Talk:Carnatic music: Difference between revisions

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

India: Music B‑class Mid‑importance

This 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian music workgroup (assessed as Top-importance).

	Carnatic music is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 27, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Archives

1 2 3 4

Due to the ongoing edit warring, I have full protected the article as-is to prevent further back and forth reverting by any party.

I see apparently productive discussion here on the talk page. If this were being done in the absence of the edit war, to generate a new consensus, all would be well. As is, it appears that a article protection to put water on the edit war fire is called for.

Please continue discussion here. Remember some of our key policies include be civil to each other, assume good faith, provide verifyable sources for controversial information and ensure that those sources are reliable, keep articles neutral point of view and don't unduly promote fringe or minority opinions or beliefs - try to balance the article to the consensus of wider reliable source works.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other actions have left the protection unnecessary, so I have reversed it now. Please try and work together and find consensus per the policies etc. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guideline reminder:

• Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user.
• Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history.
• Material not relevant to improving the article has been deleted (per the subsection #How to use article talk pages and #Others' comments). Continued violations may result in further blocks for Naadapriya. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it was warned by many editors deleting and moving sections on discussion page is a act of Vandalism. The section deleted is comments made by erachima regarding the vandalism of deleting a valid section and then initiating a RFC. An answer to the public comment is still needed here. The heading was an alert to editors, particularly new but not an attack on any editor.Naadapriya (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please follow talk page guidelines - you have been blocked once, and no other editor or administrator has since agreed that any vandalism has occurred. [1] If you continue to be disruptive, even via violating talk page guidelines, you may be reblocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop giving false warnings. Read on Admn user page about my blocking. Still the clarification particularly about your misleading information that lead to decision without reading the comments on edit summary is pending. Also the coincidence of a blocking immediately following a valid edit is still to be explained. Also note that you were blocked in attempt to block others. To date to the best of my knowledge I have not recommended blocking of any editor. Wikipedia has better tools to resolve issues.

Still you owe a reply to comments of erachima on your user page regarding this article. To quote some:

See Talk:Carnatic music#Ugabhoga inclusion argument: if there is an NPOV dispute, then you need to provide reliable sources for your side of the argument. Until you have them, you need to desist from blanking article content. --erachima talk 07:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC).......Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism lists blanking of referenced content as a type of vandalism, so I will not retract the claim.

No one has endorsed your vandalism act of deleting a valid section without discussions. Currently your vandalism act as pointed-out by erachima has fallen in the cracks for now due to premature and misleading RFC initiated by you. Seriously consider the good advice of Admn Georgewilliamherbert.

Before making further comments please answer the comments of erachima with RS. Your's is a clear act of vandalism as per wikipedia until you reverse it. Naadapriya (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to start listening to the warning you received on your talk page from an administrator, that followed your block for poor conduct (see below)

You appear to be engaging in distraction fallacies. Before material can be included it has to pass at least two tests: first, is it verifiable from reliable independent secondary sources; second, would its inclusion give undue weight to a view which is not widely held. To say that the text is stated neutrally is to ignore these fundamental requirements. What you are arguing for looks increasingly like a novel synthesis, which is absolutely forbidden by policy. Much of your engagement on the talk page is simply restatement of the same arguments which others have already addressed - we call that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your comments about your blocks are plain wikilawyering and also not helping your case at all. I suggest that you read your own user page, particularly the comment about fanaticism; if you carry on as you are then I foresee an unhappy future for you. Sorry to be blunt, but you are now giving all the appearances of being a tendentious editor and an agenda account. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is no false warning, and I (among others) won't be feeding your trolling anymore. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IT is unfortunate that user insists on discussing this under wrong heading with out answering the comment regarding his Vandalism act on Aug 31st, 2008. His following comments and RFC have mislead many other editors and Admn and has led to random comments such as one quoted above by Guy. Naadapriya (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naadapriya, unfortunately you are showing all signs of being a tendentious editor. Labeling a content dispute as vandalism is a strong sign of that, as is the repetition of arguments when no one else seems to be buying into them. I strongly suggest you read this article, especially the section on How to pull back from the brink. Please note that I cannot comment on the veracity of your edits, they may well be justified, it is just that, when challenged, your sources do not stand up to scrutiny. You may need to do some more homework but, at this point, I think your attempts to argue for your edits do not augur well. In such situations, often the best thing to do is to move on and fight other battles. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking your comments in somewhat good faith. Please read the early comments by erachima regarding the Vandalism act occurred before RFC. That act has fallen between cracks due to misleading comments and RFC. As per guidelines the content dispute should start with discussions and suggestion not through out-right deletion. As I said the wording can be modified in Ugaboga in view of observation from new editors but deletion is obvious vandalism which should be undone and prevented in future. It is unfortunate that your comments did not include all those previous acts by other editors that led to present situation. Todate all my comments are to correct the wrong information to the best of my knowledge based on citations.. Please provide specifics about your observation astendentious editor BTW: Please note that already about 5 editors have participated on [[Ugabhoga] section that existed. Please read earlier discussions. Naadapriya (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you refer to this comment of erachima? Note that the 'act of vandalism' described here is not vandalism, it is a deletion of material because of a content dispute. I don't think the action can be characterized as Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. (see WP:Vandalism). I'm not going to belabor the tendentious editing point except to list some of the behaviors that typically exemplify that kind of editing, but IMHO, you need to step back a little and see where this is most likely going to end up. Forgive me in advance for this but, if your sole goal in wikipedia is to correct the Carnatic music page, then you're probably doing the right thing by persisting (you will get blocked in the end). If, however, your goals are more encyclopedic, and you feel that you can contribute to the encyclopedia in many different ways, you're doing the wrong thing because getting blocked will not help. If the latter, I suggest you step away from the article for a bit. Here are some WP:TE behavior patterns you may be exhibiting: You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it, Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw, You repeatedly undo the “vandalism” of others, You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them. I'm not saying you are a tendentious editor, just that you are giving the appearance of being one. Unfortunately, appearances are all we have to go by. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 17:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Naadapriya has been topic-banned from Carnatic-music related pages. Should he edit on any of these pages (including talk pages), he will be prevented from doing so. That closes this matter too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't pretend to understand any of this but I can look up references and did take a look at the Singer reference. About sillapadikaram, it refers to the story as "The ancient Tamil epic of the second century AD, The lay of the anklet" and goes on to say, in a section entitled "Carnatic Music", There are other discussions on music and the system is based as it is today on melody and rhythm and a basic scale of seven notes. The lay of the anklet is, I think, the same story and the article explicitly ties the story to features of carnatic music. Rather than reverting each others text, I suggest you discuss on the talk page first. --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 02:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Above comment states "I won't pretend to" CM but still gives a biased opnion. They should restrain from poking into topics they do not know and let those who claim expertise handle it Wkicln (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Confirmed sock of banned Naadapriya (talk · contribs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the entire reference flows. Straight after that sentence, it continues so that it is unambiguously explicit. "Many features of this southern musical system are also described in Sanskrit treatises, in the Natya Sastra...." [emphasis added] The source is very accurate in its coverage and commentary on this subject, and the attempts to suppress significant viewpoints in it by certain users (who have a very long history of doing so) are now glaring. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding Recently Added References

Ncmvocalist and Naadapriya have made majority of changes, particularly Ncmvocalist. for past 2 months. None of them are discussed. Some are added with support of those who acknowledge lack of knowledge in CM. Please discuss all mods otherwise Admn will be requested to revert to the version that was well discussed. Until then tag is needed Wkicln (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Until then a tag is needed for the article to convey that discussions are in progrees for the contents. Please do not remove the tag.Wkicln (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Confirmed sock of banned Naadapriya (talk · contribs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see search results in google

1.devaranama [2] - 2030
2.devarnama [3] - 276

and

sanskrit-sloka
tamil-viruttum
telugu-padyamu
kannada-padhya

whats wrong here??? some person reverted my edits..see [4]....this is correct,i dont know why he removed???

:: I agree. It is wrong to revert it with out discussions. Wkireader (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Confirmed sock of banned Naadapriya (talk · contribs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure you provide reliably sourced content in the future - padhya is not included in the source that is attributed to that sentence, so your bold edit has been reverted again. Please discuss this before reinserting it because it is not verifiable. Spelling of devaranama is okay, so there's no problem with that edit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::You agree with Telegu Padyamulu without RS and object to use of Kannada Padhygalu. Very starange. Not all the words in artcle are supported by RS. Some are obvious and even common sence for the article. Please do not revert valid edits with out justification. Vadyar (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Confirmed sock of banned Naadapriya (talk · contribs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent sources. The sentence in question has been reliably sourced, and in the absence of providing a reliable source to verify that content, this is not something that can be changed as it makes the sentence unverifiable, and misrepresents the source. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hard to find the source available on the net,but may present in some books.

sanskrit->sloka
telugu->padya(padyamu) same follows in kannada->padhya (padhyagalu-plural word of padhya)
telugu & kannada word sounds similar,since both languages have many common words.
in karnataka sanskrit sloka(s) are usually called as padhya(padhyagalu).
i think you are a carnatic music vocalist,as your username suggest.if you know any singers from karnataka ask them.
if you think the info is true, please add.if you think i am wrong,sorry for that
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.177.110 (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I did the search, I could not find a connection between the two I'm afraid. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was a consensus to not include any photos of Carnatic musicians, as per discussions in the archive, including the sections READ before making further changes please and Some edits in Archive 3. The photograph of D K Pattammal is being added against this consensus (including once on my part, when I reverted an edit pair). Moreover, the photo does not seem to be directly related to the section Improvisation. Hence I propose it should be removed as per the earlier discussions/ consensus. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 request was made made due to concerns over complete lack of relevance of images in various sections. A certain editor who has been disruptive on so many levels this month, after being blocked in 2006, has returned to this article to cause more trouble for the editors who are actually doing worthwhile work on it. At the time, he was pushing for including a couple of other images that completely lacked relevance in the sections in which they were posted.

When I included this image of D K Pattammal, it was done under the sense that this would no longer be a problem - it is of relevance and notability that she was the first of the females to sing the composite form of improvisation in public. That said, I've removed it so that this issue is resolved. VasuVR, I'd like to express my appreciation for you being bold in opening this discussion, despite the various behavioral problems of the editor I was referring to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment does not make any sense. So called 'improvisations' which is nothing but elaboration of ragas and tala cycles existed ever since Carnatic Music was formalized. Just highlighting (with photo) one artist though she one of the great Carnatic musicians is blunt POV. The objections by VasuVR and Srkris are logical (just article Reader) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.24.67 (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious who has behavioural problems (perhaps from childhood). I had to indicate the consensus that was reached a long time back to not include images of current musicians because of POV concerns raised by the same editor then who makes these POV inclusions of images now. Talk of adamancy, hypocrisy and pure stupidity. Kindly dont edit unless you really understand what's written at WP:NPOV. Just because DKP is your favourite artiste or her grandmother doesnt merit an exception for wikipedia. ­ Kris (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]