Mis-spelling & mis-interpretation of technical-terms

[msakella]

As it is highly necessary in maintaining our standards I would like to bring this topic into rational discussion. amsharma

[msakella]

In the Tala-chapter of ‘Wikipedia’ some of the technical-terms are mis-spelt and even some of the interpretations also are incorrect. For example, even though at one place ‘drutam’ and ‘anudrutam’ are spelt correctly at another place ‘Drutam’ is spelt as ‘Dhrutam’, ‘Anudrutam’ is spelt as ‘Anudhrutam’, ‘Trisra’ is spelt as ‘Tisra’, ‘Chaturashra’ is spelt as ‘Chatusra’, ‘Mishra’ is spelt as ‘Misra’ and ‘Aavartham’ is spelt as ‘Aavardhanam’. At one place ‘Maatra’ is incorrectly equated to ‘aksharam’. In the table under’Other Rare Talas’ 16 varieties of Angas are furnished as Anga-talas. In fact I did never come across either of this name ‘Anga-talas’ or such Talas in any of our old treatises. More over, irrespective of this name or Talas, such Talas like Sharabhanandana should not be rendered at all. If anybody wants I am ready to prove this in any open meeting anywhere. Such important references in such important places should always be furnished only by very highly knowledgeable experts in musicology like Dr. R.Sathyanarayana of Mysore who stands as an authority on the subject and proves the authenticity of such references beyond doubt at any time at any place. amsharma

[peanutbutter]

Seeing as how Wikipedia is a user generated encyclopedia, you are more than welcome to fix spelling inconsistencies. I don't think however that you should make any sweeping statements like 'such talas... should not be rendered at all.'

Instead what you might do is add a tag to the page saying that some information in the article requires references, or that there is some controversial aspects to the article, which would then appear at the beginning as a preface for other readers.

Bien Salud.

[msakella]

Yes. Knowledgeable people only can give authoritative sweeping statements. By the grace of the Almighty, I am the only authority alive on earth having the knowledge of this branch of Tala and also having written the first book of its kind, Talaprastara Ratnakara (Telugu) / Indian Genius in Talaprastara (English) and with that authority I shall give this authoritative sweeping statement that Talas like ‘Sharabhanandana’ should not be rendered at all. However, in this connection, if a group of ‘Sangita Kalanidhis’ together or any other individual person proves my contention incorrect I shall bow down before them in an open meeting of knowledgeable people.

Even Tiruppugal-talas are also called ‘Chando-talas’ by some even though they have nowhere been mentioned in any of our treatises. I am also interested in knowing the details of them along with their relevant technicalities from any knowledgeable person.

In the same manner I did never find the Anga-talas also in any of our treatises and I am equally interested in knowing the details of them too along with their relevant technicalities from any knowledgeable person.

Every Tom and Dick should not try to write his own version without any authority in places like ‘Wikipedia’ as it will be seen by many by which there is every scope of being laughed at our defective knowledge by knowledgeable persons. That is why I wrote like that. Of course, it is a birth-right of everybody to write anything in his own book and publish it even with the financial aid of Central Sangeeta Nataka Academy or Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams. But, this birth-right should not be taken as a license to write whatever he knows in ‘Wikipedia’.

Knowledgeable people must always do the needful; though bitter, to lead the people in a well-disciplined way on the right-track. As well-disciplined and knowledgeable people are gradually decreasing and are keeping quiet now-a-days and, simultaneously, the in-disciplined are on the increase and taking upper-hand in many things such dastardly acts took many lives recently in Mumbai. So, incorrectness must always be condemned authoritatively but not softly. amsharma

[Nick H]

I can say that, if I am looking for authoritative discussion of anything Carnatic, Wikipedia would be very much lower on my list of sources than, for instance, rasikas.org!

Every Tom and Dick should not try to write his own version without any authority in places like ‘Wikipedia’ as it will be seen by many by which there is every scope of being laughed at our defective knowledge by knowledgeable persons. That is why I wrote like that. Of course, it is a birth-right of everybody to write anything in his own book and publish it even with the financial aid of Central Sangeeta Nataka Academy or Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams. But, this birth-right should not be taken as a license to write whatever he knows in ‘Wikipedia’.

That is just how Wikipedia works, and although sometimes useful as an quick alternative to lifting the dictionary from the shelf, I am very wary of it, preferring specialised sites when I need to use the internet for reference. This is absolutely not the place to discuss Wikipedia and how it works, but it it is a community all of its own, and one in which politics and influence within that community can have more influence on its content than what is actually true. Not that I event want to discuss that: I see such 'gossip' in passing on Information-Technology news-related sites, and it is pretty tedious stuff.