Talk:Kannadigas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
project-independent quality rating
in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
WikiProject iconIndia: Karnataka / Mangalore High‑importance
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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mangalore (assessed as Top-importance).
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Kongan/kongu ethnic groups found in the part of Tamilnadu. https://books.google.com/books?id=swNuAAAAMAAJ Dosa origin is linked to Upupi town (Not to be confused with masala dosa) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laks883 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kannadiga or Canarese/Canaresian?

The native word for Kannada people "Kannadiga" does not seem to harmonize with the soundscapes of the English language - it is as odd as saying "tamil makkal" or "tamil jana" in English - one uses what is natural to English - "Tamilian". I suggest the word "Canarese" or "Canaresian" be employed in the place of "Kannadiga" in this article (mentioning though "Kannadiga is the native word for Kannada people). ~~Naresh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.244.253 (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word Canarese is no longer used,this word was used by British ans Portuguese only during the colonial era.Nijgoykar (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The people are now generally referred to as Kannadigas, and not just by these people themselves.
Joyson Noel Holla at me! 09:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Neutrality

This article is way out of control.Pls add relevant sections and follow wikipedia policy...Pls visit the

Tamil people
page and see how a good ethnic article must be developed...And pls use neutral point of view....Thanks.... ARUNKUMAR P.RTalk 11:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True this article is a mess remove all unreferenced povs (OR)--NotedGrant Talk 14:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed irrelevant and POV section.Still the article needs to be structured like the

featured article
.

ARUNKUMAR P.RTalk 09:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am really surprised to read Wikipedia about Kannadiga section. I don't know why Kannadigas are always comparing or treating Tamil language/Tamilians in a harsh way. If for some reason Kannadigas accept that Kannada is a bye-product of Sanskrit then all Kannadigas must be Aryans? But the problem is we should also accept Mandya/Hassan Gowdas as Aryans?


MR can you tell us how Mandya/Hassan Gowdas for Aryans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.167.129 (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Note to this foolish tamil-man above: Go find about Gujjars of North India, then you will know who Gowdas are, be they from Mandya, or Maddur or Hassan....

Vijay Mallya

Kindly see the

Goud Saraswat Brahmin page of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.52.53.206 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

do not write anything againt Tamils. This is not a forum to vent your anger and personal attacks

dinesh —Preceding

talk • contribs) 05:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Non Kannadiga

There are few non-kannadigas included the list of Kannidigas. Some even featured in the info box with pics, like Nanadan Nelkini, Deepika Padukone etc. Please remove those names from the list.188.49.24.149 (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Rahul Dravid. Despite removal, people keep adding them back. 103.248.30.190 (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism!

The user User:Malini.iyyer has removed important and glorifying points from this article which which according to her are not essential.On top she is way to her way of communicating with others is very uncivil.check this out [[1]].Let me know if the contents she had removed was unnecessary.It is important according to me(Its my personal opinion and does not really matter much here).Clearly her edits have some sort of personal agenda.Lets discuss. Nijgoykar (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Purandara.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Purandara.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is
    non-free
    then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
    fair use rationale
    then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --

talk) 20:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

File:Rajkumar 60s.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rajkumar 60s.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is
    non-free
    then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
    fair use rationale
    then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rajkumar 60s.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --

talk) 20:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]


Tamils should just stop bothering Kannadigas to take them into our community. No Kannadiga would ever be interested to even listen to a Tamil or even remotely think of Tamils. The very truth is Kannadigas are not Dravidians and have no connections to Tamils whatsoever as claimed by their Dravidianists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.157.123 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Migrations?

The ruling dynasties of the Rattas or Nadars or the Rahstrakutas,Seunas or Yadavas of Devagiri and older kanna(karana tribe) and the naata or the (nadar or the rashtrakuta) people once inhabited Maharashtra and other places.. its only with due course of time they reached down south expanding their dominion or other reasons,why should we assume they they migrated from Karnataka?there are remnants of Kannada culture,language etc in maharashtra.The Rattapadi consisted of three maharashtras,Vidarbha,Kuntala(part of karnataka and western maharashta)its mentioned in stone inscription that the settlement of the rattas had three maharashtras,again the word marathi or maharashtra is related and is derived from the word rattas.. so the word maharashtra just means settlements of rattas,moroever all these dynasties spoke deshi dialets which is also called purva halegannada,only when they were sanskrtised and prakritised halegannada was born.y simply assume tht they migrated from karnataka? its very much possible tht all those place in mharashtra were these people rules were originally their settlements as suggested by place name,n they they migrated down south.. Nijgoykar (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual leaders but no religion?

No demographics section, no religion? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sample Kannadiga people

Think maybe we could get some women up in there? Like, say, half of the photos maybe? Ogress smash! 17:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers. —

Talk to my owner:Online 02:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The so called "Karnata" dynasty in Mithila were not Kannada but Rajput.

The Journal of the Bihar Purävid Parishad, Volumes 4-5, page 414 - excerpt: "A brief survey of the rule of Tirhut makes it clear that the Karnatas were the migrant Paramaras and none-else..." https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VsG1AAAAIAAJ&dq=editions:UCALB4304763

Mithila Under the Karnatas, C. 1097-1325 A.D page 55 also states the dynasty to be Rajputs. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KfYJAQAAIAAJ&q=Malladeva+rajputs+of+tirhut&dq=Malladeva+rajputs+of+tirhut&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie7fCFnt3RAhWHKMAKHfMYAY4Q6AEIHjAA

History of Muslim rule in Tirhut, 1206-1765, A.D. page 28 also makes a similar assertion: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VwYcAQAAMAAJ&q=Malladeva+rajputs+of+tirhut&dq=Malladeva+rajputs+of+tirhut&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie7fCFnt3RAhWHKMAKHfMYAY4Q6AEIJjAC

Damien2016 (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Damien2016. First off all those links don't lead to any book page but only to title pages. Secondly, just because they 'could' have been Rajputs does not mean they were not Karnata's. In fact the second book you quote itself says "Mithila Under the Karnatas, C. 1097-1325 A.D". The first book you quote says "Karnatas were the migrant Paramaras". What this could mean is that 'Karnata' was the earliest place of origin. They may taken on the identity of "Paramaras" or "Rajput" later on during their migration from region to region. Rajput does not necessarily mean they are from Rajasthan or North-western India. After all the word Rajput only refers to a clan name and they are found over large parts of India. Also, in this article under discussion, in the paragraph "Immigrants from Karnataka" (which you edited), the article clearly says historians have discussed the possibility that kingdoms of Kannada origin were established in other parts of India. It does not 100% certify that they were Kannadigas (though the historians Altekar and Kamath specifically call them Kannadigas). So you have to accept this paragraph exactly the way it is worded.Holenarasipura (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can access the required parts by searching key words or using the Digital Library of India and looking up the page numbers that I have provided. The rest of what you are saying is original research, you can't just assume that Kannadas became Parmar (which is extremely unlikely since Parmars are a patriarchal clan). The Karnata dynasty used Rajput names and were patrons of Maithili culture, not Kannada culture. There is absolutely no primary source indicating that they were Kannada in fact primary sources from the time indicate Rajputs controlling the region (Mithila during the Age of Vidyapati). You can't make me accept anything without concrete proof, the fact is that the origin of the dynasty is dubious and contested by various sources. Damien2016 (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research here. This article says "historians have discussed the possibility that kingdoms of Kannada origin were established in other parts of India". That's that. If you want to bring in admins help us with this discussion, feel free. What you accept or don't accept is immaterial.Holenarasipura (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopaedia should not include "possibilities", it should be based firmly on fact. If we included possibilities in articles then we what can we learn of them? Seems like that entire section should be removed or worded better to include only those of certain Kannada origin. And you were making original research by making the ill informed assumption that Kanadas suddenly turned into Parmars.Damien2016 (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like user Damien has confused "possible origin" with "practiced culture", or is changing the argument according to convenience (and throwing a tag is a "knee-jerk" reaction that does not help any discussion). Nowhere in the article does it say these far flung rulers practiced Kannada culture or sopke Kannada language. The article only says some historians claim they may have been of "Karnata origin". How hard is that to fathom. This sort of historical connections are commonly claimed by historians and there are always others who re-butt such claims. Damien, lets keep it simple.Mayasandra (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of making assumptions about me, try and access the books I listed. Culture provides proof of origin which is what the eminent researchers have done. Damien2016 (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement, "Culture provides proof of origin" makes no sense. Culture is never stagnant as it changes with migrations. Your POV and original research is evident in your remarks. Are you claiming the authors cited in the article are not reputable? What proof do you have to support that claim?Mayasandra (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're creating a strawman fallacy, I merely mentioned culture since it was part of the argument that the authors also used. And I never claimed the other authors to be unreliable, again stop creating a straw man, the fact is there are authors with contradicting views and they should all be taken into account. Next time address the points instead of creating arguements out of thin air. Damien2016 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Damien, you statement "An encyclopaedia should not include "possibilities", it should be based firmly on fact" sounds a bit funny. I get the impression you are a new user. Practically every other historical claim has proponents and opponents. That's history for you. History does not deal with facts, but rather with strong/plausible evidence and the veracity of its source. The encyclopedia for its part, has to state it as such, with citations, and no more.Holenarasipura (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stay on topic. The fact is that the section is useless and adds nothing of note to the article aside from speculation. It's only purpose is for chest thumping over imaginary kingdoms. Damien2016 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you call an admin (the onus is on you to disprove the contents) and prove how the opinions of about a dozen historians in that section "adds to nothing".Pied Hornbill (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added five more book citations just to prove the point. I can add another twenty five I believe, but may not be necessary. Daniel2016, do you still call this "dubious", "imaginary" and "chest thumping"?. Please remove the tag.Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on

Kannada people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated Vandalism

@Kautilya3:, @Pied Hornbill:, @Doug Weller:, @Arjayay:

  • There has been repeated vandalism by this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2405:204:541B:BEBE:CDB0:213F:F390:653F on this page, along various others Kannada-related topic, including language page and Lingayatism for past few months. He adds absurd claims about Kannada being second most spoken language in India after Hindustani. He keeps blaming "CIA ratlines, Vatican, Brahmins and Jews" in various edit summaries for hiding what he believes are facts and other such nonsense. I have restored and simplified as much as possible. Please check and lock this page.

Here are some examples of his disruptive edits:

It seems he has also attacked both Dough Weller and Arjayay previously, but no action seems to have been taken for his vandalism rampage so far. It would be better to lock this page for awhile. 117.198.118.192 (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP. At the moment I don't think I want to stop any IPs from editing, but I might change my mind. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"other backward communities"?

"Backward communities" is not used appropriately among anthropologists or others who communicate frequently about different ethnic groups. The term "other backward communities" under castes and communities, should be removed, unless it is some sort of term of art, that is with a specific (non-offensive) definition in Indian English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C55:7D80:1F9D:93F:1081:4711:726 (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics

Please take note @Sitush: @Kautilya3: people are adding genetics in South Asian ethnic group pages here which is not allowed according to consensus.Please remove them. 117.198.114.56 (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: @Kautilya3: please take note. 117.198.114.56 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masale dhosey

Kannada term is masala Dhosey & there maybe many kinds of dosa but mainly called masale dhosey/masala dosa. LR1988 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dosa

Dosa originates from Udupi but Masala dosa is matter of Conjecture. Laks883 (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2022

Gijantic (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Want to make some minor edits

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2022 (2)

Changes in cuisine part - Want to add dishes Gijantic (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. Please suggest a specific text to add along with supporting sources for the text. --Mvqr (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Kannadigas. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kannadiga. Dympies (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Dympies (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 06:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree with you, Rreagan007. It should rather be moved to "Kannadigas". Dympies (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kannadigas&oldid=1207908192"