Talk:Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala/Archive 1

Archive 1

Added indic text

I added the indic text (tamil and telugu). I am however not 100% certain of the spelling and experts in these languauges are welcome to correct any mistakes. Kalyan 06:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

telugu script is right —The preceding unsigned comment was added by S172142230149 (talk • contribs) 04:46, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Importance classification

Since the temple is a major pilgrimage site for Hindus in India, i have reclassified the importance across the 2 projects --Kalyan (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Reason for undoing change

I have undone the change by 195.229.237.39 as it has not been backed up by any references. Please provide references before stating any facts. Manoj Prajwal (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Waiting and glimpsing

On the one hand it says in the article "This has resulted in a steep drop in time that devotees need to spend within the Queue Complex leading to the main temple, from 6 to 8 hours in the early 1990s to about one to one and half hours typically nowadays", and on the other hand it says "One is Dharma Darshanam - free, and usually taking 10 hours from the time you enter the Queue Complex".

On the one hand it says in the article "Typically, one gets to see the idol of the Lord for about sixty seconds depending on the rush", and on the other hand it says "Nowadays, one can not get a glance of more than 10-20 seconds".

These two issues need to be clarified, as both contain obvious contradictions. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The section is now made much more clearer (resolving contradictions) and new information is added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visusdvc (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Jain Temple Claim

This is with reference to the following addition to the "Ancient History" section.

Until 8th century, it was a jain temple containing the idol of Lord Neminatha, 22nd Jain thirthankara[citation needed]; During 8th century, Ramanuja converted this jain temple as vishnava temple and changed the shape of the jain idol Lord Neminath as Vishnu[citation needed]; Other than few members of the temple, noone is allowed to see the idol without jewelleries and ornaments, unlike there are so many temples which allows to see the idol without dressings; This is to protect the hidden fact that the jain idol has attached with artificial hands and dressings; In ancient jain literature Silappathikaram, the jain author Ilangovadigal mentions about their jain temple on the hill as "Nediyon Kunram". During the 8th century AD, 1000s of Jain temples were converted as hindu temples and in some places they retained the same jain idols, but by defacing the original look[citation needed].

The entire first paragraph of the "Ancient History" section is completely unverifiable. It seems to be a conspiracy theory akin to the "Murugan Temple" claim. Please note that Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. In this case there are absolutely no sources cited. I am therefore removing said paragraph with respect to wikipedia policies which require verifiable citations and neutrality of tone. Further, the person who made this addition also claims that "1000's of jain temples were converted to hindu temples". Kindly desist from making such lunatic claims.5:29 PM, 23 December 2009 Komarla 10 (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Komarla_10

Moreover, there is strong evidence against the Jain temple claim, simply from the testimony of the poet Ilango Adigal whose work Silappatikaram, a drama with a secular theme, mentions the deity of Tirupati as having a conch and a discus, and is described as Nediyon, and is being visited by men who are well-versed in the Vedas. I had already contributed the corresponding citation in the article itself under Ancient History. Now, Ilangovadigal is believed to be Jain and his work is dated to earlier than 5th Century AD. It is my humble opinion that people stop making unsubstantiated claims for political and such purposes other than furthering Wikipedia's cause. Kindly go through guidelines mentioned here before adding alleged facts and claims. Gandharva95 (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Tirupathi - Is the name correct?

I have 2 queries - i believe the correct reference to the hill city is Tirumala while the city at the foothills is Tirupati (and not Tirupathi). Can i make these corrections?Kalyan 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tirupati is the correct spelling, see http://tirumala.org/ BalanceRestored 07:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please try to add following articules. That will be helpfull for outsiders.

1. How to reach? 2. Where can stay? 3. Daily program or activities etc. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.247.232 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia ia not a travel guide to tell at that this is an encyclopaedia ok i hope it went into head —The preceding unsigned comment was added by S172142230149 (talk • contribs) 05:56, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I am surprised, that many of the Tamil kings info are not mentioned the in history of the temple. The word "Thiru" itself represents the Tamil word. But previosly i have seen full info of the tamil kings\rulers those are offer and built many things in temple. Now it has been removed from the Artical. Sridhar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnaasridhar (talk • contribs) 10:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Income of the temple, activities, criticism

Any information on the following is greatly appreciated. Is there any available information on the income of the temple through donations received from visitors? What's the average donation by a visitor, etc.? And how is the temple (or TTD) contributing to the society, if it's helping people/society through charitable works, etc.? What are the criticisms against the temple (or TTD)? Of course, please back these up by giving relevant references. Thanks. 213.23.255.223 (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from A4ayyappan, 17 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Related Temples :

Santhana Srinivasa Temple, West Mogappair, Chennai.

A4ayyappan (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. The article's protection has expired. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

hi google friends i need clear who built temple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.13.137 (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Confusion

The idol was recently brought here in Kathmandu, and i am not sure which idol was it? Sources say that it was first time in history that the idol was taken elsewhere . I need help. http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/thousands-of-nepalis-throng-to-see-tirupati-balaji-idols/967328.html |BINEET| 15:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bineetojha (talk • contribs)

RFC on ancient history

Did Thondaiman build the Tirumala Temple ?
Is it true that Thiruvengadam (Tirumala) temple was mentioned in Silapadikaram and SatanarManimekalai ?
Pavan 18:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavn123 (talk • contribs)
Thondaiman is a Pallava king. As per the official Tirumala.org Pallavas have been devotees of the Temple, and there is no mention of Thondaiman's building of the temple. Please see the discussion below Pavan 23:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Pavan (talk · contribs) appears to have engaged in WP:CANVASSING. At least 50 Wikipedians have received messages similar to this. --Allen3 ^talk 23:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  I think you may be referring to Pavn123 (talk · contribs) instead. Cheers regardless, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  WP:CAN states that is is appropriate to notify editors "who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed... Do not send notices to too many users..." By assuming good faith I can imagine the editor who notified 50 editors used names on the Wikipedia:Feedback request service. I imagine selecting 50 editors in the appropriate feedback category would make the type of feedback received balanced regarding any dispute. I can also imagine that sending to 50 uninvolved, neutral editors would be useful because many editors at the Wikipedia:Feedback request service are not available for commment. RFC bot sent me the RfC. Factseducado (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - since I was part of the mass canvassing, I will not comment substantively. Procedurally, see WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• According to the Times of India, Thondaiman did build this. Also see this report by the TTD Engineering department which says that Thondaiman is believed to have constructed it. Other Reliable sources that support this include: Business and Economy and Encyclopedia of Hindu architecture by Prasanna Kumar Acharya. Lynch7 16:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• MikeLynch has provided sources that indicate that at least "Thondaiman is believed to have constructed it." Factseducado (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is it true that Thiruvengadam (Tirumala) temple was mentioned in Silapadikaram and SatanarManimekalai ? Pavan 18:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavn123 (talk • contribs)

According to this again, it probably is. It'd be more helpful if you placed all your questions at the start of the RfC, and all at once, so not to inconvenience editors wanting to comment. Thanks, Lynch7 12:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Now the the confusing part to be made note of is - how could it be possible that Thondaiman a Pallava king had built the Temple when the Temple was mentioned in Silpadikkaram dated much earlier? In the times of India article states Thondaiman built it 1900 years ago.. while TTD source mentions Silpadikkaram dated between 500 BC and 300 AD... and Thondaiman to built it in first century? While the Tirumala.org mentions Pallavas to have provided rich endowments to the temple without mentioning who built it.
  The TTD is a reliable official source, but the information seems a little messed up, either in dates or who built the temple, considering Thondaiman to be a Pallava King, Pallava dynasty lasted from 4-9 century AD. Could it be possible that The deity already existed and Thondaiman built a temple or improved the temple already in place ? Pavan 18:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavn123 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I have no idea whatsoever. Looking at the sources, it seems almost certain that it is agreed upon that Thondaiman built the temple. We should mention that. I doubt the authenticity of the TTD source because we have no verification of its source. The sources say that Thondaiman built the temple, so we should mention that unless we get some compelling sources saying otherwise. Lynch7 09:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• In topics of history with conflicting reliable sources, we say "the sources are conflicting on this point" then explain what each source says concisely. Please note that in topics of ancient history these issues occur routinely because we don't have as many records as scholars would wish and the records sometimes do conflict on details such as this. Your other option is to find secondary sources perhaps by scholars in a field who would be interested in these things. Perhaps there is a reliable, verifiable source written by a scholar and published by an academic press who looks at the conflict among the sources in history in detail. Perhaps scholars of engineering, history, archaeology, translation of the early source material or religion have included this topic inside a book on a broader topic. Factseducado (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

EPIGRAPHICAL LORE OF TIRUPATI

http://www.tirumala.org/sapthagiri/122002/epic.htm

from ttd(

The holy shrine of Tirumala is a celebrated one from times immemorial. It has been attract ing large number of pilgrims from all parts of India. Its earliest mention is found in the Tamil literature of the Sangam age. It was known as Vada Vengadam, which was at that time on the border land between the Tamil country and that of the Vadugar (Andhras). This Temple bears on its walls several inscriptions which are of historical, cultural and linguistic importance. The number of inscriptions on the Hill Temple and in the temples of Lower Tirupati and Tiruchanur exceed one thousand and they furnish a continuous and authentic record of the transactions of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams for over seven or eight centuries. We have evidence to believe that many early inscriptions on the walls of the temples have disappeared beyond recovery due to restorations and renovations undertaken from time to time.

As many as 1060 inscriptions are found engraved on the walls of the temples under the management of the Devasthanam. They are published by the T.T, Devasthanams and are classified as follows:

   Sri Venkateswara's Temple, Tirumala : 
   No. of inscriptions. 640 
   Sri Govindaraja's Temple, Tirupati : 
   No. of inscriptions. 340 Other Temples : 
   No. of inscriptions. 80 

The earliest stone record of the temple goes back to the 51st year of the reign of Ko-Vijaya-Danti Vikram Varma of the Pallava Dynasty (830 A.C.) (No.219 G.T.) when a certain 'Ulagapperumanar of So1anur in Sola-Nadu instituted the service of a lamp, nanda-vilakku, i.e., burning a lamp. The last one belongs to Kilaka (1909 A.C.) (No. 242-T:T.) when the gilded kalasam was fixed over the Vimanam of Sri Venkateswara's shrine during the regime of Sri Mahant Prayagdasji. Even though these records cover roughly a period of 11 centuries, the dynasties that ruled South India are not fully represented. Inscriptions belonging to the Vijayanagar period are large in number, while those of earlier dynasties are only a few: Raja Raja Chola is the earliest king, whose name is associated with the main temple at Tirumala in a Tamil inscription issued in the 16th year of his rule (No. 17-T.T.).

Excepting a few, almost all the epigraphs of the Tirupati Temples are in Tamil language and in alphabet interspersed with Grantha characters. About 50 inscriptions are in Telugu and Kannada. Earlier to Sri Krishna- devaraya (16th century) there is only one Telugu inscription of Saluva Mangideva Maharaya dated saka 1281 (No.237 T.T.) and two Kannada inscriptions, one of Vira Pratapa-Devaraya Maharaya dated saka 351 (No. 188 T.T.) and one of Saluva Narasimha dated saka 1389 (No.8 G.T.). All the gifts of Sri Krishnadevaraya and his two queens and one of Achyutaraya are recorded in the three languages, Telugu, Kannada and Tamil in their respective alphabets. After Achyutaraya there is a conspicuous absence of both Telugu and Kannada inscriptions with the exception of one Telugu Inscription of the local chief Matli Anantarajayya (No.269 G. T.) of the saka year 1550 and one in Kannada of saka 1606 (No.263 T.T.).

The inscriptions clearly indicate that the temple of Sri Venkateswara at Tirumala and that of Sri Govindaraja at Tirupati enjoyed the patronage of sovereigns and 'chiefs who richly endowed them. Among the early royal benefactors the following stand out most prominently;

1. The queen of Paranthaka II ; Sundara Chola, , the king who slept at the Golden -Hall' and daughter of Cheraman, presented to the Lord of Seven Hills a Pattam (diadem) for the forehead set with precious stones, in the 16th year of the reign of Raja Raja I (101 A.C.) (No. 17 T.T.).

2. Samavai, a Pallava queen, presented a Kiritam (crown), a necklace of four strings and other ornaments for the hands, waist and feet of Lord Srinivasa and consecrated a silver image meant for processions, and endowed the Temple with lands in Tiruchukanur" (Tiruchanur). (Nos. 18 and 19 T. T.).

3. Jatavarman Sundara Pandya I (1250 to 1275 A.C.) placed a gilded kalasam over the vimanam of Sri Venkateswara's shrine.

Nitya-Dipam (Daily Lamp-Iighting), Nitya Naivedyam (Daily food offerings), Abhishekam (Holy bath) and various Utsavams (Tirunal, festivals), Vahanams (Vehicles) are mentioned widely in various inscriptions.

The Pallava inscription No.219 G.T. dated in the 51st year of the reign of Ko- Vijaya-Danti Vikrama Varman (830 A.C.) is the earliest in the collection, which records an arrangement made for keeping a lamp burning before a processional image installed in the shrine of Tiruvenkatattu-Emperumanadigal.

The Chola records register donations and gifts intended for nanda-vilakku (lamp-lighting). We find that ghee alone was used for all lamps inside the temple and this practice still continues at Tirumala Temple.

During the Vijayanagara period food offerings took precedence over lamp lighting. Sometimes gifting of cows was preferred to offerings of gold. The cows, besides yielding ghee for the lamps, served the additional purpose of offering the dairy products to the deities. In addition to this large quantity of holy food offered each day, certain worshippers had offered occasionally big heaps of cooked rice measuring about 200 marakkals, known as Tiruppavadai (Nos. 54, 197 & 253 T.T. and 151 G.T.).

A few records mention a daily Tirumanjanam or Abhishekam for Sri Venkateswara at Tirumala and also for Sri Govindaraja at Tirupati (No.4 & 163 T.T.).

Sri Krishnadevaraya paid seven visits to the temple of Sri Venkateswara (From 1513 A.C. to 1524 A.C.). He presented diadems and ornaments set with precious stones, gold and silver vessels to his patron God, and also endowed the temple with villages in the districts of Chandragiri, Udayagiri and Penugonda. His two queens Tirumaladevi and Chinnadevi were present with him during almost all his visits to Tirumala and they shared with him the credit for the gifts and grants made by him. At the inner right side to the entrance of the temple of Sri Venkateswara at Tirumala we find the bronze images of Sri Krishnadevaraya with his two consorts on either side.

Matli Kumara-Anantarajayya is the last in the line of great royal benefactors. A long Telugu stanza consisting of 41 lines in the Sisamalika metre engraved separately in Telugu and Tamil is found on the walls of a small shrine dedicated to Sri Venkateswara at the foot of the hill. It refers to the Sopana Marga, (flight of stone-steps) forming the pathway commencing from the foot of the hill usually called 'Alipiri' (i.e., Adipadi, the bottom or the lowest step) and extending on the side of the hill in a zig zag course upto the small tower commonly known as the Gali- gopuram, which stands on the summit of the front hill prominently visible on the plain country for a distance of about 8 to 10 miles.

Under the patronage of almost all important dynasties of South India, this sacred Temple of Tirumala enjoyed the full benefits and glories. The Pallavas, the Cholas, the Pandyas, Kadavarayas, Yadavarayas, Telugu Cholas, Telugu Pallavas, Vijayanagara kings (Sangama, Saluva and Tuluva lines) have left the marks of their patronage and endowments on the walls of the Temples of Tirumala and Tirupati. Italic text In addition to the epigraphical lore of the temple we have a unique collection of about 3000 copper plates on which the Telugu Sankirtanas of Tallapaka Annamacharya and his descendants are inscribed. This collection forms a valuable source of material for a historical linguist in Telugu, apart from its importance to musicologists.

TTD has brought out the inscriptions in six volumes under the title, TTD epigraphical series. These volumes are a fund of authentic information on the history of the temples, the rites and rituals observed over a period of time, the various offerings made by the devotees including kings, chieftains, temple servants and others. They specify the name of the donor, the year when the donation was made and the manner in which the donation is to be utilised and the manner in which prasadams are to be distributed. Italic text

can add these info info into this article 115.241.71.80 (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Reg Removal of contents from header

Thanks to Diannaa , the sourced edits are restored. Guys , please refrain from removing sourced contents from header. if you have issues , there is this talk page to discuss this. If this happens very often ( removal of content by unsigned authors) , then we may have to request for semi protection of this page Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I came back too see that again the following contents have been removed. This is a sourced content . Why is this being vandalized "Excepting a few, almost all the epigraphs of the Tirupati Temple are in Tamil language and in alphabet interspersed with Grantha characters"??? Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is for Lord Venkateswara Temple not for for the representation of Tamil language, or for any other language representation, the amount of Tamil used is not a topic of discussion required on this page please discuss such topics else where. Pavan 21:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavn123 (talk • contribs)

The article is about temple and the information that has been provided is also about temple , that too the source is the official website of the temple.I feel that unnecessary regional thoughts is masking right information from reaching everyone through encyclopedia. Please Consider my observations and let me know your comments. Thanks Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Karthikeyan, adding your information causes more regional feelings than keeping it neutral by not adding anything, the amount of Tamil used in temple is not an important topic required that needs to be present or discussed on the Temple page please have them posted on Tamil language page or other place where it may seem more apt. I hope you understand that this temple page is for everyone including those who are not Tamils and by adding such information the article does not appeal pleasantly to the reader. Pavan 23:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavn123 (talk • contribs)

I would like to convey that Wikipedia is for sharing information .If the statue of liberty is donated by french that doesn't mean that USA is a french colony. All these interpretations are left to the reader and only facts are presented in an encyclopedia.If Tirupathi temple has old tamil inscriptions around it its a fact about the temple and why not add it in the encyclopedia ? So please reconsider your stance. The intention of wikipedia ( or any encyclopedia) is not to please anyone but to roll out the correct facts to reach everyone. There is nothing regional in the info that was given.The temple is ofcourse in Andhra Pradesh and devotees from all over the world visit the temple.In fact i suspect the removal of the content to be a regional feeling , yet on goodwill i request you to kindly reconsider this. This is a fact and that too it is a sourced fact from the temple website itself. Pls let me know if there is an agreement. Thanks Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Pavn123,

As there is no consensus on the case yet made after repeated requests of a sourced content , pls let me know if this can be moved to arbitration

Thanks Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing contents from epigraphical lore which are in violation of WP:NPOV Kondakotaiah (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain your stance Kondakotaiah ? Its not clear ! Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we need this fight?

there is no mention of Andhra Pradesh in the citation of the tamilakam article.It is not right to say that the region actually belongs to tamilnadu, same with tondainadu

The temple was established by a Tamilian, the great Ramanuja Acharya. All the Alwars are Tamilians. The 4000 Divya Prabhandam is in Tamil. Thiruppavai which is sung in the Mirugashisa Masa is in Tamil. There is nothing equivalent to Divya Prabhandam in Telugu!.. Telugu lover

There are Tamil inscriptions and thats it. It represents Telugu culture and NOT Tamil. Somebody wrote that prayers are done in tamil. thats a joke. Only telugu Vaikhansa brahmins are allowed as archakas in the temple. This article is a mess with unsourced propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagarjuna198 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Claims are that way and no one takes it that seriously. You find every where that every thing in south india is just Tamil culture and this is a propaganda of Tamilians. They forget that there are others like Telugu, Kannada, Tulu, etc. The Tamils just try every time to hijack every thing in south india. Eg - shri -> chri -> chiru -> thiru. Hardly Tamil. 213.23.235.223 (talk) 14:35, 20 Jan 2011 (UTC)

The above deriavation is highly ridiculuous. Do you have any reference to prove it... In the absence of such evidence it could also be seen in the reverse: shri <- chri <- chiru <- thiru. Dont propagate your ignorance of Tamil and its archaic nature to others. There are many words in Sanskrit derived from Tamil, for your information. Telugu simply cannot exist without Tamil. For example, arangetram, vennila, the numerals, the word erpadu, paal, pattu.. the list is unending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.105.166 (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The contributions of tamilians to the temple can never be ignored as infact the temple itself is believed to be built by a tamil king. It is obtrusive that recently, tamil scripts in and around the temple are concealed, overwritten etc. Historical features should remain to preserve the aesthetic value. We are Indians first! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.149.10 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The map shown on the right of the page is of Kerala and not of Andhra Pradesh. The location of temple in Andhra Pradesh should be shown and not otherwose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.75.169 (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Have provided reliable online book sources which say that tirupathi is a word of tamil origin and that tirumala deity is a tamil deity. The onlike books are even authored by renowned telugu anthropologists. Attested then as refs. See here:[1], [2]. Before the formation of a republic in 1955, Tirupathi was indeed a part of madras residency. Many foregin authors before 1955, had addressed tirupathi hills as "hills in tamil nadu". See this:[3]. Whatever you all say, speak with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.157.45 (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Eshwar.om (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)I dont know Why people Neglecting Tamil.But May I know the meaning of Tirumalai?Why people keep on neglecting Tamil.I hope that Like this century before People Neglected Sanskrit.So now only in Temple Use.You know in india where Temples are high numbers like more than 2000 years old.the answer is Tamilnadu.Tamil nadu Official Emblem also Temple Symbol.so Sanskrit also Living in Tamil nadu temples.Is it so?!Please Dont thing Tamil Nadu only for Tamilians.All Tamilnadu Temples for our use to go and get punniya.Tirupathi was a starting point and Kanniyakumaari is a the ending point of Tamilnadu.In between how many 1000 vainava temple(Vishnu)(Tiruvarangam=Srirangam Like etc.how many 1000 saiva Temple(Siva)Tiruvannamalai like etc.How Many lord subramanya Temple(Tiruthani,Palani,like etc.sakthi temple like kanji Kamakshi,Madurai meenakshi like etc.Please dont try to neglate Tamil.With out Tamil Dravidian Languages does not full fill.while talking Please register true information what ever it may be.But should be true.Other wise Readers and also who having cristal clear view about the history they may get laugh.And there is a chance to thing fun about liability of Weakipedia.Weakypedia wants that name?!May i know?!

Do we need this fight? The great Tamil poet Subramania_Bharati mentioned Telugu in his song as 'Sundara Telunginil Pattu Isaippom'. It means we will make songs in sweet Telugu. Tamil people have endorsed and popularized these lines in many writings and movies till date.

Hi JohnBlackburne. Noted that you have reverted my edit.I have deleted few edits since they were abusive / hatred in nature. Still i go by your say. Just adding a few points to existing content. Thanks

Hair

I am sort of confused, why is the topic on hair not included in the article? its really conspicuous in absense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.41.69 (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I found an [article] on this, and added a reference to it in the text. Wiki-uk (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Any one clarify please?I Received a talk that is Tirupathi is actually lord subramaniya place.Tamil vainava(Use to potray lord vishnu)some century ago they changed the place like vanava place.some said actually that is not vainava place that is saiva place.Why i m asking means Lord subramanya always has a temple where hills are there in all over south india.Like all Tamilnadu subramanya temple Located on the hill.In karnataka kuki subramanya also same like hill Area.Because i have not hear about Hair Removing in vainava Temple and vainava Temple sastra.Now we need to consider the Saiva and Vainava fought in Tamilnadu centuries ago.There is a chance is there Tirupathi not at all Tamil vainava(Vishnu followers) place.it is a actual Tamil saiva place(siva follwers).why am asking this because of the reason is hair Removal at temple not at all vainava activity.Then why they not at all including about hair Removal in this article?may i know?we see about venkata giri in skantha purana(Purana about lord subramanya).so now May i know where is the Temple in Tirumalai???this is the questions are standing front of Tirupathi .They cant not hide Tamil in Tirupathi because after freedom of india only Tirupathi gone to AP .so enough written document records are available for that.But could they clarify not for Tamil related what i asked Like hair concept that and all ?Can i expect the answer from any Archeologist ?Because i have a dought Tirupathi is a Tamil vainava place or Tamil saiva Place?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshwar.om (talk • contribs) 09:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

---

The text on this page seems eerily identical to the text found on the temple page (with no attribution) found here: http://tirumalahills.com/history_of_tirumala.htm

What is different is the anti-Hindu pro Jain slant. What does Jainism have to do with this temple? Not a single source is cited. Who on earth is Lord Neminath? I've never heard of him before in any sense. How about taking out the Jain rewrite of history and posting text that has either evidence or general acceptance amongst scholars? This article remains rather doubtful as it stands. Please correct it, or if you'd like to maintain your feral anti-Hindu stance, at least support your strange projection of jainism onto a beloved Hindu temple. 10:36, 28 February 2009 User: Ramanusia contribs

Could i get the clarification?

I have questions in the article of Tirumala Venkateswara Temple .My first question is In the part of "Etymology" Tiru means 'Holy' or 'Sacred' and mala means hills/mountain in Dravidian Languages. Therefore it translates as Holy mountains.May i know which Dravidian Language that is? Second question is the article mention the poet Annamatchariya.He is the poet of Telugu Language.Then May i know other Dravidian language poets where they missed for this temple article ?!why they are not mention . Why the Questions are raising Because in this article mention that Dravidian architecture,Dravidian Languages used.But May i know the Reason why the writer given important for only Telugu Language in this Article. Then what about other Dravidian Languages part and role of this Temple ?I hope the article writer of this page use to register his own thoughts with Language Agitating Mentality ?Is it so.so may i know how people believe this article?Enough reliable proof available for reference.even though keep on destroying the records from the article.could you take any action for this?and May i know about your part with Wikipedia? I hope wikipedia people are working with true not for advertising ?Is it so?so i believe that will wiki people support in this for me.Lets see! Eshwar.om (talk)15:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Etymology - Tirumala means the same in all Dravidian languages and yes Tamil is a dravidian language too... What is the loss if mentioned as Dravidian why does Tamil need special importance ?

Specifying the meaning of the Temple is applicable only in Tamil is not fair, one may have to mention, Tamil, Kannada, Teleugu and Malayam also, hence it is easier to mention it as Dravidian language.

• Annamacharya is the official Poet of the Temple hence he is mentioned here, he is the only one who composed 36000 Kirtanas all of them exlusively in praise of Lor Venkateswara. Please see Annamacharya . Just because his compositions are in Telugu the Official and local language of Tirumala you cannot remove .

There is a unique collection of about 3000 copper plates found in the Temple accidentally, on which the Telugu Sankirtanas of Tallapaka Annamacharya are inscribed. This collection forms a valuable source of material for a historical linguist in Telugu, apart from its importance to musicologists.

• You may be seeing Telugu language more than Tamil in the article because it is the official and local language of the Temple, please seeTirumala Tirupati Devasthanams the Official administration Board of the Temple which is part of Govenrment of Andhra Pradesh, it is not part of Tamil Nadu government.

RTPking (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Eshwar.om (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Etymology:Your wrong .Not Asking Special importance for Tamil.Why hiding Actual Truth ?.Not Only Tamil is just simple Dravidian language too.It actual Pure Dravidian Language very less usage of Sanskrit words.In 2004, the Government of India declared that languages that met certain requirements could be accorded the status of a "Classical Language in India". Languages thus far declared to be Classical are Tamil (in 2004), Sanskrit (in 2005).Don't say simply just Dravidian language too.That is not fair to say. Told this because for your knowledge.Tirumala means not same for all Dravidian language.It is Tamil word.1.//Tiru (Tamil: திரு), is a Tamil honorific prefix used while addressing adult males in Tamil, being the equivalent of the English "Mr." or the French "Monsieur".Please click the link//Tiru.It is a Tamil Word please see[4].Anthropological Survey of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Dept. of Culture, Govt. of India, 1990.please read that.[5]. Many foregin authors before 1955, had addressed tirupathi hills as "hills in tamil nadu". See this.[6].This are the Records Tirumala Tirupati Name is not common in all Dravidian Language. I hope his is the enough things for the name conclusion of Tirupath Tirumala.Now you can understand i hope.so may i know the reason for Language agitation and hiding the truth.Please clarify.Thank youEshwar.om (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

---

The mentioning of Tirupathi hills being located in Tamil Nadu is wrong, ever since state of Tamil Nadu formed the state of andhra Pradesh existed and Tirupathi has since the existence of andhra pradesh been a part of Andhra Pradesh. Before these states were formed there was only Madras state. The book claimed Tirupathi hills to be in Tamil Nadu which is false and misleading facts. Similarly the other book you cited claimed Balaji to be a Tamil diety which is really wrong. Balaji is a Hindu Diety not a Tamil diety, it is really wrong to claim like this. It is like a Pakistani claiming Allah to be a Pakistani god and has nothing to do with other Muslim nations, which is so wrong. Please do not use such wrong and misleading books as Citations.

In regards to etymology what you said it means in Tamil is correct, but you have only mentioned what it means in Tamil and did not try to see if the word Tiru is used in other languages... Please click this link for instance where tiru has meaning in any dravidian languages, if researched, more we may find much more sources with information. RTPking (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I have not find any Tiru meaning in the reference which you mentioned.What are the books i mentioned that is Anthropological Survey of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Dept. of Culture, Govt. of India written by Telugu author , And other i mentioned that is books from Google.Do you thing government of India,and Google are wrong ?!!Is it so? do you thing this is wrong and misleading books as Citations.Isn't it?nwhat are the things your revealing that is only true.Isn't so?And you mentioned example like Pakistani Allah .This is the enough proof for your Tamil Agitation i hope.Please read the history before write a article.Otherwise your article will be in the state of Pity.Else i dont know you May the followers of Potti sri Ramulu.that is your personal.but Truth is always truth.some times persons not able to tolerate and accept the truth.But truth always be a truth. please avoid such a words like Pakistani.Allah.Why because it is publicly display your mentality and Tamil Agitation.Thank youEshwar.om (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Title query

"Tirumala Venkateswara Temple "name is correct ?Need the official answer.Please if some one knows then clarify?i am not clear in this.Need help .please help me in this.Thank you! ==

Eshwar.om (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What kind of "official answer" you're seeking? — Bill william compton^Talk 13:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hai Mr Bill william compton. "Tirumala Venkateswara Temple" is not a official name.the official god name is "Srinivasa".you can see the name in the TTD(Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams).Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams official emblem itself .the TTD(Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams ) (Logo) is: "Motto says Srinivasa Vijayathe (Victory to Lord Srinivasa)"not victory to venkateswara).please see the link Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams .venkateswara is regional name.correct name is Thiruvengadam Temple temple as per TTD(Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams )( TTD is a independent trust which manages the temple).see the link.(^{Temple name})Thank you(Eshwar.om (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshwar.om (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This page is an example of Originalk researches and abolition of history of the tample.The tmail references are systematically removed repeatedly by ungined and other users by giving irrelevant reason. Can this page be semi protected ? Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved (Please see below a new request for information). — Bill william compton^Talk 05:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Thiruvengadam Temple → Tirumala Venkateswara Temple – – WP:OR (new name). Old name is COMMONNAME. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - as per nom, old name is common name. Also, this article lies within scope of WikiProject Hindusim and India and is supported by Wikiproject Andhra Pradesh with high importance. So without discussing, the article was moved to Thiruvengadam Temple (current name). If anyone cares to have a look at the page history, it is clear that there has been lots of controversial edits which includes section blanking. I believe the latest move is related to these editings, if it is related, then it is a violation of Neutral point of view. So the article should be restored to its previous state. ShriRam^{Talk to}_me 20:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

name.Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 21:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, so we couldn't care less about "Indian government laws". Please base your argument on facts, not assumptions, and especially not on some incomprehensible metaphor. — Bill william compton^Talk 21:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: Why we need a new move request when what User:Eshwar.om did was clearly a violation of WP:MOVE? Without any proper discussion, xhe started a page move war. I'm moving it back to its original title until we can get a consensus on whether to move it or not. — Bill william compton^Talk 21:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

hi Mr william comptom ,you mentioned in your message //some incomprehensible metaphor// .some times unexpected things may occur.i hope this word also same like. but receiving from you.ok fine.no issue, I received a message from the user WikiDan61 like follows\\( "WikiDan61 (talk | contribs) moved page Tirumala Venkateswara Temple or Thiruvengadam temple to Tirumala Venkateswara Temple over redirect ‎(Revert page move error. Alternate names should not be part of the article title. A redirect from the alternate name is preferred.)"// while after i chaged the name (Tirumala Venkateswara Temple or Thiruvengadam temple to Tirumala Venkateswara Temple) just days back.then i received from wikiDan61 for guidance .That is you can see above.so i changed the title. is it wrong.Please clarify?!Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 22:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• The official name of the temple is Sri Venkateswara Temple not even Tirumala Venkateswara Temple

Please see these official tirumala links below:
List of temples with their Official and real names : http://www.tirumala.org/ptv_start.htm
http://www.tirumala.org/maintemple_main.htm
http://www.tirumala.org/maintemple_about.htm

Please see the below link on the official temple site; that the seven hills are fondly called as Tiruvengadam nowhere it is mentioned that the real name is Tiruvengadam temple
http://www.tirumala.org/sapthagiri/062003/balaji.htm Singharaju (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Full protection

Rather than wait for one of you to cross the line and get blocked for edit warring, I've fully protected the page for 3 days. Please use this time to come to a consensus about the recently disputed edits. If you need help, please pursue dispute resolution. If, instead, people resume edit warring after the protection finishes, we may have to start blocking instead. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Tirumala Venkateswara Temple → Thiruvengadam Temple – User:Eshwar.om thinks that this article should be moved to a requested title. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME is not Thiruvengadam Temple. 31,900 hits v/s 5,00,000 hits for Tirumala Venkateswara Temple. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per my support for the previous move request. Also I believe too many moves within days are going to confuse the readers. ShriRam^{Talk to}_me
• Oppose – Clearly, current title is more common (483,000 ghits) than the requested one (472 ghits). Redtigerxyz, we should not consider hits generated by Wikipedia and its mirror sites. — Bill william compton^Talk 08:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Facts

Before submitting my source and Reasons with Thiruvengadam Temple, i want to point out some mismatch major errors are appearing in this article.

Point no 1:Somebody mentioned in the area of image content side under the name section the proper name is "Tirumala Venkateswara Devastanam". they mention there wrong reference.even in that reference could not tell any name like Tirumala Venkateswara Devastanam.

Point no 2: need the reason why some users keep on deleting the Ancient history of the Temple in this article.if history no need then why history related topics are presented in this page? you can see even still there is no Ancient history added or permanently removed in this article. Some body keep on Removing that section in this article .May i know why?Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 13:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Support:why support?there is no question in this.Because its true.According to the temple History.The official god name is "SRI Venkatesa" .And the Official Temple name is Tiruvengadam temple.I given Already in Title query itself in talk page.Please go through it.Temple name what ever you can give or protect from move.this are all not healthy aspect to see.I hope wiki people still working for wikipedia.why because i m getting dought on this.i hope wikipedia wont give a chance to readers to think bad opinion about wikipedia.Let see.some times persons get a chance to think and focus about wikipedia Reliability.This is my term .i hope even so.Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 15:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
My Questions for Wikipedia
Do you allow article and its title only basis on Hits?is it so? then may i know why the name for Wikipedia ?keeping like Non profit organization? when Wikipedia turns working basis on hits not working for reliability then how people believe some what with Wikipedia.May i know?please help in this somebody? In this May i expect the answer or help from Mr Bill william compton ?!will he?Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 08:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
MR Bill william compton you talked like//Clearly, current title is more common (483,000 ghits) than the requested one (472 ghits). Redtigerxyz, we should not consider hits generated by Wikipedia and its mirror sites// Do you know the actual name is Tiruvengadam.Name Tiru or Thiru means 'Holy' or 'Sacred' and Vengadam means name of the hill (where the lord loacted )in Tamil Language. Therefore it translates as Thiru+vengadam=Thiruvengadam.Official website of Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams(http://www.tirumala.org) As many as 1060 inscriptions are found engraved on the walls of the temples under the management of the Devasthanam. They are published by the T.T, Devasthanams.1010 Incriptions are all Tamil.About 50 inscriptions are in Telugu and Kannada.Please seeOfficial website of Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams(http://www.tirumala.org) Want to See the official Temple name please click(^{Temple name}). "Tirumala Venkateswara Temple" is not a official name.the official name of the god is "Srinivasa".you can see the original name where the TTD(Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams) w's official website itself. there the (Logo) is: "Motto says Srinivasa Vijayathe (Victory to Lord Srinivasa)"not victory to venkateswara).please see the link Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams .Tirumala venkateswara Temple is regional name.correct name is Thiruvengadam Temple as per TTD(Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams )( TTD is a independent trust which manages the temple).see the link.(^{Temple name})Thank you.Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 11:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Eshwar, Wikipedia can never be a primary source. It has to rely on what has been already published about the topic. Articles are supposed to be summaries and reflections of information (facts) and must not contain original research. Google hits is just a simple test to identify the most common name of the subject. In general, it is safe to say that a topic with no ghits is very probably unworthy of an article. I'm no expert in this area, so please ask Hindu Wikiproject members to comment here. Thanks. — Bill william compton^Talk 12:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

TiruvenGadam is a regional name it is so called only in the state of Tamil Nadu nowhere else in India is it called so, it is known officially as Sri Venkateswara Temple http://www.tirumala.org/maintemple_about.htm RTPking (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If Tiruvengadam is a reginal name and so called only in the state of TN, it means Eshwar is making this move in favour of only 'Tamil Nadu' which will be a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. ShriRam^{Talk to}_me 23:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thiruvengadam Temple is a official name.Mr RTP king and Mr Sriram ,with out reference and source that is not good to say like Thiruvengadam is a regional name.will you give me any reliable sources for that.Will i expect? with out knowing personal opinions not healthy for wikipedia, i hope,I given enough proof for that. Please see the other reliable sources:

Book published by Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, in the year of 1953.there also mentioned "The Thiruvengadam Temple". Book published by Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, in the year of 1997 also they mentioned the same "The Thiruvengadam Temple". Do you thing for some particular cycle period to cycle period people will change the Temple name for their favourable?Is't it? And under WP:PRECISE it is not be a blatant violation. Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 01:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Adding a Regional name for this article is not the right way to go, only the official name must be used. Singharaju (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  

*Support I have read this Discussion Fully.I will give a support under WP:PRECISE.Thank you!JohnThomas.Yes (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support:Reliable sources need to be considerable.Sunil.prakash.pande (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support:The Historical and official Name need to fix for better view.That is reliable.Vasanth.Krish pande (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have stricken the three above "votes", because all three accounts were confirmed to be operated by Eshwar.om. The use of multiple accounts to influence a discussion is forbidden per WP:SOCK. The discussion can continue, but note that the proposer is blocked for a month and won't be able to participate. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Renaming the page to satisfy regional interest is not acceptable. The present style of naming the article is neutral and natural. Moreover, the proposer used multiple accounts to influence the discussion, as there were not supporters! It is good that such users are blocked for longer periods.Rayabhari (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Venketashwara Etymology

WHy is there a non reliable source mentioned. Also the article itselelf states " I believe ......" , which means the referred article is a original research. There is a huge edit war and unsourced articles in this page. This page needs improvement and semi protection ! Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In Sanskrit Ven-kata-eswara the meaning is given as ‘ve:m’ = all the links with one’s own sins, ‘kata’=will be cut off in total, to one, who surrenders to him, ‘Eswara’ = Supreme God.

• http://www.chinnajeeyar.org/main/content/pronounciation-of-venkatesa-suprabhatam
• http://tirumalatirupatitemple.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/lord-balaji-temple-history

Singharaju (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The etymology of Venkateshwara has Sanskrit meaning please see source provide by the above user. RTPking (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Title query

Is "Tirumala Venkateswara Temple "name correct ?Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 10:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I moved it back. First of all, you only moved the talk page, not the article. Second, there was an extensive discussion on the name of this article relatively recently; you cannot just move it unilaterally at this point. If you wish to consider a different name, you may discuss the matter here, but I strongly recommend you read the previous discussion first. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my mistake; I forgot that Eshwar.om was the problem last time, and is fully aware of the previous move discussion. I've blocked the user for 2 months, as move warring is simply not acceptable. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Tirupati Balaji is a re-incarnation of Lord Vishnu in the Kali Yuga.

Sage Bhrugu, who according to Vedas is believed to have an extra eye in the sole of his foot, once visited Vishnu. At that time, Vishnu was in a private meeting with his consort, goddess Lakshmi, and failed to immediately receive and honour the sage. The sage felt humiliated and angry, and kicked Lord Vishnu in the chest. Vishnu did not react and remained silent. Lord Vishnu's chest is believed to be the abode of Goddess Lakshmi. The Goddess felt highly insulted at the sage's misdemeanour and Lord Vishnu's silence at the act. She left Vaikunta, the heavenly abode of Vishnu and Lakshmi. Lord Vishnu, in an attempt to pacify the sage, got hold of legs of the sage and started to press them gently in a way that was comforting to the sage. During this act, he squished the extra eye that was present in the sole of Bhrugu's foot. The extra eye is believed to represent the sage's egotism. The sage then realised his grave mistake and apologized to Lord Vishnu. Lord Vishnu had then incarnated Himself as Venkateshwara and came to earth in search of Lakshmi, who had taken birth as Princess Alamelu (Padmavati) in the household of Akasa Rajan. The princess's father agreed to give his daughter's hand in marriage to Venkateshwara if he provided proof of his wealth. Towards this end, Venkateshwara obtained a heavy loan from Kubera, a god (yaksha) who is considered, accordingly to Hindu mythology, as the treasurer of the virtuous wealth in the Universe. Princess Padmavati and Lord Venkateshwara were then wed. Lord Vishnu, in the form of Venkateshwara, and his consort are believed to have enshrined themselves at Tirumala Tirupati for the benefit of mankind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.186.155 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 March 2013‎ (UTC)

None of this helps us with the article unless you provide reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Purandara Dasa Section

Mr Qwyrxian: First of all I would like to request you to discuss before directly removing any section especially if there are sufficient sources linked to the section. If there are any sections to be reformatted or improved it can be definitely discussed and then removed. Regarding Purandara Dasa section he was one of the prominent persons who had visited the Tirupathi Devasthanam. TTD has also unveiled his statue in Tirumala in his memory. There is also a project called Dasa Sahitya project started by TTD to spread the message of Purandara Dasa. There are sufficient sources also linked to these claims. --Quote (talk) 07:04, 04 May 2013 (UTC)

There was exactly one source, and it fell under WP:SPS. Furthermore, there is pretty much never a circumstance where a person visiting a place would be of sufficient importance to include in that place's article. Like, really, ever. It wouldn't matter if that person was an emperor, president, or Nobel Prize winner. It simply isn't central to the place's story. As for the other stuff I removed, it was entirely unsourced. Please see WP:V, which says that any information that may be challenged should be tagged and/or removed. Given how extremely long this article already is (and that it has several sub-articles as well), removal is the correct approach. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Citations in "Ancient History" section

@Pavn123, Please refer the below link. There seems to be reference to Tondaman(Tondaiman) in Tirumala website Mr.Falcon (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

@Pavn123, I do not understand your logic. Citations verify what according to you is unverifiable. Besides, what is your definition of exceptional ? I have cited government documents, and that should count as exceptional. You say that solid proof is needed, but make no effort is providing such information. If you say that there is no information from that period, then you should provide sources that back your argument ! What appears correct to you is neither accepted by the larger Wikipedia community, nor verified by facts !

And, it is unfortunate that you ask me to maintain a neutral tone, when in fact, your own edits compromise neutrality and violate community guidelines. Jash121 (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

@Jash121 The entire first paragraph of the "Ancient History" section is completely unverifiable. Please note that Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. In this case there are absolutely no such sources cited. I am therefore removing the said paragraph with respect to wikipedia policies which require verifiable citations and neutrality of tone.

Not considering the simple sensible information, which says that Thondaiman's building of the temple makes no sense when he is a Pallava King knowing that Silpatikkaram centuries before Thondaiman mentioned Tirumala temple.

Adding that section not knowing the legitimacy of your sources and also misleading people into believing so is not right. Please be patient and maintain the neutral tone wherein we shall not include any information about the ancient history, until solid proof is obtained.

In the sources you provided it is no where mentioned that Thondaiman has built the temple... so how do you use these as citations ? Please follow the guidelines by clicking here about adding citations, and also please refrain from adding the ancient history section as long as it is not proven.

The Official tirumala.org has absolutely no mention of Thondaiman, all your citations are unofficial, vague and misleading.

Pavan 06:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavn123 (talk • contribs)

@Pavn123, for your information, Tondaiman, according to my sources, was responsible for the construction of parts of the actual stone temple that is present today. The site of worship might have been present before that. Also, let me point out that one of my sources is written by a former TTD official. Your assumption that official websites provide comprehensive and accurate information is not true, at least in India.

At this juncture, I suggest that you back up your claims with proper sources. I have backed up my claims sufficiently, and your denial of those claims does not imply their non-existence. Also, please keep in mind that the community gets to decide on the content of the article. Please refrain from blanking. I strongly suggest that the Ancient History section be kept in place unless and until a consensus is reached. Jash121 (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@Jash121 If all these sources were true and legitimate the Official website would definitely report these details. The citations you provided are not legitimate and the google book you provided does not mention Thondaiman to have built the temple, it only mentions he built tirupati. Please make note that Thondaiman is a Pallava king and he did not exist between 2nd -3rd Century during Shilpadikkaram's time which has references to the Tirumala temple. He was present much later during Pallava dynasty's time around 5th - 9th century. So the temple existed before Pallavas and Thondaiman did not build it. Pavan 01:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Pavn 123,the official version does not necessarily reflect the real picture. Besides, the Tirumala Temple website does not explicitly mention an absence of information regarding the temple's ancient history. Additionally, other official sources such as the Andhra Pradesh Gazeteer of 1961, hisotrical scriptures/poems and archaeological records document the origin and development of the temple complex. Jash121 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

@Jash121 Please do not add that information again it will be considered - vandalising the Tirumala temple article, you are adding information which the official website is not aware of. Here evidence that there is no information about Thondaiman's building this temple check the official website. http://www.tirumala.org/maintemple_history.htm I hope this solves the dispute.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavn123 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

@Pavn123, there is clear evidence regarding Tirupati's ancient history. The Tamil heritage of Tirupati is well documented and undeniable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jash121 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no clear information about the ancient history of the temple all the sources are vague, misleading and not clear and hence to keep it clean we do not have the ancient history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavn123 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of claims made in the "Ancient History" section regarding the Tirupati temple being "originally Buddhist". These lines either contain no citations supporting their claim, or claim sources like www.ambedkar.org, which contain articles written by authors who have no reputation of prior peer-reviewed work. In fact, the "e-book" about Tirupati that is cited has as an author someone who was originally in the field of medicine, got a B.A. from Nagpur University, and seems to have no other peer-reviewed work. It is helpful if we stick to sources such as: (1) Original works in Sanskrit or other languages which have been verifiably agreed to be ancient, such as Silappadikaram etc. in Tamil, and other ancient religious/secular prose or poetry. (2) Summary of archaeological evidences summarized in peer-reviewed journals rather than self-published books. Gandharva95 (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How come "Thiruvengadam" is tirupati ? May be the person who understood like this is wrong or whoever wrote this Silappadikaram is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohinikumart (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It is kind of settled that Thiruvengadam is in fact Tirupati. "Venkateswara" refers to the deity of Tirupati and hence there can be no doubt as to what "Vengadam" means. Moreover, ancient Tamil literature gives "Vengadam" as the northern boundary of the Tamil-speaking people. Also, the question is not whether the Silappadikaram was right or wrong. The story in the Silappadikaram does say that the person was wishing to see the deity "adorned with the conch and discus, wearing excellent garments, etc." who is situated "on top of the hill known as 'Vengadam'". Ms. Rohinikumar, kindly verify all these before editing, or it will be an unnecessary edit war.Gandharva95 (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right place to add stories. You can add this "Vengadam" into Silappadikaram page. And write all the stories there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohinikumart (talk • contribs) 03:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Rohinikumar, this is not about "writing stories". The mention of Tirumala/Tirupati in an ancient Tamil work such as Silappadikaram is quite relevant and significant to this article, as it is a very old authenticated Tamil work. This really authenticates the historicity of this temple. Your objections are unwarranted. I had provided the proper references for the point. If you still want to keep the section removed, I will go for a dispute resolution/arbitration as per Wikipedia policy. -- Gandharva95 (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gandharva ,I understand your point to project the ancient history of the temple.But its just that,there are too many details.It could be stated in brief.I wish to edit and make it brief without losing the main context Vidya.jeyaprakash (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Tirumala Venkateswara is originally a Dravidian /aboriginal jain temple

There is no such god called Tirumala Venkateshwara in any Hindu literature. They are assimilated gods as and when it was require to convert dravidian heritage. For that none of god in Vedic literature are real, they are mere myths. But venkateshwara is not even part of mainstream mythological literature. However such gods are known only to local community. In Hinduism elsewhere ( in North, West, East of India) people do not recognize or know gods like Kapalishwara, Venkateshwara, Varadaperumal or Arunachaleshwar. These gods are not part of any history or mythology, but assimilated from Dravidian temples. So called Vedic religion entered in Southern India only after 7 th Century A.D. In same way even Thiruvalluvar ( Kund Kund) is also claimed to be Hindu though it doesn't match time line of 1 century B.C. when Hinduism was not even talk of time in Southern India. Any idol, or temple can be defaced to remove its original identity. History is witness to conversion of 1000s of Dravidian temples to Brahminic temples.

what rubhissh will u tell with u r mean knowledge don,t feel jealous of the pride of hindu temple.dravidian is not a religion.it is definately hindu temple of lord balaji — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.22.190.106 (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For your information, the word venkateswara has sanskrit origins. The temple is a Hindu temple, Dravidian is also Hinduism, do not create confusion and division among us, we are all the same people. RTPking (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-Hindus

Does the temple allow non-Hindus (Buddhists, Jains, Christians, Bahai-ians, Islamic persons) enter the temple? Should we or not mention this in the article, and why? --, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please categorize this article under ' Jainism' as well. This temple is originally a Jain temple that was forcefully converted to Vedic hindusism. (Source: An old inscription named "bukkaraya sandi" available with archaeological dept. Karnataka. (you can visit city central library at bangalore for the copy)This is originally an agreement between jains and vaishnavas in 14th century stating jains have to leave thirumala neminath temple to vaishnavas and vaishnavas will not destroy Shravanabelagola bahubali statue as a good gesture. otherwise king buukkaraya (one of the founder of vijayanagar Empire?)will punish all jains in his kingdom) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.156.130 (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right. I shall add a sentence when i update the page over the next weekKalyan 17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Before making any changes, it must first be confirmed what is the scope of exclusion. Most Hindu places with exclusive access allow not only just Hindus but also Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists (Ideally anyone who follows a Dharmic religion). Additionally it has to be checked how this exclusive access is implemented! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.93.101 (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC) .

Who built/ expanded the temple and Temple architecture information missing

It is known that places of worship could have existed before a larger building architecture or expansion of the structures took place. But it must be notable about all the contributors of the temple through history With so much of epigraphic attestations in the temple and about the temple elsewhere, it is surprising that information about the building of the temple is missing in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.100.128.5 (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

i will refer and add it soon.thank youEshwar.om^{Talk tome} 09:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Clean up and ordering Needed

Hi, the content in the page is not well organised and it also needs citation for claims. I will try to organize the content in meaningful order and try to add valid citations. Please provide your help in adding citations or suggestions in improving the page. As of now I created separate section known as "Notable devotees" and kept Ramanuja, Annamayya, Venkamamba, Thyagaraja under it. Agasthyathepirate (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Tirupati Balaji was a Jain temple

There is strong evidence to support the claim that Tirupati Balaji was once a Jain temple..the edit made by me does not explicitly say that it's a Jain temple or ont but it surely initiates a national conciousness to reach to the depth of the history Atmnn (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Atmnn: As you've already been informed, your provided sources are not reliable and therefore not "strong evidence". Please read WP:RS and WP:HISTRS on what constitutes a reliable source. Considering that you've been blocked twice already, this might be your last chance to conform to Wikipedia's policies. I highly recommend that you self-revert your latest edit.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: Agreed. Also, edits on my talk page sounds like a threat. μTalk 18:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Muon: I saw that. He then did this. He's been reported to WP:AN3.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Cpt.a.haddock:, @Muon:, @Edward321:. It looks like the same user(Atmnn) created another account(Aatman J Mehta) after its blocked and started the same edit war again. agasthyathepirate(talk) 12:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Tirumala as 'Jain' temple

Information that Tirumala was originally a Jain temple was added recently. This is a controversial claim and needs strong references to do so. I neither support nor oppose the claim.

There has been multiple additions and deletions of the same information over the last few days. For the discussion of the same, I have initiated the conversation here. Repeated addition and deletion gets us nowhere. Let us be civil and discuss it here before editing the main page. User:Atmnn User:Edward321 User:Agasthyathepirate ---}- Cyarenkatnikh (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cyarenkatnikh, it is clear that as per Wiki policies blogs cannot be a valid resources and cannot exist in wikipedia. And that too it is controversial claim. And I rollbacked it three times considering it as improper edits and dropped different levels of warning messages to him in his talk page until level 4. He is again and again adding the same content without proper references back to the page even after repeated warnings. And now, he removed citation needed tag added by you and added content back again. It looks like his intentions are clear vandalism/edit war. It would be better to report the user. agasthyathepirate(talk) 12:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

True. Looks like we have to spend few mins daily to keep reverting his entries. Any permanent solution to this? Like blocking access to that particular user? Cyarenkatnikh (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I have tried explaining the need for reliable sources on Atmn's talk page, but they do not appear to be listening. Edward321 (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cyarenkatnikh/Edward321,Again he added the content back. He got many warnings in his talk page from past and he already got blocked in past but he never seemed to be collaborative. It would be better to block the user either temporarily or permanently. agasthyathepirate(talk) 13:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Any idea how to do it? --}- Cyarenkatnikh (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Atmn is currently blocked again. I suggest attempting to explain things to them on their talk page, rather than adding yet another template. If they start discussing, that would be one way of solving the problem. Edward321 (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I ask the reason for blocking Atmn Aatman J Mehta (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User edit war on unsourced claims

Hi @Cpt.a.haddock:, @Muon:, @Edward321:, Any suggestions how to proceed with this? The user Aatman is continuously involving in edit war with multiple accounts. agasthyathepirate(talk) 11:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Agasthyathepirate:, I have reported him. μTalk 15:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Head priest contraversies

Hi, Even if valid sources are there, this kind of events cannot be qualified for the inclusion in Wikipedia. And clearly it is against WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. And that too accusations are made against TTD which had a separate article. And also you are declaring that scandal had emerged? Is it said anywhere in the references you quoted that scandal had happened? Those are just accusations made in front of media. Hope you understand. I am reversing your edits for now.

@Edward321:/@Muon: Can you add your comments on this? aggi007(talk) 09:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

All you have done is GAME the system. Making up new excuses every time. You have no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [IP address deleted] 09:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, since you are believing that I am involved in Gaming, It would be better to involve admin here to meet the consensus. aggi007(talk) 11:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Why has nizam donation been removed??

Why has nizam donation been removed?? Pandya34 (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The page is not for list of donations made to the temple in KGs of gold. The info is mentioned in the History of Tirumala Venkateswara Temple that Nizams of Hyderebad had donated to the temple where it is more appropriate. aggi007(talk) 12:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

About Nizams Contribution

@Utcursch:: In Wikipedia can we add list of Gold/Money donated by Kings in detail. Wont it make Wikipedia a list of donations made to temple. The article until now never mentioned how much gold each King/Queen donated to Temple. It mentioned in breif that they donated in general without specifics. It may be true that 7th Nizam of Hyderabad had donated 125 KGs of Gold to temple. Infact always donations will be flooded to the temple. Won't it be against any Wiki policy.

@Sakura6977: While rolling back you said - "As wiki editor it will look like we trying to belittle a major contribution of 125 kg Gold made by the secular Kings"- Are you saying we need to project contributions made by Secular Kings and suppress non-secular. If you can go through any of the articles which are related to temple it never mentioned in detail list of contributions made. We can mention that Kingdom/King had donated if it is historically more important, but not specific with numbers in NPOV. Based on the given citation we can add that Nizam of Hyd had made donations as is the case with Vijayanagara/Pallava/Chola. More over the given citation just talks about the king who made donations to different temples. He is not closely related to the temple. Do we have any citations that he played a key role in Temple history? aggi007(talk) 09:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Edward321:/@Muon: - Can you add your comments too?

I don't see a problem in adding such bits to the article as long as they are reliably sourced and verifiable: a donation of 125 kg of gold is definitely notable. However, the source cited in the article doesn't state that the Nizam donated 125 kg of gold - it states that he donated Rs. 8,000 to the temple. utcursch | talk 01:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguity about the identity of the deity

Few Hindus know that the deity at Thirumala Thirupathi was sanctified as Narayana and not Shiva at the instance of Shri Ramanuja in the 11th century. The Sangu (conch) and Chakram (discus), the characteristic mark of Vishnu, was a later add-on, and the early Aazhwar saints worshipped the deity as both Shiva and Vishnu. The Govinda whom the Vaishnavaites and Shaivites worship alike at Thirupathi has a mask as expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.60.224.104 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Readability and Consistency of Main Legend

Okay the section on the legend of Tirumala needs to be cleared up. A layman with no experience in Hinduism needs to be able to understand this section, and currently they probably won't be able to even get past the first paragraph with at least 6 Google searches, which is not what this article should be doing. We should probably introduce some non-Hindu article editors to fix up this section and maybe the rest of the article too if they see fit. Even.more.sarcasm (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I realize that this article must be written with Indian English conventions in mind; even with non-Hindu or non-Indian writers I don't see that as an issue. Even.more.sarcasm (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the dates in the introduction section

Quoting from the introduction section:

"The temple is constructed in Dravidian architecture and is believed to be constructed over a period of time starting from 300 AD. The first temple at Tirumala Tirupati was built by King Thondaiman, Tamil ruler of the ancient Thondaimandalam. He is said to have built the original Gopuram (tower) and the Prakhara in the 8th century"

The statement itself contradicts the original construction date. Was it 300AD? Was it 8th century? There are no citations for this claims and I have added the citation needed template.

Is it okay if I remove this section because it is self contradictory and no citations have been provided? Thanks, I would like to know your opinion on this matter

--ShellPandey (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2021

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: (non-admin closure) MOVED per clear pageview data and absence of objection. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

---

• Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala → Venkateswara Temple
• Venkateswara Temple → Venkateswara Temple (disambiguation)

– Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: pageviews and searches — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support As the chief temple of the deity, the move is justified.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 12 November 2021

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: MOVED (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Sri Venkateswara Swami Vaari Temple → Venkateswara Temple – Procedural nom; page moved without discussion following the recent RM. I closed that RM on the topic of parenthetical disambiguation; none of the involved editors made an argument about the common name of this place. Thus I do not see consensus to revert the last move without further discussion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Current title is WP:COMMONNAME. No need to change. Ishqho (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support New title is more reflective of common name than the former one (WP:COMMONNAME) --ShellPandey (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support WP:COMMMONNAME. [7],[8], [9], [10].Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

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.