Talk:Chola Dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chola Dynasty article.
Article policies
Featured article star Chola Dynasty is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 16, 2006.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tamil civilization, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Tamil related topics. If you would like to participate, please feel free to visit the project page to join.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project’s importance scale.
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India.
Featured article FA Quality: FA-Class (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
This article is maintained by the Classical Tamil workgroup.
This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup.
More information about this article...
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries.
Featured article FA Quality scale: FA-Class Add comments
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Chola Dynasty is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Venu62 (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Old, unsectioned comments

Can anyone help by writing just a few lines about each of the kings
- Kishore 06:05, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Hey kishore,

 Better read the "Ponien selvan" By kalki..It explains about each ruler superbly.

Yogananth


  • Thanks Yogananth. I was more concerned to improve the article. If you have read "ponien Selvan" and/or have a fair idea abour Cholas, you can help improving the article.

Kishore 15:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Etymology of kallaNai is so out of place here. I am going to move it a new article on kallaNai. --Sivaraj 03:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Only three Dynasties?

I'm guessing that what people mean by the 'three dynasties' ruling over Tamilnadu are the Cholas, Pandyas, and Pallavas, i.e. not Cheras which were based in Kerala. But if people know that Cheras also ruled in Tamilnadu at some point, let's give them a mention in that connection. QuartierLatin1968 21:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kerala is a separate political entity only after Independence. Before that the whole region (Tamil Nadu + Kerala) was ruled by different monarchies at various points in time and no distinction was made with respect to [present day] Kerala. AFIK, Tamil tradition mentions Cheras as part of the "three dynasties". A more convincing fact is that Ilango who authored the Tamil epic Cilappatikaram was a prince from the Chera dynasty. -- Sundar 04:51, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, right, of course. That does make sense. I put a link to the Pallavas at their first mention of the article instead. (PS: I've also been trying to sort out the Roman numerals in this article – "Rajaraja Chola-I"? "Henry-VIII"? It looks quite odd. So I'm afraid you inadvertently reverted my Roman numeral fixes as well! No worries though, I've set it back again.) QuartierLatin1968 18:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oops! I'm sorry. It was unintentional. -- Sundar 04:13, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] expand on the empire building in southeast asia?

Can anyone expand on the campaigns and cultural fussion on that part -- Dangerous-Boy

[edit] Make a map

Someone should make a map like in the Chinese dynasties. --Dangerous-Boy 07:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I added a map, overview, images, plus references from my Chola Empire page

Hey guys, I added a IMPERIAL MAP and overview plus references from my Chola Empire wikipedia page which I created. Plus other images referenced with sources, did some minor reorganizing of content here too so that there's no repeating of info. Let me know what you guys think. I think it better reflects the glory of the Chola empire and their military and cultural exploits. Enjoy,

Chola 02:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


Nice work. Make sure you tag your map or might get deleted. --Dangerous-Boy 08:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey DangerousBoy, How do I tag the map? I entered the following after adding it: This image was found at Encyclopedie Enligne: http://www.encyclopedie-enligne.com/Images/c/carte_chola.png The original page where this image was found is: http://www.encyclopedie-enligne.com/c/ch/chola.html Was this done correctly or is this not considered a tag, please check it out and give me feedback, i'd like to keep adding to this page :). Thanks!

Chola 19:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You can choose an image copyright tag from here: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags --Dangerous-Boy 22:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I added the tags. Thanks. Chola 23:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitals

I added Poompuhar and Pazhaiarai as capitals. Sources being Tamil literature and general history... shash 06:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking interest Shash. I reverted the edit, however, because I want to maintain encyclopedic standards. I don't think all details and comments about the Cholas should be added, only the most important and relevant facts in an easy to read manner. Most of the Empire pages on Wikipedia are designed with an aesthetic sensibility to promote understanding of that particular empire and culture to the global internet community. Thus, it's important to keep the information fresh and easily readable with only the most important information. The problem with most of the articles on Tamil empires is that they focus far too much on the Early Dynasties, mention many small details from early history and thus make readers lose interest before reading the real contributions and accomplishments of those civilizations. We need to start promoting knowledge of the big achievements so those outside the Tamil community can better appreciate our civilization. A new effort should be made to promote understanding of Tamil Empires just as the Ottoman and other Empire pages have done Turkish Civilization. Thanks again.

-- Chola 18:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] rename to chola dynasty?

?--Dangerous-Boy 11:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

-Kumar, no point renaming it "chola dynasty" since a dynasty is only a ruling family. This page seems to be more about the "chola empire", thus focusing more on its collective Imperial contributions as opposed to specific individuals who ruled the empire.

[edit] Merging Chola Empire with Cholas

Venu62 08:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the Cholas article changing the sectiosn on the Early Cholas and added a map of the Chola empire. I intend to expand this article ti add the social and political contributions of Cholas. I also intend to contribute articles on the various Chola kings. I would like to suggest that the article on Chola empire be merged into the Chola article in order to avoid duplication.


Hi there, my nickname on Wikipedia is Chola, I'm the one who created the "Chola_Empire" page. I'm fine with merging the two pages. I hope you add a nice image of the Thanjavur Big Temple to the Chola page though, I don't know why the other image was removed, as it's an important contribution of the Chola Empire. Perhaps more info on the Chola military exploits and less Dynastic information would make it qualitatively better, as the original purpose of the Chola Empire page and the various edits I made to the Chola page was so that people outside the Tamil cultural sphere can get better acquainted with the Chola Empires greatness. This, without giving them too many small details at the beginning which may distract from their main contributions (military conquest, architecture, arts, cultural fusion with South East Asia). Cheers. Chola

Hi Chola, Thank you for your note. The image of the Tanjore temple was removed for lack of space on the page. I do intend inserting it back when I add more text to this page. I am currently writing about the contributions of Cholas in the areas of government, art, literature, architecture etc to the lead article on Cholas. This will give a rounded picture to the non-Indian reader. Also I was consious of fact that Wikipedia is a reference document which will be a third level source. We need to be as complete as possible.

Venu62 19:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] early cholas lineage

some one changed the actual lineage from the Purananuru which clearly states who is who and who is the son of who, kindly revert back to he original order given by me.

dates of Sibi, sembiyan , kantaman and Musugunthan are related to the dating of Ramayana time , may be around 1500-1100 B.C.E.

Senthilkumaras 17:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the Chola lineage. This is an article about the history of Cholas. If we want to maintain the information authentic, i.e. supported by the conventional dating evidence, then I don't think using Purananuru and Ramayana as authentic historical document is acceptable. You seem to consider Ramayana as a historical document. I don't. Can you please refer me to the evidence of the exact date of Ramayana? Venu62 19:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am telling that Purananuru gives the lineage not the exact dates. example too many blunders in your list like, Killivalavan , rasasuya narkilli , kochenkanaan all are misplaced


Purananuru clearly says with the help of the original porulurai if one reads it carefully, killivalavan is son of nalankilli, nalankilli is cousin of cenkuttuvan,

rasasuya narkilli is son of killivalavan,

kocenkaanaan is the last known bigtime chola king , as poet singing on him doesnot come to be in other poet's or king's time, he is later than 200 c.e.

also 250 c.e is the end of big kingdoms in Tamilnadu, after whihc Kalabras spread and dark age starts, extends till 500 c.e.

Senthilkumaras 16:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is if we want to keep Wikipedia an authentic source of information, we need to separate accepted fact from unconfirmed, undatable information. With all due respect to you I don't consider Purananuru and Ramayana as authentic historical sources. They are rather cultural icons preserving a collective memory of a people. They cannot taken as authentic historic source. See Kings of the Britons. This article clearly separates the legendary genealogy of the Kings of Briton from the historical ones. May be you would like to create an article like this detailing the Purananuru list.

Venu62 19:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou sir for differentiating later records of legends [like historia regum brittanica ], and other kingslist of ABriton, from the original datable authentic kinglists.

I also quote for others like me the salient features:

"Various lists of the kings survive, although none of the originals. The Welsh Chronicles supply another source for early British kings. Regardless of the source, no list of the kings has a high level of historic fact and, while they generally are similar to each other, no two lists are exactly the same. Modern historians consider these lists not as historically reliable sources but as comprehensive conglomerations of various Celtic rulers, Celtic warlords, mythical heroes, and, more obviously, Roman Emperors.The history of Geoffrey is rough and unreliable but forms the basis for much English lore and literature. Modern historians have regarded the Historia as a work of fiction with some truth mixed in. John Morris in The Age of Arthur calls it a deliberate spoof. .

But what I wanted to point is there are 20-25 kings names in each of Pandya , Chera and Chola in the later Cangam works. do yo say Cangam works on kings and incidents were all fiction, and those kings names were all cooked up in more later times? yes the exact period of kings are undatable, but neither are the Bible lineage of Noah, Abraham, Joshua upto Jesus[for sure 4 b.c.] datable, they are easily legends only, There were no archaeological stone tablets in Israel to date their genealogy for sure, they rely on the Bible only which was compiled like Purananuru only in 4th century c.e. by the Church.


Or for that matter the Sumerian kinglist [which it is posted in wikipedia also as example:"ruling for 180 years etc and so on"] [which gives kingslist from 3300 b.c.e. ? with each of the earliest kings ruling for 200-1600 years?] you and many provide was actually from stone tablets dated at 1000 b.c.e. only, clearly mentioning that those were only recollected kingslists of the past which were lost in the flood or copied from remaining records.

Afterall each Purananuru poets sang those poems on the donating kings just thanking them or praising their might in order to get money and prizes THE N AND THERE , not written 1000's of years later like other aboe mentioned works ,

so the names of these 60 odd kings are real, atleast,


the poets also many times mention who is the father and son of which king in most cases [except they d on't give you any dates as numbers.]


kindly consider each of these points and PLEASE answer each one of them.

Probably the only minus point was that those days Tamils didnotknow to record or boast on STONE TABLETS, only poor palm leaves script MUCH LIKE BIBLE, VEDAS, CHINESE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORDS,.. ETC - which are very much accepted for genealogy atleast for kingslist , leave alone the dates they generously provide!!!!

In any case how do one say a record is authentic - just archaeo /epigraphy, does palmleaves script has no value ,

and historians who declare one authentic are westerners only. how can they do when they not even know that Purananuru was a praising work for living money by poets on the kings Then and THERE. Will they accept if an Indian scholar date or declare whether the authencity of Bible or Greek/ Roman records are true or just cooked up?

Senthilkumaras 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume the above note was from Senthilkumar. My response is as follows:

When we write about our own culture we let feelings of Nationalism cloud our objectivity. I recommend that you read the article on Historical method.

No serious historian accepts as fact the dates and genealogy given in in the old and the new Testaments, etc. There is no independent proof that such a man as Jesus existed. He was not an accepted historical figure. The same goes for the Sumerian king list etc. Sumerian and Assyrian King Lists are listed under mythology rather than true history.

When you write an article under 'History', you must write authentic verifiable information, and should not insert legends and myths as historic fact. Otherwise you are indulging in Pseudohistory and Nationalistic propaganda.

Even true blue Indian historians do not take the early king list from the Purananuru as historically acceptable document, even for the reasons of there being not enough information other than a few names. It is not even certain in some cases whether they are kings themselves or those belonging to the ruling clan.

If one wants to push one's Nationalistic agenda, Wikipedia is not the place for it. You seem to have a problem with the so called 'Western Historians'. It is unfortunate but irrelevant. All the pioneering work done in documenting Indian History was done by the Westerners.

Venu62 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


thankyou Venu62 for clarifying, henceforth we shall call all kings of these scripts(Bible, sumerian kinglist, Chinese kinglists, Purananuru, Aryan Manu/ Bharata, Ikshwaku lists) without archaeological records as mythical legends only. but Jesus the latest of all these genealogies will be controversial atleast . Senthilkumaras 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramayana reference

http://www.sanmarga.org/resources/books/dws/dws_r6_timeline.html

Traditionally historians date Ramayana to 1000 -1050 b.c.e.

But much earlier date to 4039 b.c.e.-4019 b.c.e. given now by astronomic record evidence as shown in the site publication by renowned historians and scientists similar to the astronomical records and dating of the Rig Veda.

Senthilkumaras 16:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Historians don't give that date - pseudohistorians do. I can refer you to a hundred sites that argue that the world was created sometime during the evening of June 26th 4004 BC. Which one does one believe? That is why we have the science of archealogy and epigraphy.

Venu62 19:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Venu, I'd like to congratulate you and everyone else on providing a detailed and interesting factual record here. I wish some of the older details (of the Medieval Cholas) such as the Aquaduct, navy and military exploits were kept here, since to me they signify the true glory of the Chola empire. I originally wanted to keep the pages for promoting an understanding of Chola accomplishments to the mainstream community, but find your interesting factual information just as honourable. I was hoping we could keep a compromise, whereby the first 2 paragraphs of this site are kept as is (since they explain a general overview of the Medieval Chola accomplishments) and allow the rest of the page to be edited as new data arrives. We need a brief overview in the first 2 paragraphs to capture the imagination of readers not familiar with the Cholas who may otherwise think they were a minor local entity (and not an international imperial power, which they were). Thanks Chola 10 February.

Actually, now that I think about it, perhaps it's better to maintain the "Chola Empire" page seperately. This is because the "Cholas" page seems to be more about the Chola dynasty with an overemphasis on the Early history, while the "Chola Empire" page is more about the Medieval Cholas and their military and cultural exploits (during a specific time frame). Perhaps with better inter-linking of the 2 pages we can have a good synergy. Good luck. Chola 10 February

[edit] Vengi Cholas

The text under the Vengi Chola heading needs to be rewritten for style and formatting.

"Vengi kings were ancient Tamil line that existed since last Sangam period . Vengi always was the face of Tamil kingdoms on the southern banks of Lower Godavari river and bordered the Kalinga kingdom . "

- The above statement needs some supporting reference.

"The Satavahanas or the Andhra dynasty ruled for four hundred years since the post-Asoka period , during which they had marital relationship with Karikala Chola I ."

- The above statement needs some supporting reference.

"Rajaraja Chola's daughter fell in love with Vengi prince Vimaladitan and was married to him . Similarly Rajendra Chola's daughter was married to Rasanarendran, whose son Vengi Rajendra II Kulothungan had to take the Chola crown in 1070 C.E. as after VeeraRajendra's death there was no male scions left in the royal family( as a result of too many battles with Chalukyas )."

- The above statement needs some supporting reference.

Venu62 00:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

References from  ;

VeeraSozhiyam ,

"Tennaattu Porkalangal"-Ka.Appatturaiyaar [1945] , Nandan publications, 2002, 1st edition ,

Satavahanas for their reign period .

203.101.36.213 11:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Senthil Kumar

I was after references supporting the statement :"Vengi kings were ancient Tamil line that existed since last Sangam period... " Where is the proof that they spoke Tamil? Are there any inscriptions left by them in Tamil? Where is the evidence that Vengi Chalukyas and their predecessors were of Tamil extraction?

Where is the evidence for marital relationships between Satavahanas and Karikala I? Any inscriptions to prove this?

Where is the evidence for the statement : ""Rajaraja Chola's daughter fell in love with Vengi prince Vimaladitan and was married to him ..." It may be true that Rajaraja's daughter married the Vengi prince. But where is the evidence that they 'fell in love'?

We should try and keep this an article about known history, not introduce fiction.

Venu62 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

same sources above and also from wiki:Rajaraja Chola page and its references.

I accept Satavahana marital was a llegend as it is said. Vengi(Velaavi,Velaata Cholas) and Vengadam are mentioned as northern countries of ancient TamilNadu in Purananuru; their ancient kings may be undated and legendary, but ancient vengi existed , Senthilkumaras 17:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I neverdisputed the existence of Vengi. If you agree with my argument of keeping the text to within the rules of documenting history, please copyedit the Vengi Chola section.

Venu62 19:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Vengi Nadu was not Tamil but a Telugu country ruled by the Eastern Chalukyas. Thus after 1070 AD the when Vijayalaya dynasty of Later Cholas ended the Vengi Chalukyas who were descendents of Kundavai Nachiar inherited the Throne. The Eastern Chalukyas were Telugu only. Some historians regarded Chalukyas as the original descendants of Seleucus Nicator the Greek General of Alexander the great who in the later days adopted Hinduism and formed various Chalukya (Chalukya,Solanki and Chaluki) dynasties at North India, Western Chalukya (Badami)(famous king Pulikesin the second) and Eastern Chalukyas(Vengi).They were considered Rajputs in the North India. Thus the Cholas after 1070 starting from Kulothunga Chola Devar 1 are not Cholas but Telugu Chalukyas with some Chola blood.

Nadarhistory

[edit] Changing Chola to Cholan?

To ManimaranSyndey

When you make a change to Cholan from Chola, please make sure you don't break any existing link. By the way what is the point in your change anyway? All you have done is make a number of links point to nothing. Please read the help articles about article writing in Wiki before changing any text.

Venu62 19:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Chola name is a mispronunciation. It should have been Chozha Dynasty. Nadarhistory

[edit] Vandalism?

To the person (212.64.52.209)who removed chunks of information from the article. I am putting the information back into the article as I can't understand why this was removed. Please identify yourself and offer reasons for removal.

Venu62 22:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling Mistake

In the section "The Name Chola", Sembiyan in tamil was written as செம்பியன். I have changed it to ெசம்பியன். When I made the change, I did not realise there was an option called minor edit, does it really matter?

Update: Sorry, I was viewing the page on Mozilla, the text looks fine as it is on IE, so I've changed it back. Apologies to everyone.

128.6.236.246 04:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I made a couple minor edits. I changed the "gopura" to "vimanam" under the temple image. That is an image of the temple tower (vimanam), and not the temple gopuram (ornate gateway). Excellent image by the way! Whoever has been busy adding info, keep up the good work!! Chola 05:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Velnati or Telugu Cholas

There is an important brnach of the Cholas known as Telugu cholas who were instrumental in the development of the Telugu language. We need to add information on them and their connmection to imperial Cholas 216.95.23.142 03:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I have created an article on the Telugu Cholas. I'm not an expert on this. I got most of the material from the reference cited. Please feel free to edit and correct any mistakes.
Parthi (Venu62) 06:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Great article, keep it up. Now we need a similar project on Tulu Pandyas :)))RaveenS 20:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pronunciation?

The article currently says that Cholas is read "[ʧudʒe]". That would be something like, in American English, "Choodjeh". That seems like an unlikely way to pronounce Chola. What's the source on this? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The source was IPA. I am not an expert with the notations IPA uses. If you can correct is please fix it.

Parthi (Venu62) 08:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't know how the word is actually pronounced, so I can't correct the IPA. Can you tell me how it is read, for instance, "Cho-luh", 'ch' as in "chain", 'o' as in ... Then I'll fix the IPA. Thanks. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The name is sometimes rendered 'Chozha' - the first syllable as in 'choice' and the last is pronunced somewhat like the French 'Jaque'. It the letter ழ which is unique to Tamil.
Parthi (Venu62) 19:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
So, something like "Choy-ja", with the "j" as in French? Do you know if it's ever pronounced like that it English, or is some other pronunciation used? - Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
In English the typical pronunciation is the literal "Chola". Hence the spelling. The true pronunciation in Tamil however is more "Cho-ja". Even the true pronunciation of "Tamil" is "Tha-me-j", the last syllable being close to the French 'J'. The Tamil language page has the IPA notation /t̪ɐmɨɻ/ for Tamil.
Parthi (Venu62) 22:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extent of chola government

Dear Venu, please refer to my chalukya talk page on vikramaditya-chola wars. Even in my latest edit where i claim the chola empire may have extended to Tungabhdra may also be over doing it. During the time from 1000-1118AD, The hoysalas ruled as subordinates of Kalyani chalukyas. My take is that the Cholas ruled mostly the bordering districts between Andhra and Karnataka like Tumkur, Kolar, Bellary. This is evidenced by the Kolaramma temple in Kolar, Nanjungudu temple near Mysore etc. The only temple north of here is the "choleshwara" temple in Bhatkal, Uttara Kannada district. I feel the cholas may have controlled coastal Karnataka for a few decades at most. The Cholas suffered two great losses at Talakad arounf 1120 to Hoysala Vishnuvardhana and 1118AD at Vengi to Vikramaditya VI. I hope you can see reason in this. dinesh


Dinesh, I did not make up any othe information in the Chola page. All informaiton came from the references cited here. I did not use my own theories or assumptions in the information. Wikipedia is not the place for it. You cannot write something based on what you think is right. You must have cited evidence from reputed publication. I will be introducing detailed citation and notes to the chola page during this weekend.
Parthi (Venu62) 22:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit and restructuring

I have done a major restructuring and layout changes to the article in line with suggestion from the peer review currently in progress.

I have also rewritten portions of and reduced the size of the lead paragraph. I have also

  • removed the wikilinks from the years
  • categorised the references into online and publications
  • standardised the reference notation in the footnotes
  • used consistent cases in the headings

There may be further changes to this page based on suggestions from the peer review

Parthi (Venu62) 03:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, Excellent Job! Keep it up!! - Chola, April 30,2006.

Good work. Once content-related issues are resolved, I'll copyedit the article. (It's usually a good idea to get it copyedited by a person other than the main author.) Aside: Chronology of Tamil history needs a cleanup. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the other famous south Indian kingdoms viz. The Cheras, Pandiyas, and Pallavas be menioned in the introductory paragraph? Cribananda 06:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Pandyas are mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead section in context. Can you suggest a context in which to mention the Cheras? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant more like, "Along with Cheras, Pandyas, and Pallavas, they form the major dynasties of south India" or something like that. - Cribananda 04:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary parallel?

On the history of Cholas, as in many other subjects of Indian history, there is very little authentic written evidence available. Why the parallel? There are many subjects in any country's history that have very little written evidence available. Cribananda 05:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but does it make the sentence wrong though? All I was trying to make the reader aware that lack of sources is not unique to the Cholas, but rather is the characteristic of the region where documentation akin to the the ancient Roman/Greek history is sparce.
cheers Parthi (Venu62) 05:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, one may ask a reference for that little unneeded comment. It sounds like a casual observation that could very well be wrong and has no place in an ecyclopedia. --Blacksun 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make the sentence wrong. It just gives a mild derogatory connotation, as if to say subjects of Indian history always have very little evidence (when compared to other history). But this might only be my POV. You can leave it there if you are convinced. Cribananda 06:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed the sentense fragment. I agree it doesn't add value to the sentence and is not necessary. - cheers Parthi (Venu62) 21:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Southeast Asian holdings

Did the Cholas conquered part of the Malay Archipelago? I thought the Cholas only conducted raids against Srivijaya, Gangga Negara, Old Kedah and a few other old kingdoms instead of conquering it? __earth (Talk) 10:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Chola naval campaigns to Srivijaya may be described as 'raids' as they did not result in any territorial gains. However they did have political influences in those kingdoms. - Parthi (Venu62) 10:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If it didn't result in territorial gain, why does the map include areas that belonged to Srivijaya at that time too? I know that borders during those times weren't as fixed as they today today but shouldn't the map be redrawn to reflect that it didn't hold any territory in Southeast Asia and show Chola proper instead? __earth (Talk) 15:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Eventhough it is true that the naval conquests did not give the Chola permanent territories. They controlled the areas shown in the map for a period of time. The map simply shows the spread of Chola power rather than their direct administrative areas. They did not administrer more than the South India and part of Sri Lanka directly. I feel the map should stand as it is as it does show the extent of Chola power. -Parthi (Venu62) 19:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
There is also ample evidence in the references cited that the kingoms of Srivijaya, Kedah, Pegu and even Khmer were subordinates to the Cholas and were paying annual tributes albeit for a short duration. If a kingdom is subordinate and a tributary, then it is correct to include such a kingdom as part of the empire. - Parthi (Venu62) 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Several large kingdoms in SEA paid tribute to China but that doesn't make them part of the Chinese empire. They were not subordinate because they were eliminated after the raids. Gangga Negara and Old Kedah for instance ceased to exist because of Cholas' campaign. And the Cholas didn't occupy the land. They instead moved on to other kd for another raid. __earth (Talk) 04:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The SriVijaya Kingdom and Kadaram were not directly administered but they were militarily occupied and forced to send a large part of their economic resources to the Chola treasury. This lasted for 75 years (the cholas did this by selecting the king, and keeping a military presence, there were Chola military contingents as far North as modern day Myanmar), and there were numerous naval raids during a ~150 year period to maintain suzerainty, ending just before the decline of the empire. 32.97.110.142Chola

Srivijayan territories should be removed from the map. The article specifically refers to the Chola dynasty, and the map says 1050. By 900 AD Srivijaya the ruling elite of Srivijaya were nobles from Java. They were not paying tribute to Chola by 1025.

[edit] Congrats

Congrats! Its an FA now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chola and Maldives

Did not find any reference to Chola Kings on Maldive's History page.. Not sure if someone has some historical document to backup the statement? Chirag 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is epigraphic evidence for Rajaraja Chola's naval conquest of Maldives - Parthi 20:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novels

Can we rename the section titled ==Novels based on Cholas history== to ==In literature==, ==In popular culture==, ==Cultural legacy== or something appropriate. I think that there was a teleserial written by M Karunanidhi and played by actor Nasser. There would have been movies (Manohara?) based on Chola history. That section could include these as well. What do you think? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer 'In popular culture'. - Parthi 19:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have rewritten this section. Please see and add more if you want. - Parthi 01:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice rewrite. I'll add more info as I get them. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thailand

Did Cholas have any contacts with Thailand region ? I'm asking this in the context of this news item. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the nature of the inscription which is in Tamil Brahmi must be prior to the later Cholas. As the article says it should belong to the second century CE, roughly corresponding to the period of Sangam literature. We have no definite knowledge of the Cholas during this period. However the later Cholas had extensive contact with the countries of southeast Asia. In fact apparently there is a stone installedin the Chidambaram temple given to Kulothunga Chola by a king from Cambodia. - Parthi 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AD vs CE

The term common era (CE) is preferred by some as a religiously-neutral alternative to AD and BC. Please read Common Era. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"AD" is the conventional abbreviation in most common use and it has no significant religious connotations, any more than calling the planet Venus by that name has any religious connotations. "CE" is an idiosyncratic neologism that does have religious connotations since it is a known code word for "Christian Era". Also, it forces one to use BCE for BC, which is even less convenient as it wastes an extra byte. AD and BC are the standard usages. Elektra Eloi 04:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a neologism. I will quote the Manual of Style for you, "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article". CE is consisently used in this article. And it is per MOS which is a widely accepted guideline on Wikipedia. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking WP talk, I'm talking real world talk, and WP idiosyncracies are not widely accepted in the real world. Aside from this, it is not necessary or standard (again in the real world) to mention either AD (or CE) for every date in the book, only for ones that might be confused with BC dates. Elektra Eloi 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To avoid disagreements like this, everyone here in Wikipedia world follows the MOS. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This article used AD notation from its inception right up to this edit [1]. From here on, User:Dangerous-Boy sneaked in the change to CE. The MOS states that either AD or CE is OK, and that the preference of the first major editor should be adhered to - if all else fails. All else has failed here, so I'm reverting the instances of CE to AD - well actually I'm not! Generally years after AD 1 can stand on their own account, and references to AD in connection with a century are incorect anyway. So I'm removing CE references. They simply aren't needed. Remember this is not an article about religion. If you don't like this, then feel free to use the Hindu calendar, but if you use the Christian Gregorian calendar then please be respectful enough to acknowledge that it is just that -a calendar based on a christian event. Arcturus 18:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted this unncessary change. It is not civil to call any constructive change to the article as 'sneaking'. - Parthi talk/contribs 19:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Do me a favour! It is sneaking because the editor who made what was a controversial change did not document it in the edit summary. The change was not constructive, it went against the MOS. In any case, my change does away with both AD and CE, and that should be OK with most people. On that basis I'm reverting the revert (my first revert). Arcturus 20:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, seems like we've got a compromise - no usage of CE, and christian era --> common era when written in full? Arcturus 20:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I came to this article as it is linked from the front page. I wonder whether I could offer some comments on this point?

Style is an important issue of any writing, and date notation style is important to this article because of its many references to many dates (often employing capital letters that stand out clearly). Style should reflect what the target audience of any writing expect/prefer. Otherwise you end up alienating your target audience. Quickly.

Now, I don't presume to know who this article is written for. It is easy to state that if the article is intended to appeal to as wide an audience as possible (namely casual readers of history), then AD/BC notation really ought to be used. You'll lose your audience if you don't adopt that style.

On the other hand, the target audience may not be as generalised at that, in which case we'd need to consider what is suitable for that audience - which may well be CE/BCE notation.

In short, I don't presume to come up with an answer as to what style the writers of this article should use. But I do stress the importance of deciding that style based on what best suits the people you are writing for. Indeed, it would be useful for the main authors of the article to say exactly who they are writing for - other style issues in the article could then also be addressed in the best way, SCCC 12:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

Congrats and making this a featured article. :) Elalan 05:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...this is cool...I like historyCameron Nedland 14:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exaggeration

The Cholas declined after their defeat in the Battle of Talakad (1114 C.E.) against the Hoysalas and the battle for Vengi against the Kalyani Chalukyas (1121 C.E.). They lost control of Gangavadi, Vengi and the Kalinga areas forever after these defeats. It is exaggeration to claim "The power of the Cholas declined around the 14th century with the rise of the Pandyas and the Hoysala". Please correct this untrue info.

Dineshkannambadi

[edit] Congrats!!

I would like to congratulate everyone invloved in this page for their effort. Good Job!!

Dineshkannambadi

[edit] Preceeding state??

Why is this section "Unknown". The Rashtrakuta under Krishna III and their feudatory Western Gangastook control of Tondaimandalam (northern Tamil Nadu) around 950 C.E. They should be the preceeding state. In fact when the Cholas were at their peak, their kings took titles to show they were superior to the Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas (Romila Thapar, Penguin History of Early India). I have made this correction to the template. Please discuss if you feel otherwise. Also, Vijayanagar empire is not exactly a succeeding state. The Chola rule ended around 1275 C.E. when the Hoysalas were at their peak. The Vijayanagar empire rose around 1343 C.E. after the death of Hoysala Veera Ballala III

Dineshkannambadi

[edit] Vandalism

Please stop this. This is ridiculous. It prevents serious history buffs from contributing.

Dineshkannambadi

er...? what now?

[edit] Map

Can someone please fix the map, I'm new to Wikipedia so I dont know how , but its inaccurate! 222.155.21.111 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Should I just remove the material until its fixed? .. or what.. please advice asap 222.155.21.111 18:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you at least explain what is wrong with the map? Gdo01 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The map shows Sri Lanka as entirely belonging to the Chola empire, as well as Indonesia. This never happened. Only the nothern part of Sri Lanka was ever annexed. And only Indonesia up to modern day Jakarta was annexed (the main island the other islands are accurate. )222.155.21.111 20:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for this claim and please stop adding the accuracy tag? Joelito (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes the Mahawansa, although I do not no where to find it online 222.155.21.111 20:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
See my response here - Parthi talk/contribs 20:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Transcluded response The extent of Chola occupation of Sri Lanka is fully cited from the book The Colas by Prof KAN Sastri. The Cholas occupied the entire island for a period of a couple of decades during the reign of Rajendra Chola I. The Lankans eventually were able to overthrow the occupation and restore their sovereignity over the southern parts of the island. The map shows the exten at the height of the Chola power as is accurate. -Parthi talk/contribs 20:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
That is wholly inaccurate, during this time Kashyapa had control southern Sri Lanka, south of modern day mahiyangana to hikkaduwa in the east to Hambanthota in the southwest. And simlarly as I described in indonesia 222.155.21.111 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I googled "chola dynasty indonesia" and got this:

Chola (chō'lə) , S Indian dynasty, whose kingdom was in what is now Tamil Nadu. Its chief capitals were at Kanchi (Kanchipuram) and Thanjavur (Tanjore). The Chola kingdom was one of the three of ancient Tamil tradition, but the dynasty had been virtually submerged for centuries when at the end of the 9th cent. A.D. it rose again. Under the famous rulers Rajaraja I (reigned 985–1014) and Rajendra I (reigned 1014–42) Chola power reached its zenith. The former conquered Kerala and occupied N Sri Lanka; the latter completed the conquest of Sri Lanka, invaded Bengal, and sent out a great naval expedition that occupied parts of Myanmar, Malaya, and Sumatra. For 300 years the Chola kingdom supported a flourishing social and economic life, marked by a flowering of Hindu culture. Its greatest architectural monument is an 11th-century temple at Tanjore, which was dedicated to Shiva in celebration of a military victory. By the 13th cent. the kingdom was in decline, and the dynasty ended in 1279.

--Mycroft.Holmes 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


The Mahavansa is used by historians often, if this is POV isn't most historical texts we use POV? As for Mycroft, where is the source and how do we know its accuracy?222.155.21.111 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your POV arguement is valid. But wouldn't you agree that there is blatant POV that the Mahavansa is central to Theravada Buddhism(the majority religion of Sri Lanka). And that it is likely that the Buddhist monks downplayed the hegemony of a Hindu Tamil Empire in Sri Lanka? You should read the external links, because merely citing the Mahavansa to discredit the Chola conquest of Sri Lanka is insufficient in my opinion.

See Short History of Lanka by Humphry William Codrington. - Parthi talk/contribs 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

How did an article with disputed accuracy make peer review and make it to the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.204.3 (talk • contribs)

Because the dispute tags were just added today by an ip user. Gdo01 19:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits putting the word "river" after the name of the corresponding river

Hi, recently Mattisse has moved all occurences of the word "river" to after the corresponding name. I think, it's Indian English practice to put them before the name. Since, Indian English or Commonwealth English is recommended for India-related articles, we need to change it back, IMO. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As in the above instance, I suggest adopting the style appropriate to the target audience. I don't know what that is, but venturing a guess, I'd suggest that would be to use the common names. I also note that the main articles covering those rivers are all styled X River rather than River X (compare River Thames), which may be suggestive of what is considered to be the common name elsewhere in Wikipedia. However, I am surprised that the article is at Ganges River rather than at the River Ganges, but I suppose that would be a point for that article's talk page, SCCC 17:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek sources

The article currently reads:

There are also brief notices on the Chola country and its towns, ports and commerce furnished by the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (Periplus Maris Erythraei). Periplus is a work by an anonymous Alexandrian merchant, written in the time of Domitian (81 – 96) and contains very little information of the Chola country. Writing half a century later, the geographer Ptolemy gives more detail about the Chola country, its port and its inland cities.

Is there any chance we could get a little more detail here? Specifically, where in the Periplus and Ptolemy are the Cholas mentioned? Are they mentioned by name? If so, what is the Greek form used? The footnote only links to an online translation of the Periplus, which is probably not enough information even if the link workd (the site seems to be down). Please help me get more information. Thanks, Iustinus 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have give appropriate citations now. The broken link has been fixed . - Parthi talk/contribs 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you! It is a shame that neither source (apparently--I will have to double-check this when I have more time) mentions the Cholas by name. --Iustinus 00:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesting: it sure LOOKS like the Σῶραι/Suræ mentioned by Classical sources are the Cholas, but I can't find any reference to this equation is secondary sources. That in and of itself is surprising. --Iustinus 02:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger?

An editor has suggested that this article be merged with Chola Military. As this article is a Featured article, this is in summary format. Any detailed information regarding Military or art belong in the sub articles. See WP:MOS. I am deleting the merger suggesion based on this. - Parthi talk/contribs 09:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Rename this Chola Empire !

Sir, Why call the Cholas a kingdom with the (wrong) justification that the size of the empire was not much till thde 11th century... this is false, under the definition of a kingdom extending its dominions to areas and people different from it culturally and ethnically, the Cholas do satisfy that criterion. Consider this. Vijayalaya founded the dynasty around 845-848 AD and his son Aditya I had a military alliance along with both the Pallavas and the Ganga kings of Mysore/Chamarajnagar belt. Later Aditya I defeated the Pallavas and ended their existence. He later had the daughter of both the Chera king and indeed the Ganga king Prithvipati-II as his wife. Even if the Chera areas are considered contiguous to Tamil country surely the Ganga territories are not... and right from the common era, the Telugu speaking areas of Cuddapah/Rayalaseema/Tirupati, Nellore up to Guntur at least immediately became part of the areas of the Cholas. In fact, Aditya I has built many monuments (Siva temples and Vishnu temples) in the border towns of Andhra. So at least these Telugu speaking areas should be considered part of Chola territory justifying change of name from Chola Dynasty to Chola empire.

In contrast the Western Chalukyas though ruled over territory (Karnataka) which is bigger than T.N. mainly ruled within Kannada speaking areas... they occupied Vengi only during the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th century and went outside of Karnataka, also their 'conquests' of non-Kannada areas were mostly shortlived yet their page is christened as Western Chalukya Empire but not Western Chalukya Dynasty... it can be argued that even for the period of last 50 years the Western Chalukyas after Vikramaditya VI in 1126 remained mostly confined to Karnataka..... even after regaining of Chalukya areas by Tailapa-II their empire was always in conflict with the territories outside of Karnataka they occupied.... yet they have been classified as an Empire while Cholas are a dynasty? why this partiality Sir?

Srirangam99 (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What on earth happened to the former title: Chola Empire?? I remember creating that page 1 year ago, it seems to have merged with the main "Chola" page and now it's referred to as a "dynasty"?! Talk about mediocrity...you don't have pages for the Ottoman Dynasty, they have the self-respect to call themselves an empire, but we have to have the title of the Early Cholas trump the glory of the later Cholas, it's disgraceful. Why are minor Indian kingdoms (in the indian empires pages) referred to as Empires, and Cholas are just a Dynasty. Could someone please correct this and maintain that change! I don't have the heart to make the change since after the last time I did that they keep editing it and changing it to Dynasty with too much information about the Early Cholas, no non-Tamil would even want to read on further to find out about the Medieval Cholas if they see all that information overload about the rather minor early Cholas. Please correct this, thanks! ~ Chola, January 17, 2007.

This article, which is a Featured Article, one of the best articles in the encyclopedia, has gone through numerous reviews by peers. The article is about the Chola dynasty, from their early beginnings, through to their height of power to their end. The empire was not bigger than a cheiftaincy for a long period of time. As this is a FA, please discuss your changes before editing the article. The old Chola Empire article had information that were clearly misleading and incorrect. It even claimed that Rajendra Chola defeated Mohummad of Gazni!!. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Why has this been changed to Chola dynasty? Wasn't it an empire stretching from Southern India to the Maldives, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia? Wiki Raja 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
See my answer above your question. Parthi talk/contribs 05:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
On the page of Empire, it states that and empire is, "a state that extends dominion over areas and populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power." Chola Empire is also listed as one of the empires on that page. It is pointless to change it to Cholas Dynasty. Let me ask you this, how come the Maryans are considered an empire. Why is it no one has changed it to Mauryan dynasty? Wiki Raja 09:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
There was no Chola empire until the eleventh century CE although there were dynasties calling themselves Cholas from the earliest periods in Tamil history. This article, which is a Featured Article is about the dynasty and not the empire. Read the article. I don't care about the other articles. This article has been through numerous reviews and edits and the agreed title has been Chola Dynasty. Don't change it again. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 02:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The same can be said about the Mauryas. They were a dynasty and were only an empire during 250 B.C.E. Why not change that name of Maurya Empire to Maurya dynasty? Since we are having a dispute whether to call this article Chola Empire and Chola Dynasty, let me suggest to call it Cholas then to stand on neutral ground. Do you agree? Wiki Raja 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply: Chola Dynasty - Chola Empire

“  :Therefore it is an empire.

What is it here? Chola Empire is certainly an empire. I am not denying that. At the same time, Chola Dynasty is a dynasty. Both are not the same.
Chola Empire is Chola Empire.
Chola Dynasty is Chola Dynasty.
Chola Empire is not equal to Chola Dynasty.
Chola Dynasty is not equal to Chola Empire.

Bottom line: The article Chola Dynasty is about Chola Dynasty and not about Chola Empire.

I hope this clarifies. If further discussion is required, please continue in the article discussion page, where more people can participate, instead of our user talk pages. Thank you! - KNM Talk 00:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 ”
Your explanation is not making sense. Can you provide me more expanation to this instead of making rash statements? Reading your exclamatory message makes it sound like it is the end of the world. Calm down. It is not like the whole of India is crumbling down, like the london bridge. Wiki Raja 01:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have not made any rash statements. I never claimed anything as end of the world. Please comment on the content and not on contributor.
Coming back to the question above, all I want to say is, this article is about Chola Dynasty and not about Chola Empire. Please do not redirect it to anywhere else. Also, please be noted that the article had gone through reviews by several editors including the formal peer review followed by the WP:FAC. It is now a featured article. Thanks. - KNM Talk 02:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Wiki Raja, donot make unilatral redirects to the Chola Empire article. Please undo your changes to the Chola Empire article. As KNM and I mentioned a number of times above, this article is an FA, which means this article has been through numerous edits and reviews and there are valid reasons for the title. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 02:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
KNM, I do not know what type of English is spoken on the other side of the world, but on the Western Hemisphere, a statement like your exclamatory message makes it sound like it is the end of the world is considered a figure of speech. That type of talk is used occasionally when two people are engaged in dialogue. Next, I was commenting on content and not on you. I feel that there is some kind of language barrier going on here. I hope I am not confusing you. Wiki Raja 06:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have several questions regarding this discussion. Firstly, I understand this went through extensive review as part of the process to become a FA, but could those in-the-know comment on what was said in that review regarding the title [sorry, but simply stating over and over that an article has 'gone through extensive review' as an argument that it is inviolate is not valid: errors still occur on the cover of the New York Times, does that mean it wasn't reviewed?]. Second, what it basically boils down to is the definition of an empire vs a dynasty. Wiktionary.org defines a dynasty as, "A series of rulers or dynasts from one family." This article contains information about the Early Cholas. Is the argument being made that they and the Medieval Cholas are from one ruling family? If not, this is clearly not an article about a dynasty. Aonyx 14:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it make sense to make a clearer reference within the article to the Chola Empire, such as renaming the subtitle "Medieval Cholas" as "Medieval Cholas and the Chola Empire". That would allow the reader (like myself) who does not necessarily have a detailed knowledge of Indian history to find the relevant time period quickly and then link to the article that deals with the time of the expansion of Chola power across eastern Indian and into Southeast Asia.Corlyon 18:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

But there is no article on the Chola Empire itself, only a redirect to the dynasty. 121.222.8.201 (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NZ Bell

The so-called NZ bell is a hoax. please see here. - Parthi talk/contribs 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Dravidian civilizations

Image:Qxz-ad96.gif

Wiki Raja 09:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading Map of "Chola Empire" (in infobox)

This map should be edited to reflect the factual truth. Chola's direct rule only extended to Southern India and not all the way to Malaysia, or Sumatera (Indonesia). Chola did conduct raids on Srivijaya, thereby severely weakening the latter. Although Chola did manage to gain a temporary foothold in Kedah (northwest part of modern Malaysia), the Cholas never managed to conquer Srivijaya completely. This means the current map showing all Srivijayan territory as being part of the Chola Empire is completely false. Srivijaya only finally fell due to the expansion of another Indonesian-based kingdoms of Singhasari and Majapahit. Srivijaya did pay a tribute to Chola but it also did too with China, thus tributary payment should not be mistaken as being part of the "empire". The way this map is shown and labelled is clearly misleading tending towards the exaggerating the actual power of the Cholas. It must also be noted that the current map is not based on any reputable educational source and thus should be labelled as original research. 128.122.141.190 03:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Descendants of Chola

Was Iskandar Shah a descendant of the Chola dynasty? He certainly spoke Tamil. Anwar 15:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chola Empire vs. Chola Dynasty

There seems to be a tendency to label the Dravidian or "South Indian" kingdoms as dynasties, while labeling the Indo-Aryan (North Indian) kingdoms as Empires. Is there a reason for this? The Chola kingdom was an Empire whose navies have spread to as far as Malaysia, Sumatra, and Java. The only reason which is obvious is a false nationalist revisionistic pride by making the Tamil kingdoms look like subjects of the Northern part of the Indian sub-continent. We have already seen similar nonsense with the revising of India's history in California school books. PATHETIC!!! Wiki Raja (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refs incomplete

some of the refs like 1, 3, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, 31, 47 and possibly few more are missing information about the source (title, isbn, url, page numbers etc). Can somebody please address this? Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello!! anybody here? A FA cannot remain with dead refs like this. Can somebody please shed light on this thing please. Sarvagnya 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
What makes you say they're dead refs? Just because cites are in footers doesn't mean all footers are cites! They appear to be simple footnotes to me. Do read WP:FOOT. The first couple of lines will do. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Is that a response or a defense? If they're not cites, then its even worse than I thought. We dont need the author's reflections, we need the scholars'. Cite and be done. Sarvagnya 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It was neither, it was amusement that you appeared to be ignorant of how footnotes work. If you feel some of the points are contentious or need further citation, perhaps you should specify which. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Removed POV Template

Removed POV template showing the kingdoms of Northern India as Empires, and kingdoms of Southern India as dynasties. No evidence as to whether all Northern kingdoms were Empires, while all Southern kingdoms were dynasties. Ashoka kingdom of Northern India is an Empire since it has controlled everything in South Asia outside its boundaries accept for Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Sri Lanka. While the Cholas of Southern India is also an Empire stretching from South India to Sri Lanka, Maldives, Malaysia, Sumatra, and Java with its Navies. "Middle Kingdoms of India" template shows only bias towards Indo-Aryan kingdoms, and also making it seem that the Indian Union existed for thousands of years. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There are number of South Indian empires such as Hoysala and Vijayanagara, it is simply Chola article has been written or organized wrong by confusing the empire with the dynasty. The empire had number of dynasties including thye Chola dyanasty. See below Taprobanus (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chola Dynasty versus Chola empire

This article confuses the Empire with the information about the dynasty. We should write seperate article on each. For exampl e see Jaffna kingdom versus Aryacakravarti dynasty. Also Vijayanagara empire versus Saluva Dynasty and Sangama Dynasty. Some one should seperate the Empire out of the Dynasty and write 2 articles. Taprobanus (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A google book search alone results in over 400 books mentioning Chola empireTaprobanus (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major revert

I've reverted the article to a older stable version. Please note that the article is being discussed at the FAR. I do favour the title Chola empire, but let's do that after a discussion. Let's not get distracted by this at the moment. Srirangam, I know your edits are good-intentioned ones, but such substantial changes shall be made after a discussion only. Please note that the article could lose its featured article status otherwise. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please work it out somehow. Article was separated from the talk page which linked to the FAR. Move-protected 1 week. Gimmetrow 06:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)