Talk:Chola dynasty/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Two questions by Sarvagnya

Stale

1. What precisely is the connection between the 'Early Cholas' of hoary antiquity and the 'Imperial Cholas' of the 10th century?
2. What is the source of the map in the infobox which seems to proclaim almost all of S-E Asia as belonging to 'Cholas'? Sarvagnya 04:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute

There has been a content dispute recently, which resulted in permanent protection of this page, and in a request to me for mediation. I see my role as a mediator-administrator.

First and foremost, I want to remind everyone to focus on content, not on editors. To underscore the importance of this principle, I deleted all sections that had user names as headlines or contained attacks on other editors. Let's just start on a new slate! I encourage everyone involved to repost the content-oriented parts of their posts. If you do so, please create one headline per issue, and use the issue name of the first column.

I went through all changes and assessed them individually to come up with an overall version that can serve as a basis for discussion. This version is not necessarily the middle between the two disputed versions; rather, it contains these parts that I currently can best confirm. Since many of the contested changes refer to books which I don't possess, I ask anybody who has these books to scan the corresponding pages and send them to me. If I can confirm a reference then I will change the text accordingly. Once I get the impression that we have reached a constructive atmosphere, I will unprotect the page. If any of the parties behave disruptively, I will warn and in the event of persistent behavior block them.

So, let's get to work! Here is the table: (Table moved to separate section) With hopes for a good collaboration, — Sebastian 07:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Table of changes under this mediation

Issue	Description	Line	Action	Reason	Status
Inclusion of emperors	Should Aditya I, Parantaka I, Rajaraja Chola I, Rajendra Chola I, Rajadhiraja Chola, Virarajendra Chola be listed?	42	Add	These all are described as Chola kings in their articles. I assume the difference between “king” and “emperor” is not part of the dispute.	Resolved
Invade or raid	Choice of words for Rajendra Chola’s action	43	“Invade”	This is the more neutral term; “raid” has several meanings; No access to source
Relation with Malay Archipelago	“which remained under Chola control for around 100 years, and maintained friendly and trade relations with the Chola empire after gaining independence”	43	Rem.	No access to source
Decline	Beginning of decline 12th or 13th c.; also minor change to end	44	“12th c.”	Alternative text “middle of the beginning of the 13th century” is confusing; no ref; contradiction to preceding paragraph.	Discussed
Greatest builders	Text “They are called the greatest builders on earth and”	45	Rem.	Not encyclopedic. Who calls them thus?	Waiting for party
Chalukya or Later	“Chalukya Chola” or “Later Chola”	66, 90, …	“Later”	1960 Yahoo hits vs 760; no access to source
Kulothunga Chola I	Grandson or distant relation through marriage?	66	Rem. both	no access to ref; Already covered in pertinent article
Inscriptions of Chalukya	Should “and Chalukya” be added to “Numerous inscriptions of Pallavas, Pandyas”	78	Added	The other version is grammatically incorrect, which makes it appear like a hasty POV edit to me; no access to source
Main link	Should there be a link “ Main article: Chalukya Cholas ”	91	Added	I don’t see why not
Capable rulers	Many changes	95		No access to sources; choosing version that has fewer grammatical errors and sounds more encyclopedic. Moreover, since there already exists a main article Later Cholas, there is no need to be so verbose here. (Note: If this decision is contested, then we would need to split up this item.)
Before Pandiyans	“Before the rise of the Pandiyans”	96	Rem.	Unclear why this is relevant; no access to source
Hoysalas threatened	“Hoysalas in the west themselves were threatened”	96	Rem.	no access to source; typo in ref
Rajendra-III	Details of his struggle and lack of succession	96	Rem.	no access to source. It seems that the existing text already captures the gist of it; addition has some spelling imperfections.Moreover, there already exists main article.
Saivites	“Later Cholas were also staunch Saivites” – or “believed to be”	176	Added	no access to source. Weasel word as compromise
Early tolerance	“In fact, among the earliest Chola kings, …”	176	Rem.	no access to source. Gist of the information is already expressed.
Contradicting reports	“However, there are contradicting reports …”	177	Rem.	no access to source, and since this has been inserted before existing ref it is unclear if it is even referenced there.
Note 180	Quote from whatisindia.com	197	Rem.	Srirangam99, please don't just add a reference to the reflist, but insert it after text it refers to. I would do that for you if I only knew which text you meant.
southindianinscriptions	Link to whatisindia.com	210	Rem.	Already there (link for all books)

This section is subject to adjustments by mediator, and has been changed at the following times. Any changes that affect the decisions made in the mediation will be discussed in the appropriate subsection.

• — Sebastian 06:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• — Sebastian 18:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How to discuss content issues

(This was originally part of section Thanks for the Mediation, which has now been archived.)

I have the following requests:

1. Let's proceed issue by issue. Pick one or two issues from the above table. (The table should be complete since I listed all the issues from the diff between Srirangam99's and Dineshkannambadi's version.) Please do me the favor and refer to the individual issues, as I named them in the first column. And please don't write more than about 3 lines for each. The more you write, the more people will either (a) overlook or (b) find to criticize.
2. Please keep in mind that you're the experts, not me. I have to admit, this is even the first time that I heard of the Chola Dynasty. I'm sorry, when you write e.g. "as anybody with basic knowledge of history is bound to realize", I have to say, I do not realize this. (I have some basic knowledge of history, but unfortunately practically nothing of Indian history.) So, please keep it simple enough for me to understand. The best way to do so is ...
3. Please use reliable sources. Pure personal opinions like "That is of course an incorrect notion ..." will not sway any mediator towards your version, they only complicate matters unnecessarily. The next time I see such unhelpful statements I may simply strike or delete them. — Sebastian 07:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Here's an example for how I'd like the issues discussed:

===Inclusion of emperors===
"The most notable kings were Karikala Chola, Rajaraja Chola, Rajendra Chola I, and Kulothunga Chola I" according to Book "Great Indian Kings" by Prof. So-and-So, page 123. ~~~~

It may occasionally make sense to combine two issues in one section, but please: Keep it simple! — Sebastian 07:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Be aware that Dinesh as usual is busy with a FAR for Kingdom of Mysore:)) & Srirangam wanted a few days to collect his materail so this will move slowly. Taprobanus (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in fact we need to take this slow. One issue at a time.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, take your time - there's no need to hurry. It is already protected without a time limit, and if it stays in the compromise version for a while, then it only indicates that the compromise was a healthy one. — Sebastian 21:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Please let's only discuss the issues of the current content dispute here. All the issues of the current content dispute are listed in the table. I created a new section #Beyond the current content dispute to keep the new issues. — Sebastian 18:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Change: I realized that it would be a bit easier for me if you could already format any references in the same way as you want them referenced in the text. Examples:

• If there is already a reference named "sastri5", please simply write "<ref name=sastri5/>".
• If you want to quote from page 192 of the same book, please write "<ref name=sastri192>[[K.A. Nilakanta Sastri]], ''A History of South India'', p 192</ref>".

No need to write the whole book name with ISBN number and such. Don't worry if the reference shows up correctly here on the talk page. This will make it easier for me, and I think also for you. — Sebastian 18:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Decline

Headline renamed from "Decline of the Cholas" to fit to table. — Sebastian 18:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: The above post has been changed a week after it has been replied to. The below reply is therefore out of date.

The reason this request is so much longer than the 3 lines I asked for is that it still contains original research and opinions, such as such as "This would give an impression ...", and, above all, it dedicates much text to a synthesis of published material. To put it simply: If your proposed wording is in a reliable source, then all you need is refer to that. If not, then we can't have it in the article. — Sebastian 18:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

While I still urge Srirangam99 to replace his synthesis with a quote to a reliable source, I must say that the opposite claim, that the Cholas declined in the 12th century, equally requires sources. There is no source for the whole paragraph. Moreover, it appears to be in contradiction to the sentence "The Cholas were at the height of their power continuously from the later half of the 9th century till the beginning of the 13th centuries" (in the preceding paragraph), which is sourced. I therefore will mark the paragraph with "citation needed", and if none are provided by next week, I will delete it. — Sebastian 18:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Srirangam, it is important in an encyclopaedia not to bring details of inscriptions to the discussion, unless it is published in scholarly books. Here is what well known sources says about the decline of Chola power from the start of 13th century and who was responsible for it.

"Quote:(regarding the rise of Chalukya feudatories after the fall of the Chalukyas)The latter then set up independent kingdoms and made preparations to gnaw at the Chola kingdom, prior to making substantial attacks. Among them, the most powerful were the Yadavas, the Hoysalas and the Kakatiyas. The Yadavas kept mainly to the Deccan, and their contribution to the final disintegration of the Cholas was less significant. The Hoysalas and the Kakatiyas became active from the 12th century onwards. The latter, having won their independence from the Chalukyas, retired to enjoy it, except for periods when they were in action against the Cholas....(Romila Thapar, 2003, p 367, "The Penguin History of Early India", ISBN 0-14-302989-4).

Quote:"The Chalukya empire disappeared at the end of the 12th century and the Chola tottered at the beginning of the thirteenth. For a century thereafter, the History of South India is the history of four kingdoms that rose on the ruins of the vanished empires and filled the annals of the century with their mutual antagonisms. The kingdoms were the Pandya and the Hoysala in the south and the Kakatiya and Yadava in the north. (Nilakanta Sastri , 1955, p 192, "A history of South India from prehistoric times to the fall of Vijayanagar", ISBN 0-19-560686-8).

Hope this helps in finding the correct wordings.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The interpretation of the above citation given above by Dinesh is inaccurate. The actual wordings contained in page 192 of the book "A History of South India: From Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar", by K.A.Nilakanta Sastri (with a new introduction by R.Champakalakshmi), Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press (ISBN 0 19 560686 8) OUP 1975 (First published 1975) do not categorically mention that the 'demise or decline of the Cholas was caused by the Hoysalas'. Pls. see again for the para says that 'For a century thereafter, the History of South India is the history of four kingdoms that rose on the ruins of the vanished empires and filled the annals of the century with their mutual antagonisms. The kingdoms were the Pandya and the Hoysala in the south and the Kakatiya and Yadava in the north.' It speaks about the rise of the Pandyas (in Tamil Nadu) rising on the ruins of the Cholas and that of the Yadavas, Hoysalas and the Kakatiyas over those of the Chalukyas (mainly because the Chalukyas never held any territory in Tamil Nadu. The correct meaning to draw would be that the Hoysalas rose in Kannada country over the ruins of Chalukyas while the Pandyas replaced the Cholas in Tamil country. There is also no distinction made between the countries of the Chalukyas and the Cholas with both being described as South India. The Chalukyas are not described as a Deccanese Kingdom and the Cholas as belonging to the Tamil country.

In view of the above justification, I am replacing the word 'Hoysalas' from citation No.7 in the main article because it tends to give a mistaken interpretation. To prove my point further, here is a further citation that Cholas and Hoysalas were not enemies (though Hoysala Somesvara did fight Rajendra III, the last known Chola king - but befriended him immediately thereafter - the REASON WAS THE GROWING POWER OF THE PANDYAS OF MADURAI), HERE IS THE RELEVANT CITATION: (page 195-196 of the same book "A History of South India: From Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar", by K.A.Nilakanta Sastri (with a new introduction by R.Champakalakshmi), Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press (ISBN 0 19 560686 8) OUP 1975 (First published 1975):

"In the north Rajendra commanded the alliance of Choda Tikka of Nellore, also called Gandagopala, who had been attacked by Somesvara in 1240. Tikka by his wars checked the power of the Sambuvarayas and Kadavarayas and thereby strengthened that of Rajendra. He even fought against Somesvara though he took Kanchi for himself as a reward for his services and had another allegiance, namely that to Kakatiya Ganapati of Warangal, also an enemy of the Hoysalas.

The alliance between Rajendra and Somesvara became closer after the accession to the Pandya throne of the celebrated Jatavarman Sundara Pandya in 1251, one of the most famous warriors and conquerors of South India under wyhom Pandyan power attained its greatest splendour. In the first years of his reign Sundara Pandya fought many wars and rapidly extended his sway to Nellore and beyond, and to Ceylon, confining the Hoysalas to the Mysore plateau. Kanchipuram became a secondary Pandya capital, while Ceylon and Kerala were firmly held and administered for a time."

......................He then attacked the Hoysalas in the region of Kaveri and captured the fortress of Kannanur Kuppam. Several Hoysala generals were killed including the brave Singana, while numerous elephants and horses were captured together with a large amo9unt of treasure and a number of women. Sundara only stopped fighting when Somesvara withdrew into the plateau; but shortly afterwards Somesvara renewed the war in which he was to meet his death at Sundara Pandiya's hands (1262)............

Also important is this Sir: book "A History of South India: From Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar", by K.A.Nilakanta Sastri (with a new introduction by R.Champakalakshmi), Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press (ISBN 0 19 560686 8) OUP 1975 (First published 1975) page 195:

He (Rajendra III) made a strenuous effort to revive Chola power and would have succeeded even better than he did but for Somesvara's interference. Rajendra attacked the Pandyas and defeated two Pandyan princes, one of whom was Maravarman Sundara Pandya II (acc. 1238). Somesvara now took the side of the Pandyas ==to prevent the complete restoration of Chola authority, defeated Rajendra in battle and then made peace with him==

I only intend to convey through the above examples that both war and peace between the Cholas and Hoysalas (which is clearly evident through the above pair of citations) was not at all to dominate each other but done with an eye on the ever-growing power of the Pandyas (in Tamil country), which ultimately (first) led to the routing and departure of the Hoysalas from the Tamil country and unfailingly caused the final and absolute demise of the Cholas from history.

The above leads us to only one conclusion that it is the Pandyas and not the Hoysalas who caused the demise of the Cholas. Hence I am proceeding with the replacement on the strength of the citations made above.

Srirangam99 (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Page 192: (Whole para): "The Chalukya empire disappeared at the end of the twelfth century and the Chola tottered at the beginning of the thirteenth. For a

I think the wording "the Chola tottered at the beginning of the thirteenth" is an improvement over the existing wording, so I will replace the text with it. I hope this resolves this issue. — Sebastian 18:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Seb. Sorry, the change made by you was noticed by me just now. You have reformulated the text as 'the Chola tottered around the 13th century and vanished with the rise of Pandiya and Hoysala." Could the text be slightly reformulated as under: "The Chola empire declined in the 13th century and demised in 1279 AD with the rise of the Pandiya and Hoysala"? Srirangam99 (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source for this? — Sebastian 07:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Seb yes there is. Please see inscription Nos. 194, 195, 197 and 198 issued by Jatavarman Sundara Pandiyan from this link: http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_24/pandyas.html#jatavarman_sundara_pandya_1

The contents also make it amply clear that the decline of the Cholas was followed (in the Tamil country at least), not by ascendancy or rule of the Hoysalas but that of the Pandiyans. That is why I sought reformulation of the text initially as "The power of the Cholas declined in the beginning of the 13th century and their existence(or rule) ended in 1279 with the rise of the Pandiyans".

(Pl. see and satisfy yourself).

Also pl. see the introduction page (especially the start of the second page) which speaks about the nature of help rendered by the Hoysalas to the Cholas. If you prompt me I will reproduce the relevant portion to prove that the rising power of the Hoysalas did not cause either decline or downfall of the Cholas, rather it helped prolong their existence, but finally it could not stop the Cholas being consumed by the Pandiyas with the Hoysalas themselves getting banished from Tamil country between 1250-1325 (75 years). The relevant link is: http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_24/introduction_1.html

Sorry, I again had to give a detailed explanation. Pardon me and I hope you understand.

Srirangam99 (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not a detailed explanation. It doesn't even contain the single most important detail that I asked you for - a reliable source for the year "1279". This is just wordy original research. It's very simple: If you want a certain sentence added, you need to provide a reliable source for that very sentence. This I do not see in your reply. Please read Wikipedia:No original research, in particular the section WP:SYNTH. — Sebastian 07:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok Seb. I will get that also. Srirangam99 (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Seb, please see this: http://www.bartleby.com/65/ch/Chola.html (there is a clear reference to the year 1279) Srirangam99 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That indeed contains the year, but it does not specifically connect that date with the Pandiyans. The wording "their existence(or rule) ended in 1279 with the rise of the Pandiyans" also seems at odds with my common understanding of history: The rise of a dynasty takes years; it doesn't usually happen just in one single year. — Sebastian 09:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Seb, the contention I made with reference to your observation was about Later Pandiyas as opposed to the word 'Pandiyas' occuring at the website referred to me. Pls. see Wikipedia's own article on the Pandiyan dynasty/empire which is obviously based on reliable sources. It clearly refers to Later Pandiyas (1150-1350 AD) - 4th para. Kindly see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandiyan_Dynasty. Thanks. Srirangam99 (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I could just easily turn this down by pointing out that (1) this is actually not part of this mediation: Both your version and Dinesh's had only Pandyas - see the diff. So I would have to ask you to bring that up under #Beyond the current content dispute below and (2) Wikipedia does not count as a reliable source.

But I must admit that it's a bit of a far stretch to assume that the whole Pandyan Kingdom article would be wrong, with the history of that kingdom there dating back to 550 BC. So how about if we wrote the following? — Sebastian 17:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Chola tottered at the beginning of the thirteenth century with the Pandya Revival and the extension of the Hoysala Empire, eventually coming to an end towards the end of that century. <ref name=sastri192>[[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki/K.A.%20Nilakanta%20Sastri K.A. Nilakanta Sastri]]], ''A History of South India'', p 192</ref>"

Seb, could the text be slightly reworded as under??: "The Chola rule greatly weakened at the beginning of the thirteenth century with the Pandya Revival that consumed it and also ended Hoysala presence in the Tamil country. Eventually, this empire came to an end towards the end of that century." --- Srirangam99 (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You know that we can't just go by what you prefer; we need reliable sources. — Sebastian 19:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

One more point Seb. The year 1279 is more significant for the demise of the Cholas. It is also a mere coincidence that 1279 AD was part of three quarters of the century (1215-1300) when the Later Pandiyas constantly grew in power, as would be evident from the page link on Pandiyans given above. So obviously as you contended this did not happen in a single year. Although over a series of skirmishes between the Pandiyas and Cholas starting from 1215 AD, the Pandiyas ultimately became the reason for the demise of the Cholas (in 1279) and being (from 1255 AD itself) the paramount power in Tamil country in India. --- Srirangam99 (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is your synthesis. We can not state a definitive end date without a reliable source. And I really don't see why you would want that. I think the end is well enough addressed by the wording "eventually coming to an end towards the end of the 13th century" in the above proposal. I took that from Dinesh's version, but I would hope that it's agreeable to you as well, since I feel "end of the 13th century" sounds rather later than "1279" than earlier. — Sebastian 17:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Greatest Builders

Seb, yes, a book called 'the Splendour of South India' (it presents an overview of architecture in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Pondicherry) - it does not compare architecture of various dynasties but provides sufficient information about the architectural specimen and their brief history in all the areas mentioned above. This books contains the quote (not by the author but by another expert) mentioning that 'the Cholas have been called the greatest builders in the world'. Here are the details about the book, author, publisher and ISBN nos. for your consideration:

The Splendour of South India by Muthiah, S., and Khullar, Rupinder

Brief description of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, and Kerala. about this copy

Edition: Unabridged. Binding: Hard cover Publisher: South Asia Books Date Published: 1992 ISBN-13: 9788185273563 ISBN: 8185273561

Thanks. Srirangam99 (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that is much more like what I had in mind, when I asked for short messages! So, to understand correctly what you are saying: The book says that X wrote that Y called the Chola "the greatest builders". So we need to know who X and Y are. The best would be if you could scan the page and send it to me by e-mail. — Sebastian 18:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Seb, pl. give me some time before I search this book out in the office library. I think my own copy is in my mom's place, but my office library should have it, I will get it and quote the relevant text along with page number. I will send the relevant info as soon as it is with me. In the meanwhile could you pls. look at the Decline and see how it can be resolved?. Srirangam99 (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can wait. — Sebastian 07:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay... The book is missing from the Library of my previous office. However, after much effort on the net... I could find this... but in the Chapter on Cholas... it names the 'Tamils' The excerpt is as under:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IzBuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA21&img=1&pgis=1&dq=The+Tamils&sig=ACfU3U2rPn1lLHapDcx1jxpBki2hl-csng

Srirangam99 (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Status of mediation

Two months into the mediation, we have resolved one issue. One is still being discussed, and one is waiting for one party to provide a correct quote. I am now taking a wikibreak, so I will not be able to dedicate more time to this. I am not sure what the best course of action is now. If both parties agree, then I would recommend requesting a mediation at WP:MedCab. I will be happy to assist any new mediator with the transition. (Please e-mail me in this case.)

A while ago, I was asked whether we could unprotect this page, and I gave some reasons why I preferred it to remain protected, but I now relegate this decision to whoever picks up this case. — Sebastian 19:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the current content dispute

I came here specifically to mediator the current content dispute, which is the subject of the previous chapter. Please let's solve that first. Once everyone agrees that the current content dispute is resolved, we can decide what to do about the remaining questions covered here. I would hope that by that time we established a good collaboration here, so that we can remove the page protection, so that this page can be edited in the way Wikipedia is meant to be edited again. — Sebastian 18:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Exception: As an exception, I included Kulothunga Chola III to resolve #Kulothunga Chola III (inclusion sought), because I already replied positively with my message of 07:18, 10 February 2009, and because I don't see a reason against inclusion in Dineshkannambadi's reply. — Sebastian 07:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Seb, my sincere thanks to you and to Dineshkannambadi, whose information and sources actually supported my contention.

Srirangam99 (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Kulothunga Chola III (inclusion sought)

Resolved

Renamed from "Inclusion of emperors" (the name I gave it to fit to the table above) after I realized it is actually outside the scope of the table. — Sebastian 18:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Kulothunga Chola III (inclusion sought) on the ground that as per www.whatsindia.com/south_indian_inscriptions/ and 'Ancient India' Book by K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, Kulothunga III for the most part of his rule between 1178-1218, he retained control over territories like Eastern Gangavadi, conquered Kalinga, Madurai, Ilam and Karuvur as he claims in most of his inscriptions. He maintained this position till about 1210 AD after which he became embroiled in the invasions by the Pandiyans and his decline started from that point.

Srirangam99 (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC) The date of this signature is wrong. The message was posted before the reply of 07:18, 10 February 2009 below.

OK, that sounds reasonable. Where exactly should he be in the list? — Sebastian 07:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I now realize that this is actually beyond the scope of the mediation, because the name "Kulothunga Chola III" did not appear in either of the two conflicting versions. I therefore moved this into chapter #Beyond the current content dispute. I still think that this looks like a small change, so we can make an exception and implement it before the current content dispute is resolved, but I would like to give Dineshkannambadi ample chance to reply, since this is a new proposal. — Sebastian 18:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

About Kulottunga III

This is what K.A.N. Sastri says about Kulathunga III and his successor:

Quote:"Meanwhile Kulottunga had appealed for aid to Hoysala Ballala II who promptly sent an army under his son Narasimha to Srirangam. Sundara Pandya therefore had to make peace and restore the Chola kingdom to Kulottunga and Rajaraja after they made formal submission at Pon Amaravati and acknowledged him as suzerain. This was the beginning of the second empire of the Pandyas though it was not yet quite the end of that of the Cholas.Kulottunga III died soon after (1218) and Rajaraja III proved to be an incompetant ruler under who confusion increased and the dissolution of the Chola kingdom was hastened." (Sastri 1955, pp193–194, History of South India).Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I don't see an argument against including Kulothunga Chola III in Dinesh's reply, I will include him as requested by Srirangam99. This is what this section was about, and consider this section closed, as far as I'm concerned. (Srirangam: I did not read your long text because it was too long again, despite the many times that I and other people asked you to keep your posts short. I am really tired of your not listening.) — Sebastian 06:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Decline of Cholas (contd..) - further changes sought

Request: Please give this a meaningful headline. "(contd..)" and "further changes sought" do not make it clear what this is about. Feel free to delete this request when done. — Sebastian 18:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources about decline of Cholas

• Quote:"He (Hoysala Narasimha , r. 1220-1234) helped the Chola Kulottunga III and Rajaraja III against Sundara Pandya compelling the latter to restore the Chola country to its ruler (AD 1217)" (Sen 1999, p499, Ancient Indian History and Civilization)
• Quote:"A Hoysala king claimed to have rescued the Chola king who had been captured by a tributary Raja" (Thapar, 2003, p368, The Penguin History of Early India)
• Quote:"Meanwhile Kulottunga had appealed for aid to Hoysala Ballala II who promptly sent an army under his son Narasimha to Srirangam. Sundara Pandya therefore had to make peace and restore the Chola kingdom to Kulottunga and Rajaraja after they made formal submission at Pon Amaravati and acknowledged him as suzerain" (Sastri 1955, pp193–194, A history of South India from prehistoric times to the fall of Vijayanagar)
• Quote:"In response to this request (by the Cholas), Ballala II sent his son Vira Narasimha with an army to the Tamil country. The interfering Hoysala forces drove back the invading Pandyas and helped the Cholas, though temporarily to retain status" (Chopra, 2003, p155, part1, History of South India (Ancient, Medieval and Modern)
• Quote:"When the Chola was attacked by the Pandya, Ballala sent crown prince Narasimha II to help Kulottunga III. Ballala assumed the title "establisher of the Chola king" after his victory in Tamilnadu, and he gained some territory in the Chola country too" (Kamath 2001, p127, A concise history of Karnataka : from pre-historic times to the present)
• Quote:"To protect the Chola Kingdom from hte harrassing attacks of the Pandyas, Narasimha's son and successor, Somesvara established himself in the south and built a capital at Kannanur about six or eight kilometers from Srirangam" (Sen 1999, p499, Ancient Indian History and Civilization)

Hope this helps. I dont have too much time now-a-days, but hope this brings more clarity to the issue at hand.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

can we add this?

Sir,

Based on the citations mentioned in the same article (from Mahavamso and Cilap.,), can we add the following line to the last sentence in 2.0 History/ 2.1 Early Cholas ,

"... and that King Gajabahu visited Chera Cenguttuvan around 108 CE. "

Can we rephrase the title and the period on the map adjacent to the introducing paragraph?

as "kulam" does not denote "empire";

and the empire was not continuous through the Kalabhras and Medieval Pandyas;

Can we revise this in the List of Chola kings table...

Studying every verse of Purananuru will explain Nalankilli and Killivalavan(Kulamutratthu thunjiya ) are one and the same based on the poets who sung the king .

Thankyou, -Dr.Senthil AS 121.246.29.114 (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

One unfortunate consequence of the page protection is that it's much harder to talk about changes. If editors were allowed to change the page, then we could just discuss the change itself, instead of its description. As a workaround, I am therefore creating a sandbox here. Can you please do the changes there? That will allow everybody to see what you mean, and if there is no objection, then I will implement your changes in the article. — Sebastian 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Chola record-keeping

I read somewhere that the Cholas were very good at record-keeping (at least as compared to other Indian kingdoms rather than the Europeans) in the form of thousands and thousands copper plates that are still preserved in the various temples. I didn't see much content related to that in this article and I'm wondering if we can source a paragraph about it? Zuggernaut (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There are more historical records concerning South Indian than north due to interaction with Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka has a continuous historical records from ~5 century BCE to present day as Buddhist monks had written all those Pali chronicles (Devipuram, Mahawamsa, Chularwamsa, etc..) that cover South Indian history and interactions with Sri Lanka. Otherwise, any Indian region does not have extensive historical records. Moreover, most of the history of ancient India is coming from Chinese and Sri Lankan sources. Lipwe (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Chola conquest

Chola conquest does not only involve SriVijaya in Malay peninsula,the cholas also diminishes Kedah Tua and Gangga Negara.Other than inscriptios that is found in Southeast Asia were also in pallava sanskrit indicating the presence of pallavas in SEA most probably during 2nd-4th century.Thanks for the response SWH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan Meifen (talk • contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured article review

I think this article is due for a Featured article review as it no longer meets many of the criteria. I brought this issue up a couple of years ago (see above: Article issues). Some problems include an over reliance on Sastri when those notes may not reflect more recent academic consensus, addition of a lot of unsourced text over the past many months among other issues that have already been highlighted. —SpacemanSpiff 06:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Support. I can only speak for a general SE Asian history perspective but the article relies too much on Sastri. The SE Asia related claims need to be cross-checked with the academic opinion of those supposedly conquered lands. I'm surprised the original FA process didn't take this into account. Hybernator (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Support - the nom and Hybernator have hit the nail on the head, especially wrt Sastri. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Support - I too agree, there is a lot of un-referenced comments under sub-title 'Religion'. Sastri being the main source is also not OK. There have been many developments in undrestanding Cholas in the resent times, perhaps using them woulf be mor prudent. Maps, the inclusion of the 'Parambanan temple Complex' photo, make this article of less vale for a reliable reference on Chola Dynasty. The presence of Cholas in SE Asia should be presented with good references, the current picture is not accurate. guru (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Choda as synonym for Chola

There appears to be some opposition to mentioning Choda as a synonym for Chola. One person has even suggested that the corruption appears only where foreign authors are concerned, although that really would be irrelevant to the issue of synonymity if the sources are reliable. The Choda community definitely existed, eg::

• Journal of the Andhra Historical Society, p. 79 and here
• Sri Varadarajaswami Temple, Kanchi: A Study of Its History, Art and Architecture by K. V. Raman
• Dimensions of Human Cultures in Central India: Professor S.K. Tiwari Felicitation Volume
• Precolonial India in Practice : Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra Cynthia Talbot/Oxford Univ Press

So the question seems to be whether the term only ever refers to the Chodas of Nellor or is also a synonym for Chola. The cited source - Durga Prasad - says "The words Chola and Choda are taken to be synonymous". This, too, is absolutely specific at p. 212 ("One of [Ashoka's] edicts refers to five independent states that presumably existed beyond the southern borders of his empire: the Choda (Chola), Pandya, Satiyaputra, Keralaputras (Chera), and Tamraparni (Sri Lanka)." Also, . 328 here says "comme on l'a reconnu depuis longtemps, Soli est la transcription de Soli, forme dialectale du nom des choda ou chola de Coromandel".

It certainly is not as common as Chola but that is reflected in our choice of article title. What am I missing here? - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the sources it seems that, as Durga Prasad says, "Chola and Choda are taken to be synonymous", with the former being the more common spelling used for the Chola dynasty, and the latter being the more common spelling in context of the Velanati Chodas (and possibly Telugu Chodas). I don't believe anything more needs to be done about this, although if it continues to be a concern, we can include some of the above-cited references in the article, and add a hidden-note "not a typo, see talkpage" to ward off editors who may think that "choda" is a vandalism based on the common vulagarism with an identical transliteration. Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sanskrit

@Agasthyathepirate: Hi. Could you please expand the article with content rather than just adding a link to the infobox? Please also use scholarly sources rather than newspaper reports to support your additions. There appear to be plenty of hits for "Tiruvalangadu plates" Sanskrit and "Thiruvalangadu plates" Sanskrit on Google Books including stuff by KANS and RC Majumdar. This request applies to your addition to Pandyan dynasty as well. Thanks :)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2018

The Chola Kingdom was very powerful. 171.76.76.28 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Cholas claimed suryavansh lineage

Cholas claimed suryavansh lineage, I would like to add a section on this, please discuss

https://books.google.com/books?id=1ZhnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT209&dq=suryavanshi+cholas&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIk-CkxJfdAhXjIjQIHXe4D10Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=suryavanshi%20cholas&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=cc9qCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT252&dq=suryavanshi+cholas&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIk-CkxJfdAhXjIjQIHXe4D10Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=suryavanshi%20cholas&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitha rani111 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sangitha rani111: Yes, you can add it at the end of origin section and mention that the Cholas claimed to be descendants of Iksvaku and Manu(Solar dynasty), source being Rajendra Chola's plates. Also, some of the chieftains and feudatories of the Telugu country claimed in their epigraphs that they belonged to the solar dynasty and kashyapa gotra of Karikala Chola. Nittawinoda (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Cholas were stable for three centuries and more

Sir, I edited and (secondly) made or changed the sentence "held as one state for a period of two centuries and more" to "held as one state for a period of three centuries and more" first because from the very second king Aditya I, the Later Cholas acquired the status of an empire... Aditya I not only defeated the Pandyas and Cheras (of Kerala), he married a Chera princes, and later also obtained submission of a Kannada kingdom, namely the Gangas and during his time itself, the Chola domains had reached the Mysore hills and plateau (bordering Kerala). As proof, kindly read page 159 of the book "A history of South India" by K.A.Nilakanta Sastri, which mentions that Aditya I overpowered the Pallavas and ended their existence and that "the whole of the Pallava kingdom now became Chola territory which henceforth bordered on that of the Rashtrakutas (903)" i.e. 903 AD. Rashtrakuta core areas were in what is modern Karnataka and central and southern Maharashtra. Further, the next para states: "The Ganga Prithvipati II, the grandson of Prithvipati I, soon afterwards acknowledged the suzerainty of Aditya", which attests to the fact that in addition to Pallava areas in Telugu lands, namely from Tirupati to Cuddapah-Guntakal belt, the Chola territories extended even to the Tamil lands to what is southern Andhra, central and southern Karnataka and Kerala. This is further proven by the sentence that "He (Aditya) is said to have built tall stone temples of Siva on both banks of the Kaveri from the Sahyadri to the sea." As proof there is still a Chola temple standing on the west coast, at Bhatkal. Sir, this was in AD 903-907, with the latter being the year Aditya I expired. From here, we go to AD 1215, when the Chola King Kulottunga-III loses to the Pandyans under Maravarman Sundara...Kulottunga, who ruled from 1175-1216 (41 Years) had defeated the Pandyas, occupied Sri Lanka, defeated Hoysala Veera Ballala -III in battle and counted Nolambavadi, Banavasi, Hangal and eastern Gangavadi in Mysore, Vengi (Rajahmundry-Vizag region), Nellore-Cuddapah belt among the areas of his hegemony and core territory. This means from 907 to 1215, despite wars, victories or defeats under Parantaka I and Kulottunga I, the territories of the Cholas both within Tamil lands but also in what is Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra, practically remained unviolated, and the Chola empire/rule only declined from 1215 and they practically went into oblivion by 1280 AD. (Though there are records of minor Cholas even up to 1464 AD during the rule of Vijayanagara).... hence pls. allow me to change the caption to "held as one state for three centuries and more". Thank you Srirangam99 (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Religion

@Utcursch: These are my sources- The map shows that present-day Kerala is covered and that is why I put the edits. The sources claim is around 1st century. Roman presence in Kerala could be a reason for the spread. I would like to know your thoughts on this. I understand I have edited other kingdoms. Do you know what Kingdoms controlled present-day Kerala in the Common Era? Again, these groups are minorities. Where should I put them? Also, I saw the Kerala Sidebar was removed. I may not be the only one but WP:POV is questionable. This requires more consensus but I recommend merging Template:Keralahistory with Template:TNhistory and merging with Dravidian portal. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

References

The first two books don't even mention the Cholas; the third book does mention them, but doesn't seem to suggest that Christianity was remotely significant in their kingdom.

As for the template merging, I doubt the respective folks from Kerala and Tamil Nadu would like that, but you can try initiating a discussion on the template page, and dropping a note on WT:INKL, WT:INTN, and WT:IN. utcursch | talk 14:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Cholas were also called Koliyar

Hi, this edit looks dodgy, not helped by the edit summary. Your first source is self-published, another has no page number, and others look to be very obscure. I suspect you had built a house of cards there, synthesising material to get a desired outcome. I have reverted for now - feel free to provide relevant quotes from the reliable sources on the article talk page & thus obtain consensus to reinstate. Obviously, the first source is not reliable, and some others may not be (Ramaswamy is definitely ok). - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush and Kautilya3:, Hi Sitush has raised a concern (see above) regarding one of my recent edits to the Chola article. I was not aware of the self-published sources, of course I knew about blogs and personal websites but was not aware that the rule covered self-published historical books. In any case I am not sure why my second source was disregarded. So I am here to obtain consensus so that the following content can be incorporated into the article.

"The Cholas also went by the name Koliyar. Vikrama Chola referred to himself as Koliyar Kula Pati, that is the head of the family of Cholas (Koliyar) in one of his epigraphs. The Koliyar are mentioned as one of the artisan communities during the period of medieval Cholas. According to historian Vijaya Ramaswamy, the Koliyar were weavers."

Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging others, @RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, QEDK, and Winged Blades of Godric:. Request you to review the above content. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)