Talk:Chalukya dynasty

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chalukya dynasty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days

	Chalukya dynasty is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 9, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 22, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 15, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

India: Karnataka / Maharashtra / History 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Top-importance). This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article. This article was last assessed in April 2012. Hinduism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism 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.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles Middle Ages Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia / Medieval This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Durgaprasad is quoted by several persons who wrote articles on history including that of Karnataka in Wikipedia. Deriding a historian is not proper.Kumarrao (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a good joke. Durga Prasad himself confirms he is not an expert of any sort. BTW, you can't use info from one wiki page as proof for another. Read up on wiki rules about "circular reasoning".Mayasandra (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Good job Mayasandra keeping an eye on this article. It is clear to me, looking at Kumarrao's editing habits that his only interest (going back as far as 2007) is to plop in this paragraph from Durga prasad's PDF file and continue to claim him to be a reliable source. We just have to keep an eye on this article. BTW, if it comes down to a debate in the presence of a neutral admin, I can not only lay out several reliable sources, but also happen to be in touch with some members of the Karnataka work group (on a different forum) who took so much trouble to write a thorough article. I can ping them and bring them into the discussion at short notice.Holenarasipura (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The long list of references of historians claiming that the Chalukyas of Vatapi came from Karnataka needs some fixing. The two references I checked just did not make that claim. John Keay is not making a claim about the Chalukya's ultimate origin at all, just their base of power in Harsha's time. Ramesh explicitly claims on the page cited that he thinks an Ayodhya origin is most likely, which seems to be contrary to what he is asserted as claiming in the wikipedia article. I wonder if there are other errors in this long list. I do not think the overwhelming consensus of historians is that they came from Karnataka, though it is certainly a reasonable view in light of their commonality with the Kadambas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.195.225.202 (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read article paragraph carefully. Nobody is trying to find the "ultimate origin" which is as unsure as any (and mentioned as such in the very first line) but rather the origin of the founding kings in the 6th century. John Keay clearly says "natives of Karnataka". Ramesh clearly says their ancestors may have migrated from Ayodhya but the Badami Chalukyas inscriptions are silent about this perhaps because the founding kings may have taken on a Kannada identity having resided their for a few generations. The corresponding para makes this amply clear. I own both books, so there is no guess work here.Pied Hornbill (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I own books by Kamath, Hans Raj, Mahajan which also clarify what the article says. Some of these books even quote other scholars cited who make the same claim. Book by Sen is available on line and confirms what the article claims. Don't see any debate here.Mayasandra (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as per wikipedia , all royal houses right from chalukya to kardam , everyone s kannada.It is a kanadapedia or what ? it is really laughing stock of knowledge . Please do not be so narrow minded and devoid of any knoweldge . I openely challenge f u think so scholar , show me a single royal family who says that they are kannada . And show a sngle kannadaa inscription in central and northern india . ok bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.245.37 (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This IP (112.133.245.37, 112.133.245.34) belongs to banned user (User:Dbkasar), banned back in 20011-2012 time frame. This is evident from the message left by him in the topic above called "Natives of karnataka or maharashtra?".Pied Hornbill (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want unprotection for this article, I bet no one is going to vandalise this article 2405:201:25:6015:A168:33C:365E:55ED (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The chalukya Dynasty was a classical Indian Dynasty that ruled large part of Southern and Central India between the sixth and the twelfth century during this period there ruled as the Badami chalukyas rule from the what the peak from the middle of sixth century the Badami chalukyas begin to assert their independence at the decline of kadamba 223.231.185.30 (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About chalukya dynasty from 6 class 157.48.65.210 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gigabytetc, You are constantly vandalising this Wikipedia page. If you are new and don't know the rules of editing Wikepedia properly, then I want to mention that most of your sources are WP: RAJ and do not comply with modern era sources, Aside from that, your only source that passes WP:RAJ is not WP:RS. Hence, your edits are reverted, and if you want to edit this Wikipedia page with the same information again, then you must reach a consensus here by providing sources that do not fall under WP: RAJ and are WP: RS. Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are modern era sources? and which source is considered reliable? A contemporary source or an opinion of modern author? Gigabytetc (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gigabytetc, Sources published after British Raj do not fall under WP: RAJ and hence can be used. Most of the sources provided by you. do not fulfil this obligation. Regarding your second question, the sources that are not contradicted by other sources and are published by renowned historians are considered to be as reliable. The source that you presented was something like the history of Gujjars (if my memory serves me), which is contradicted by historian R.C. Majumdar in his book, A History and Culture of Indian People, Volume 3, Page 227. "The Chalukyas of Badami appear to have represented an indi¬ indigenous Kanarese family that claimed the status of Kshatriyas." The theory identifying them with the Gurjaras seems untenable. The name is sometimes associated with the Chulika people of Uttarapatha, who are supposed to have been identical with the Sogdians and to have given their name to the Prakrit dialect called Chulika Paisachl. There is, however, no evidence in support of the conjecture. The Sulikas, mentioned in the Haraha inscription of A.D. 553 and identified with the Sulkis of Orissa, probably had nothing to do with the Chalukyas." Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gigabytetc, In wikipedia only the most common names are used. No one refers to this dynasty by the "root of their name" (which appears to have risen from the agricultural implement "chalki" or "salki" but can have variations across the country). Stop trying to lead the reader to believe the origin of this dynasty is somewhere in the North. Where their ancestors came from is of no consequence to the article. Stop edit warring.Pied Hornbill (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]