only some tamil users stopped carting cock and bull stories from kumari kandam and pavanar school we could actually make some progress on these articles. if only some tamil users would let go of their delusions that tamil and tamilians preceded dinosaurs and every other life form on earth, we could make some progress. if only some tamil users stopped foisting fantastic hoaxes like BN(and CM) is of tamil origin by citing blatantly partisan pamphlets handed out at some tamil convention or the work of some blatantly partisan author, we could make some progress. if only, some tamil users could stop seeing Bharatanatya and CM in silapp., when it could very well be Dappankuthu and Gaana pattu, we could make some progress. if only, if only, if only... huh. Sarvagnya 23:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarvagnya, you're actually proving how biased yo're! Whether you like it or not CM and BN are of Tamil origin and development, it is not a claim that Tamils are of pre-dinosaur origin. You're welcome to question anything, but if you believe that the tamil contributions to Carnatic Music (CM) and BN are "fatastic hoaxes", you've to prove them. The work Silappathikaram and Tevaram do speak eloquently of the classical dance and music. The very word 'arangERam' is from Silappathikaram (~4th-5th century work). I tell you frantkly, I can stop at this moment and I'm not interested in any edit wars with you. Truth can not be hidden and even if you try to block it for some time, you can not do it for ever. It is always a good thing to approach it honestly and with an open mind. So many india-related artilce are so well written and it is a proud fact, but some of the key articles like CM and BN are is such bad shape. I'm quite sure you can help to make it better.--Aadal 00:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Kilger book is not some pamphlet grade material projected as historical book (unlike the 'Kamaths). Praveen 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Para

I've moved the various alternative spelling variations and the Indic scripts to the footnote. The references are quite fine and they are actually from the already published sources and there is no need to further verify. This kind of tags can be added to any source. Reworded some of the sentences.--Aadal 00:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we remove the reference to Britannica?

To anyone who is familiar with Bharatanatyam, some statements like "Bharata-natya was originally performed exclusively by female temple dancers and was not brought to the stage for public performance until about 1930." sound obviously false. After all, it was Bharata Muni and his sons who first practised Natya, wasn't it? Natyawiki 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dravidian civilizations

Wiki Raja 10:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil, Tamilians, Tamil, Tamil, Tamil???

Today I had to delete the ridiculous instance of Tamilian stupidity: the original sentence was "The movements of an authentic Tamilians Bharatanatyam dancer"! What, nobody saw how stupid this sentence was? Show this sentence to any Tamilian Bharatanatyam dancer and they will laugh at you!

I admit that Tamil Nadu is nowadays de-facto a home of Bharatanatyam, and most Bharatanatyam dancers are actually Tamil, Chennai is the capital of Bharatanatyam, most contemporary compositions are in Tamil, etc., but I think some Tamilian contributors have gone too far in editing this article. Please stop or else I will ask all Telugu or Kannagis to vandalise it in their own way.

Krithii333 (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bharatanatyam&diff=next&oldid=186494068

Leave a Reply