Jump to content

Talk:Chola Navy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Replace 'Chola' (சோள) which means the name of an eatable grain,

with 'Chozha' (சோழ) that means the name of a king and/or his dynasty.Helppublic (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist and ships assessment

[edit]

See the B-class FAQ for more information about passing B1. The article is close as is but needs just a few more inline citations. At least one citation per section and citations for any direct quotes or potentially controversial statements. --Brad (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it with time Taprobanus (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need help To get this page UP....

[edit]

Hello Taprobanus,

thanks for polishing this article and moving this into article space. but, its been nearly 9 months since I asked some help over at people from Project Tamil to help me write some name and details in Tamil script, and Still no action...

If you know how to add tamil script you can make this article richer. I use A transliteration software which incidentally uses another codepage and just leaves some junk if copied.

Unfortunately, My tamil tying skills are not good o allow me to type in tamil ina US QWERTY Keyboard... Any help in this regard is highly welcome...


Swraj (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article need neutrality and reality check

[edit]

This article sounds like written by Tamil chauvinist, over glorifying Chola navy conquest etc. Crediting Chola naval invasion as the key factor behind the adoption of Hindu-Buddhist influence into Indonesian culture (Indianized kingdoms) is just way too much; undermining centuries of peaceful contacts, trade and infusion of Dharmic influences upon Southeast Asia, and focussed upon the warmongering sea pirates from Indian southern coast. Indonesian already adopted many aspects of Indian Hindu-Buddhist influence far earlier, not because of Chola raid. And many source has mentioned that it was Chola that attracted to the prestige and wealth of Srivijaya that motivated Chola to launched raids, plunder and piracy as far as Southeast Asia.Gunkarta (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please get rid of your inferiority complex. Nobody has suggested here that your country adopted Indian culture only because of Chola raid, but they certainly were the foremost among various South Indian kingdoms including the Pallavas and the Cheras who not only brought Hinduism to SEA, but also were tolerant to Buddhism. The idea of Greater India would cease to exist if not for the Chola empire's contribution. You need to be a bit open-minded to recognize that. No one can deny the preponderance of Tamils among Indian-SEA communities, particularly the Malaysian and Singaporean Indian diaspora. "Centuries of infusion of Dharmic influences before the Cholas"? That's utter bosh, and you know it. Don't refer to discredited sources. This is Wikipedia, and not some Suharto-era Indonesian newspaper. And by the way, just so you know, Tamil country, as a matter of fact, willy-nilly, predates present-day India. Chippy pest (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chola Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Major Overhaul required

[edit]

I am currently in the process of overhauling this page significantly, with the hope that it can be improved in grammar and content. Specifically, contextual information needs to be provided, better sources and citations (to prevent multiple duplicated citations), and a more intuitive page organization. The language is a mess, and I do agree somewhat that parts of the language seem overly florid and fawning, and needs toning down. Any help is welcome. Sniperz11@CS 08:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

one million-men navy

[edit]

One million is an outrageously laughable number for the size of a medieval navy, i suggest rechecking the linked sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedStorm1368 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources given don't support this claim, so I've removed it. The best we have is a PhD thesis making the much weaker claim that the navy was "said to" have 1 million men. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: /r/badhistory

[edit]

This article probably needs some expert love. http://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/ucxaey/the_thirisadai_an_ahistorical_age_of_empires_ii/ --NE2 21:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Problem we are up against is that if those are fabricated sources they were added by the main author of the article and the were present at the at the time of its importation from draft space. and User:Everdawn hasn't edited in years.©Geni (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs serious rechecking and verifying

[edit]

The article needs verifying for the source cited. Many of the sources are incomplete or lack parameters such as titles, years, exact pages, etc. It does not seem to be neutral either, the existing claims lack comparison sources. As pointed out by a Reddit user before, some parts of the article are proven to be a fraud and tried to look credible by using false references. Some of the problems encountered by that Reddit user are:
A. It used fake sources and misattributed sources
B. Lacking additional references for comparison
C. The image that has been used to support the claim is proven to be fraud, it is a copyright violations (taken from a website). The information in the Commons page is outright lie: It was said to be recovered by Indian navy diver and was claimed to be own work photographed using camera in India. In reality the image comes from a museum in Japan.

Don't get me wrong—I'm still assuming good faith to the original editor(s), but the fact that some parts have been proven to be made up, makes the possibility that the other may have been created the same way. Problems that need to be addressed are:
1. POV: Is a claim biased or expressing somebody's POV as fact? It would be better to have more comparison sources
2. Notability: Is the source cited come from a credible source or self-published? What is the work used? Who is the creator? What is the publisher? A background check for the author is needed—We don't want some chauvinistic person's citation to go unnoticed, also back to no.1
3. Reference improvement: Verify the source, can the claim be found in the cited source? Does the cited source exist at all? If a cited source lacks a parameter then add it. Also, the footnotes need citations too—Otherwise, it's the same as making up a personal (original) comment or a lie. Please contribute @Brad101: @Gunkarta: @Sniperz11: @RedStorm1368: @Caeciliusinhorto: @Caeciliusinhorto: @Caeciliusinhorto: @Verosaurus: Surijeal (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of this article should be questioned too... The article makes it seem that the Chola have its own military branch that was different enough from land forces. As far as I know, most Asian sea forces before the 16th century are extensions of the army (land force) itself, boats are indeed used but only for transportation, not naval patrol in the modern sense. {I could be wrong though, the true "navy" may have formed much later. EDIT: The Majapahit empire of the 13–16th century has a navy, with clear tasks distinguished from land forces, its own term/name, and leader(s), and military ships—Not trading ships that were pressed for military duty.}
To make sure that this military branch is real and different from the ground troops, several questions must be answered:
Who
  1. Who is the founder of Chola navy?
What
  1. What is the purpose of the formation of the Chola navy?
  2. What is the justification for the article to have its own page?
  3. What is the difference between the navy troops and land troops of Chola? {Can be answered with their tactics, training, etc... But please don't answer "The ships" or something like that, as I mentioned before most of the Asian sea forces are an extension of the army}
When
  1. When was Chola navy founded?
Where
  1. Where was this navy based?
Why
  1. Why was the Chola navy founded?
How
  1. How does the navy work or operate?
These seems to be a basic question, but in historiography, it will need verifiable primary sources (contemporary sources that come from their supposed era) and of course modern citations from experts (professors, scholars, etc). The article does have some parts that may answer the questions above... But as I can see the citation is incomplete and seems to be added hastily. Parts of them also do not seem to have identifiable and verifiable primary sources. And for the name Cōḻar kadatpadai, is this a historical term or a modern term? What is the primary source for this? Oh, by the way you missed some of the recent editors in your ping, if I may I'll just ping them now @Discospinster: @NE2: @Geni: @AntanO: Verosaurus (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those were my concern too - Even Srivijaya has no navy in modern sense (see the section on the Srivijaya page). Why would the Chola has a "standing navy" ? From their operations the "navy" was more like raiding fleet, it attacks, plunder, and return. The source on Chola campaign is very scarce, I doubt it can be used to conclude that Chola has a real navy.
The name "Cōḻar kadatpadai" seems to be modern - In the early version of the page, that name is not yet available. Even after many editing there is no reference used to back up that name.
Anyway, I have made some edits - mostly deconstructive - because of various reasons, as can be read at the new section below. Surijeal (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found a piece of interesting information from The History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume V: The Struggle for Empire by R.C. Majumdar. He said that "we cannot form any idea of the technique of their naval warfare or of other details related to the navy. Some think that merchant vessels were employed in transporting the army and that Chola naval fights were land battles fought on the decks of ships." That book was already used in this article but was used as a reference to a completely different claim @Verosaurus:. Surijeal (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section removed

[edit]

I have removed the Rank structure subsection under the Organization and administration section. The cited source can't be found (I would be happy if someone can prove me wrong). Also, the source used in the rank list, Nagapattinam to Suvarnadwipa: Reflections on the Chola Naval Expeditions to Southeast Asia page 92, does not mention the rank of Chola navy, it instead mentioned different type of land troops, namely archers, swordsmen, cavalry, elephantry, infantry. Surijeal (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as per your quote the Navy doesn't have archers, Swordsmen,cavalry,elephantry & infantry right - then tell me how they trained this land based units for sea travel? - the training take how many month before the invade sri vijiya empire.
as per your comment modern day army have guns & Missile but Navy doestn't have guns & Missile yes? 49.206.113.211 (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it doesn't have "archers, swordsmen, cavalry, elephantry & infantry" — my previous comment stated that the information from the reference mentioned "archers, swordsmen, cavalry, elephantry, infantry" which does not support what the section says: Jalathipathi and Tandalnayagam, which are the title of ranks. In other words, what is claimed in the section is not found in the reference. Surijeal (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the said reference, and that reference apparently did mention Tandalnayagam but does not mention anything about it being the admiral of the fleet. The other 10 names of ranks and their description remain unreferenced. As such, it's still a type 2a hoax or an obvious hoax due to its elaborateness. Verosaurus (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted 3 paragraphs/sentences that were using Dhanalekshmi's thesis as the citation: The first one was a plagiarism/copyright infringement, the second, claiming Chola had 600–1000 ships, has circular reference or citogenesis, it was published first in this article without reference, then the claim was backed up using that thesis. The source cited in the thesis date back to 2010, or 2 years after this article has been published. The third, the narrative about Parantaka campaign, simply cannot be found in the thesis. Surijeal (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, so it's that bad. There are already many claim that has been proven fraud at this point. Verosaurus (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Fleet Organization subsection and also the Organization and administration section. The reference used was fake, when I checked on the internet, the only similar reference was Historical Heritage of the Tamils (not Historical Military Heritage of the Tamils). No page number was given, which made it suspicious—as if it was deliberately put there so no one would question it. Of course, I will appreciate if anyone could verify the reference and proved me wrong. Surijeal (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the campaign list under the Campaigns section. The first citation did not talk about Chola, but about earlier polities (Mauryan, Gupta, Gauda, Kamarupa, etc). The second citation cannot be found: Michael D. Swaine is not an obscure author, it is strange that one of his works that was cited can't be tracked or considered lost. An academic search using Google Scholar or Proquest finds nothing. The third citation can be found in Google Books but made no distinction about which campaign used the navy. It does not state that the navy was a real branch of the Chola military either, nor stated that the "navy" works independently. Surijeal (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chola_Navy&oldid=1206673013"