Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because at this point it has all the content it needs to cover the topic in summary style. It is also well cited. Please provide constructive feedback on style, grammar, prose and presentation to improve the article.

Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(Clarification note added by Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)): The original name of this PR page was, "Wikipedia:Peer review/Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE," a page name that was based on a failed page move and which has now been reverted to its original version. Some of the discussion below refers to this original PR page name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the reviewers to be aware of the controversial page move made by user:Dineshkannambadi just a few days ago. Normally, a page move should have no bearing on a peer-review. In this case, however, the move changes the page's content, both spatial and temporal. That too should normally not be a problem, except that this time, the page's "mother" article is in WP:FAR, where some of the issues on the anvil are being affected by the page move.
Since the page moves here have made my head spin, here is a little history. The original page name, Mysore Kingdom literature, which lasted but a few months, was changed, in October 2007, to Literature of the Kingdom of Mysore, in a page move whose edit summary cited, "consistency with names of other Kingdom of Mysore sub-articles." There, in this new consistent title, the page stayed for over a year. Last month, user:Dineshkannambadi, suggesting that all literature in the kingdom was Kannada literature, changed the page name to the more alliterative, but equally consistent, Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore. In early December 2008, however, the mother article, Kingdom of Mysore became an FAR candidate. Shortly thereafter, user:Dineshkannambadi—now downplaying said "consistency" and citing, in lieu thereof, the imperative of expanding beyond the dominions of said Kingdom—changed the title of the page to the one is currently bears.
Even this, I'm sure, is of a piece with other metamorphoses that precede peer-reviews. However, in this case, the crucial period 1900–1947 of the Kingdom's history, and the crucial literature of that period, has magically disappeared with the page move, replaced instead with a perfunctory "Developments" section that does little more than name names.
Finally, since this is a peer-review, let me offer some sincere advice to the authors. It is not a good idea to write a literature article that cites as many times as this one does, a regional college history text-book (Kamath 2001) and a Bangalore University Music Department dissertation (Pranesh 2003). Where are the sophisticated, qualitative, literary discussions? It's not like they aren't there in the published literature. In just the few minutes I found a handful. Here, for example, is one:
Richman, Paula (2004), "Why Can't a Shudra Perform Asceticism? Śambūka in Three Modern South Indian Plays", in Bose, Mandakranta (ed.), The Ramayaṇa Revisited, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Pp. 378, pp. 125–148, ISBN 019516833X (Pages 133–148 are a discussion of Kuvempu's Śūdra Tapasvī (1944) (The Shudra Ascetic)). Why are there no discussions here that are even remotely like the ones in that article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Redtigerxyz

Note: If the PR is for "Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE", parameters of comprehensiveness will be different, I am reading this an article named "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore" NOT as "Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE"

  • Images: File:Mookarasu.jpg, File:KRWIII.JPG, Maharaja Chamaraja Wodeyar IX image need a date for PD claim, the uploader may not be the creator of the images or if uploader is the painter or photographer (which is unlikely considering the age of the photographed), the uploader should use the image information or description to declare so.
  • Encyclopaedia of Indian literature. Sahitya Akademi.: Various sections have authors noted or are anon. The authors of the chapters or articles may be noted.
  • Yakshagana theatre: It would be appropriate if the mention of manuscripts is done earlier in the article. At first, I felt why was the dance section in literature. The 1st para only speaks about the dance.
  • Developments in Kannada literature template: As this is article about "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore", things are should be from "1399–1947 CE" (The kingdom's time) NOT 1600-1900 only.
  • Correct me if I am wrong, Harikatha and Shivakatha are performing arts, NOT in written form. they are unsuitable in an article about "The body of written works of a language, period, or culture", what is literature is.
  • Veerashaiva canon: Date needed for Sarvajna
  • Court and monastic literature and Veerashaiva canon: I observed poets from "The Kingdom of Keladi" are frequently mentione. Though the kingdom merged into Mysore, whatever happened during the reign of the Keladi (1499 - 1763 CE) strictly should not be included in this article. That is WP:UNDUE here.
  • "Raja Wodeyar (1578–1617) became the first king of Mysore," is a contradiction to "The Kingdom of Mysore was a founded in 1399 CE by Yaduraya in the region of the modern city of Mysore."
  • Shouldn't the article start with literature from '14-15th century writings' (1399 to be precise' NOT '17th century writings'--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Redtigerxyz, three users, Fowler, Docku and Mattisse, none of who are even remotely related to this article have contested the naming of the article which at this point we can ignore since this is only a PR. I will look into your concerns. This article, as the content suggests, describes literature between 1600 and 1900; 1600 CE being the approximate start of literatures in Mysore and neighbouring post Vijayanagara kingdoms, 1900 CE onwards being the start of mature Modern Kannada literature.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replies by DK
  • Removed two images till better ones are found.
  • I will try to locate names of indivudual chapter authors.
  • Yakshagana is not just a dance. It is a documented theatrical literature which combines dance and drama with humor, satire and dialogue, all wrapped into an entertaining narration. All my sources consider it as theatrical folk literature. Info on the manuscripts appears both in the "Overview" section as well as in the section titled "18th century writngs".
  • Range of literature: Actually, there is no literature available from Mysore court in the 1400-1575 timeframe, indicating that Mysore may have only been a Vijayanagara outpost. Needles to say, writers and poets would have sought the patronage of the royal capital, Vijayanagara, in that period. After the fall of Vijayanagara, Mysore became more prominent. This is why the lead had reflected the correct range (1600 onwards) earlier, untill another user changed the first few lines of the lead, without consulting the main author: a basic wiki etiquette.
  • About Harikatha and Shivakatha, both are discussed in "Encyclopaedia of Indian literature" as derivatives of Vaishnava and Veerashaiva literatures. Initially they were not manuscripted, but from 19th century, there has been a better attempt to document it and I have now included that info as well.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general date for Sarvajna appears in the next line itself.
  • Keladi literature--I agree. This is why I had renamed the article. Hopefully, reviewers at FAC will be able to provide some more views. Admin Dank55 has also adviced me to wait till FAC, regarding this issue.
  • Raja Wodeyar--changed wording. Moreover, the "kingdom" word is a overall term. When exactly the chieftaincy became a Kingdom is something scholars have not concurred on. I have referred to numerous books on this issue. Some scholars use the term Kingdom from 1399, some from 1565.
  • Shouldn't the article start with literature from '14-15th--again the same issue as before, which is why I had changed the title.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second set of comments

  • If this article was at FAC, I as independent reviewer, would have objected to the definition: "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore is a body of literature composed from the 17th century to early 20th century in the Kannada language" as:
    • Mysore kingdom dates: 1399–1947 CE. Coverage - the 17th century onwards
    • Kannada literature from the 17th century to early 20th century, may have been from some part outside the kingdom say the Keladi court or neighbouring terrorities of mysore, where Kannafa was spoken or written
  • Also, inclusion of harikatha and Shivakatha in "Haridasa literature" is little objectable. I read the Encyclopaedia of Indian literature article: It says - Harikatha is performed by Haridasa or Bhagavata. In the article, Harikatha is generalized to Haridasas. I also did not find anything saying that Harikatha is a byproduct of Haridasas explicitly. In fact, Haridasa is mentioned only once in the entire article, in the instance as described above. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore is a body of literature composed from about 1600 CE, the date of the earliest known work" I am not sure how a kingdom can have no literature in 2 centuries (1399 CE foundation to 1600). Needs a reference. Also contradicts the whole "Literature prior to 16th century" section. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by DK
  • The earliest known work is from 1600 CE ( Tirumalarya I, Raja Wodeyar's court poet wrote Karna Vrittanta Kathe). The later subsection "Literature prior to 16th century" was meant to be an overview of all literatures, from all kingdoms, prior to Mysore period.
  • I agree with you that this article contains literature from Keladi. Also, being a relatively smaller sized kingdom, some poets and literatures could be considered outside the territory of Mysore as its size fluctuated, though their work influenced works of other writer within the kingdom or had a general influence over the entire Kannada speaking region. Would you prefer the articles name to be more inclusive, say "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore and its neighbouring states" or, "Kannada literature-post Vijayanagara period to modern era" or make the title more period specific, like "Kannada literature 1600-1900 CE".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will look into this Harikatha/Shivakatha issue again. I may decide to remove it entirely.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I have to admit I had a hard time reviewing this article because of the name / move / content dispute. I know there have been a series of Kannada literature articles, which it seems like this should fit into. I do not know that much about Mysore (or Kannada literature) so I am not in a position to judge the right name for this article or what the time limits should be.

  • The Mysore palace photo is lovely. The Mysore kingdom map is illegible on my monitor within the article. Would it be possible to crop it? - much of the map shows parts of the subcontinent that are not pertinent to this article
  • It seems as if the boxes on the sides should be named consistently, but one is "Famous Kannada poets and writers (1600-1700 CE)" and the other is "Noted Kannada poets and writers (1700-1800 CE". Since Wikipedia usually looks at notability, "noted" seems more encyclopedic to me. I also note that the boxes are side by side on my monitor (the second box starts at "Padmana Pandita 17th c." in the first box).
  • According to WP:MOSQUOTE, {{cquote}} is used where {{blockquote}} should be (for the two poems by Sarvajna). I think these poems should also be put into context more - why are they so popular, what has been said about them, etc. Same points for the later poem by Helavanakatte Giriyamma.
  • A general observation - much of the article seems to just be a recitation of this poet wrote these works at this time and place, this author wrote these novels, etc. Wherever possible, can these be put into context better to help the reader not familiar with the subject to understand why they are famous works? In some places this is done well, for example ... Sanchi Honnamma (lit, "Honamma the betel bag bearer"), a Vokkaliga from Yelandur won accolades for her unique writing Hadibadeya Dharma ("Duty of the faithful wife") containing 479 stanzas in sangatya metre. Despite being employed as a betel bag bearer and a maid to Queen Devajammani, she claimed Alasingaraya, a court poet, her Guru. Her work narrates the struggles of women in society, and stresses on their need to fulfill their daily roles in family life.[103][104] but in other places it just reads like a laundry list of poets and authors ("Developments in early 20th century, or this sentence Other well-known Haridasas are Vitthala Dasa, Varaha Timmappa Dasa and Madhva Dasa.
  • I would be glad to look at this again once the issues of the article name and time frame covered are resolved.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dk replies

Ruhrfisch comment I was asked to weigh in on the name and scope of the article. I will start by saying that I think an WP:RfC may be a better way to go (with notices on relavant WikiProject pages), but here are my thoughts. I will start by saying I have an interest in the Indian subcontinent and its history, but no real expert knowledge. I have read most of the Kannada literature articles as they came through peer review or FAC. I assumed this article "Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE" was the next to last in the series, with the last being something like "Modern Kannada literature". Having said that, I do not know much about Mysore or its history, and would not have thought of this as a subarticle in the Mysore series. My understanding is that by changing the title to Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore it limits the geographic scope (not all Kannada literature of time period covered by the Kingdome of Mysore was composed witihin the political limits of Mysore), while broadening the temporal scope (as the Kingdom goes back earlier in time than 1600). It would be nice if there could be some sort of compromise ;-) Not sure if this helps, I think my preference is the original title, but that is at least partly because I have read the other Kannada articles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruhrfisch, I don't really have any disagreement with anything you have said. However, I will also note that the Wikipedia articles beginning with "Kannada literature" are:
  1. Kannada literature
  2. Kannada literature in the Vijayanagara Empire
  3. Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire
  4. Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore
Please note that articles 2 and 3 also refer to historical kingdoms or empires. I believe user:Dineshkannambadi had no intention of changing the name of the last named article to Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE until the Kingdom of Mysore article began to founder on the rocks of the FAR. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Ruhrfish

Thanks for your opinion. I will continue to gather thoughful opinions from wikipedians such as you as I go along in the PR and we can make a collective decision at FAC what to do with the name of the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now corrected the name of this peer-review, which, obviously, since the requested move at WP:RM has failed, is a cause of confusion to reviewers and readers alike. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: In the main, the prose flows nicely. Noticing a few typos and minor punctuation errors, I made about two dozen small changes as I read through the article in response to your request. I find the subject interesting, but I bring no expert knowledge to it. I have no opinion about the article name. However, here are a few further suggestions or questions.

  • In two places, I noticed the phrase "common man". It appears in the "Overview" section and the "Revival of Haridasa literature" section. Using "commoner" or "common person" would avoid the risk of offending women.
  • In "Revival of Haridasa literature", the sentence, "While Hari (a form of god Vishnu) is main to their deity..." probably should be "... is central to their beliefs... ", but I can't be sure this is what is meant.
  • The last sentence of "Other writings" seems to be missing a word or words in the phrase, "a historical".
  • In "External influences", perhaps "Grammar and lexicon" would be more clear as "Grammar books and dictionaries".
  • In "External influences", it would be good to give the full names of the reverends, if known. Ditto for "Fleet", if that is the first instance of this name.
  • It would be good to link or explain "magnum opus", "doyen", and "blank verse" in "Developments in the 20th century".
  • The phrase "gracing Kannada literature in their inimitable style" in the final section struck me as a judgment rather than a fact. The sentence would work just fine if you deleted this phrase.

I hope these few comments and minor edits are helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article. Finetooth (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies by DK

I have made all the necessary changes you proposed, but one, which is the second instance of "common man". Once I find it, I will change it to "commoner". In the "External Influences" section, in some cases, the full name of a writer has the first initial only and last name (like Rev. W. Reeve). If I find the first name somewhere, I will add that. regardsDineshkannambadi (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it and changed it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxman comments: The prose in the first paragraph of the lead section is very staccato and needs improvement in the sentence transitions so that it flows better from sentence to sentence. The second paragraph goes into too much detail on the history of the Mysore Kingdom for a lead section on the literature of it and yet not enough to be understandable. The lead section should summarize the main points of the article, not serve to give the reader background material not found elsewhere. Also since a lead section is generally considered to be a summary of material that is detailed later in the article, it is generally accepted that it should be cited later in the article where the detail is provided, not in the lead section. Finally I'm not sure how much information on the Mysore Kingdom is needed in this article at all other than basic context (timeframe, location etc) and that which is needed to explain how it affected the literature. The latter seems to already be integrated where it should be for the most part. I'll try to give a more thorough review when I get a chance. - Taxman Talk 05:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about it to weigh in intelligently on the title issue, except I will say that an article at this title would be acceptable on it's own. It seems to fit in in with the rest of series. The problem with organizing the Kannada literature articles this way though are several. These types of Kingdoms don't always cover the same geographical area and they vary over time. They also don't overlap perfectly over time and they don't always affect the literature directly either. So organizing this way may create some gaps, and some areas of Kannada literature that are awkward to cover properly. It may be possible to address these issues, but I don't know how. But like I said, I don't know the issue in depth, I'm just speaking to organizing material. - Taxman Talk 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply

I have significantly reduced citations in the lead and removed the history section all together from the lead because historical contexts are explained in the subsequent sections. I will continue to work on flow.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kensplanet

  • Too. much repetition of Kingdom of Mysore links.
  • False linking of Keladi. Link Nayakas to Keladi Nayaka and Keladi to Keladi.
  • The Kingdom of Mysore was a founded in 1399 CE by Yaduraya in the region of the modern city of Mysore
  • The Second paragraph of the Lead only has History details. Since this is a Literature article, may I suggest mixing Literature with it. If significant literature was developed during the Kingdom of Mysore period, then put it there.
  • May I suggest you to put the Table Developments in Kannada literature (1600–1900) in proper order. Birth of the Yakshagana play should be first.
  • You may be interested in mentioning the extent of the Kingdom of Mysore in the Lead itself.
  • According to noted modern Kannada writer Shivarama Karanth, the region between Udupi and Ikkeri could be the region where Kannada Yakshanagas originated.
DK Reply
I have addressed most issues you put forward. In a previous FAC article, I had done what you suggest: Mix history with literature at bit. But another reviewer wanted it seperated. So I just did that here. Let's keep this open for now and we can address it again if it becomes a bigger issue. I will address the Yakshagana issue soon.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some basic info on similarities and differences between Yakshagana types, without going into details.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the perennially lazy Michael Devore, per talk page request: Three comments on the lead, I should add more later. Nit-picky, but that's what I'm here for.

  • Re: "Some Jain writings are available from this period. Writings in secular genres was also popular." These adjacent short sentences in the lead paragraph may increase the appearance of choppiness. Separately, the word order in the first sentence makes it sound a bit like the availability is tied to the time period, rather than the writing. In addition, I'm not sure about the "was also popular" bit. "Writings" is a plural noun suggesting use of "were" rather than "was". The current form implies the popularity is no longer present. Was it the "writings" (i.e. the works themselves) that were popular then but are no longer popular now, or "writing" (i.e. creating the works) that was popular? Depending on the intended meaning, I have different suggestions for wording changes.
  • Re: "The 19th century brought the influence of English literature and classical Sanskrit literature, resulting in the birth of modern prose, prose narrative and theatrical literature." It wasn't the 19th century which brought the influence, but things which happened in the 19th century, correct? Would something like "Technological and social developments in the 19th century brought the influence of English literature..." more correctly state the circumstance? (Not that I'm in love with that exact wording change; I am using it as an example.)
  • Re: "During an age of revival and innovation, the Mysore court poets attempted to rejuvenate the classical form of writing using the champu metre (a composition in prose-verse)." What classical form of writing? Did the poets attempt but fail at the rejuvenation, or did they attempt and succeed, meaning Kannada literature is that classical form? I'm not clear what you're saying here. -- Michael Devore (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up. Ahh, on reflection I think this sentence means the classical form of writing, where that classical form is the champu metre. I was interpreting it as an attempt to rejuvenate the classical form (whatever it was), and the poets used the champu metre in making the attempt. You meant the former, right? If so, we might want to tweak that sentence, while providing a resolution to the "attempt". -- Michael Devore (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by DK
  • Tweaked Jain and Secular writings. Please see how it reads.
  • Tweaked 19th century English influence.
  • Yes, champu forms of writing are considerd classical because it was inherited from Sanskrit. I have tweaked the sentence. Please see how it reads now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, time for three more:

  • Re: "However, he suggested that the earliest forms of dance-drama, called the "Gandharagrama", are mentioned in the writing Narada Siska dated to 600–200 BCE." Why does he suggest the Gandharagrama are mentioned there? Isn't it factual?
  • Re:"From this period, the foundation of a kingdom was laid. As a result, the Mysore court became the centre for production of rich literature in the decades to follow." I don't think it is clear why laying the foundation of a kingdom necessarily resulted in a Mysore becoming a rich literature center.
  • Re: "Haridasa devotional songs are classified into the following categories: "biographical, socio-religious, ethical and ritualistic, didactic and philosophical, meditative, narrative and eulogistic and miscellaneous"." Why is the list quoted? If a direct quote, it should be attributed in the article.

Various factors are such that I will not be available for additional review work over the next several days. -- Michael Devore (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply
  • Rectified. Changed 'suggested' to 'noted'.
  • Clarified with a better sentence. Please check.
  • Gave direct attribute to the scholar Mutalik.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not adding up

Some things that are being said above don't seem to be adding up. Here are some concerns.

  1. When in the FAR, we first criticized the literature section and its parent article (this page) for errors of "chronological-spatial correspondence" (see My concerns, 5.), i.e. including "under the cultural achievements of the 'Kingdom of Mysore,' the achievements made in regions that were not contemporaneously part of the Mysore kingdom, but that came to be included only later in time, and sometimes only briefly then ...," user:Dineshkannambadi said in response then,
    1. "Fowler, the article really does not make chron-spatial errors. The poet Sarvajna was born in modern Haveri district, but was a drifter. He travelled the whole of the Karnataka region and beyond. ... Regarding other "contemporary developments", they are very much relevant to the Mysore kingdom, but thats a different arguement all together and has nothing to do with this article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
    2. Now, however, in a reply to user:Redtigerxyz above, user:Dineshkannambadi says, "Also, being a relatively smaller sized kingdom, some poets and literatures could be considered outside the territory of Mysore as its size fluctuated, though their work influenced works of other writer within the kingdom or had a general influence over the entire Kannada speaking region. Would you prefer the articles name to be more inclusive, say "Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore and its neighbouring states" or, "Kannada literature-post Vijayanagara period to modern era" or make the title more period specific, like "Kannada literature 1600-1900 CE".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
    3. Is this an acknowledgment that our criticism in the FAR was correct?
  2. Also, how did we arrive at this periodization of Kannada literature? In other words, why are we now saying that the periodization is (a) 1600–1900 (whatever we call this) and (b) Modern Literature 1900–present, when in the
    1. Kannada literature page itself, we have a section, Modern period, which seems to be saying that Modern Kannada literature begins around 1830?
    2. Not only the Kannada literature page, but even the Modern Kannada literature page has a section, Dawn of Modern Kannada literature: 1800–1900. Wouldn't 1800–present, or 1830–present, be a better periodization for "modern Kannada literature?"
    3. Is there an explanation for this seeming discrepancy? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS I just checked some sources—four sources to be precise. They seem to be suggesting too that Modern Kannada literature begins early in the 19th century. I've created a subpage, Modern Kannada literature periodization that lists the sources and provides quotes from them. Three of the four are works published by India's Sahitya Akademi (National Academy of Letters). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Kannada_literature_in_the_Kingdom_of_Mysore/archive1&oldid=1089814057"