Talk:Pandyan Dynasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Tamil civilization (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tamil civilization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tamil civilization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Tamil Eelam (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tamil Eelam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tamil Eelam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Dravidian civilizations (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dravidian civilizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dravidian civilizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject India / Tamil Nadu / History (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 

Indian Kingdoms and Borders, 600 AD[edit]

Unknown map source, India in 600 AD

I have 2 different source maps for the borders of India, circa 600 AD, and they both show major differences. The first map's source is listed, I don't remember my source for the 2nd map. Also, looking at the www.WorldHistory.com map of India in 586 AD, it is also different from these 2 maps. Which of these maps shows the correct borders for India in 600 AD? Thomas Lessman (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Page protected[edit]

Hi folks,

I've protected this page for a week due to edit warring. Please use the time to discuss what should and should not be on the page, and when the protection expires, please ensure you maintain civility and do not use edit summaries to carry on discussions or accusations of bad behaviour. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war reported[edit]

The recent edits to this article concern me. The article page was blocked for one week to allow you good people time to resolve your differences civilly. Instead, nothing was posted on this talk page at all. So now the block has been lifted, what do you do? You start back with your edit war and name calling. I have reported this to the administrators, who will be along to lookin on things and take whatever action. But before they arrive, I want to say a few things.

I'm sorry to have to say this to you all, but you are all behaving like a bunch of children all wanting their own way. I am sure that you each want the best for the article, but that is not the impression you are giving! Please, I ask of each of you editors, please read the Wikipedia article on Assuming good faith. Then,please look at the edits that the others are doing, but instead of taking the stance that they are wrong, look at the edits with the assumption that the editor wants to improve the article.

Having done that, before you make any further edits on the page,please discuss IN A CIVIL MANNER on this talk page what exactly it is about their edit that you disagree with. But before you do discuss, read Wikipedia's stance on Civility. When you've read the article, go back and read it again.

Now, when someone posts a comment in disagreement with your stance on the article, write a response on Microsoft Word, or the text editor of your choice, and save it. Do not post it on the talkpage yet. Wait 24 hours, and then re-read your response. By then, you will hopefully have cooled down. Now, edit out any comments that could be concidered inflammatory or insulting. Only then should you copy and paste the text onto this page.

We all want Wikipedia to improve - insulting each other is not the way to do it. Please calm down. Thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Another article I thorougly recommend you all read - and make use of - is the dispute resolution page. StephenBuxton (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As the protecting admin (with no particular views on the current dispute either way), I'd just like to second Stephen's comments. You need to discuss this *here* without flaming each other. Keep this up and blocks *will* be handed out on both sides. Comments in edit summaries such as this, this and this are completely unacceptable. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit curious why at least two groups would get into an edit war over an article about ancient kingdom: does this extinct state have some value to modern groups? If so, a section about its role in modern times might not only diffuse some of the conflict over this article -- but help the average reader understand the importance of this kingdom. -- llywrch (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I had a cursory look. People from two castes seem to want to establish that they're the descendants of Pandya Kings. I come from this region and've previously heard of such claims from one of these castes, but the other claim rings new to me. My suggestion would be that any of or both the claims can be allowed only if someone cites a reliable source. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
A reliable source for the statement that these two castes trace their origins to these kings, or one that shows their origins are from these kings? I hope you mean the second, even though we may disagree what would be a reliable source. In any case, at least now this dispute has a context. -- llywrch (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Black magic[edit]

This sounds like it has more viewpoint than cogency: "Many chiefs keeping up the trend of that age all over the world, were not only corrupt and irresponsible but also displayed their evil tendencies when they allowed and supported the revival of obscure and occult practices(like black magic and manipulation) that had stayed strictly banned since early pallava period." But what is the "black magic and manipulation" that they refer to? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed POV Template[edit]

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) 06:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr Raja with due respect i want to make a request plz keep away your belive of Aryan Draviden culture.There is no avidance that arya is a tribe and Dravid just mean south Dakshin not a tribe. North and South Indian launguge is difftant it does not mean we are diffrint people.In north the Panjabis and the Bihari are so diffrent in culture that if we where not in a union of india we where like Alians to each other.For example Bangladesh and Pakistan. After becoming a nation they are no longer remain near to indian culture although they are indian people in culture launguage.My thought is same on Tamil elaim like you but now after reading your post i get to know why with all the sacrifice and bravery it never become a nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.59.66 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this does not answer Raja's comment. Admins, please solve this doubt. 59.184.165.226 (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Raghav Sharman

Date of establishment[edit]

The theory that the Pandyan Dynasty started in 5th or 6th century BC originated through Wilson's commentary on the Mackenzie collection. This fact can be ascertained and understood through the following reference,

Page vi, Mackenzie collection: a descriptive catalogue of the oriental manuscripts and other articles illustrative of the literature, history, statistics and antiquities of the south of India collected by the late Lieut.-Col. Colin Mackenzie, surveyor general of India, Volume 1

But, I have tried analyzing his comments and found that he has condensed 72 generation in 1500 years, which simply can't be taken as true for the Indian subcontinent. Even foreigners like Mughals lasted on an average 30 years per generation. For native dynasties like the Pandyan, the figure should be definitely more than 30 years per generation. Thus, my contention is that we have to take at least close to 30 years per generation and that would take us to 1000 BC nearly. This is a conservative view as well when we consider the Pages xxiv & xxv of the same work as mentioned above. 357 generations would very easily translate into 10000 years. Makes sense when we consider that the dynasty finds mention in early works like the Valmiki Ramayan as well. Regards Rorkadian (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology is wrong[edit]

This word should be splitted as Paa+Aand+Iyan (Sea+Ruled+knows thoroughly), Iyan is a term that refer to a person who knows his field well as in Aa+seer+Iyan. so Pandyans means "Kings who knows the sea well", their flag symbol is "Fish" and they have distant trade connections by sea. "Paa" is a word in Tamil that connects with sea,river,liquid,flow etc. like in words like "Paanai,Paalam,Paasanam,Paar,Paattu,Paal etc. I have no references for my translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarmisai (talkcontribs) 15:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If this is your own theory/research, we cannot add them per WP:OR. If you can find a published reliable source we can add it.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
No Problems, I know The Wikipedia rules, that's the reason, I am starting this discussion. I am not a Tamil expert either, lets wait if someone comes with a published source or I will try :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarmisai (talkcontribs) 17:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

when did Marco Polo came to india.[edit]

Is their any other source which say moco polo came to india. And look what he says and how deep he undurstand the war between Aryan and dravidens. I must say this can be a great creation of a English schlore.In your word do you have eny secular book which say marco polo travel to south india.This what western people grow up learning.--59.162.59.66 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is seriously doubting Marco polo's trip to South India, unless there is a source that specifically doubts his accounts, they can be included in the article. I see you have been already advised in your talk page to read up on wikipedia's core policies. Please read them again and stop removing text that doesnt confirm with your world view.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Who are no one for you It is said that he naver traveled so far.and if he came this he has to say.it seem west does not doubt so no one you mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkatyan (talkcontribs) 17:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources to back up your theories and notions, list them here. If else stop putting out conspiracy theories here. Wikipedia is not the place to start new speculations - Read WP:OR. I have sourced the part that deals with marco polo now. Unless you have a reliable source that contradicts this, we are done here--Sodabottle (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok fine i will come to you with your reliable sources.Their is nothing like done.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkatyan (talkcontribs) 18:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 

when did Marco Polo came to india.[edit]

Is their any other source which say moco polo came to india. And look what he says and how deep he undurstand the war between Aryan and dravidens. I must say this can be a great creation of a English schlore.In your word do you have eny secular book which say marco polo travel to south india.This what western people grow up learning.--Nkatyan (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This area of Wikipedia is written in English. Respectfully, you perhaps need to learn English more comprehensively before you post here, and also learn basic formatting. In reply to your slightly confusing question (which you have posted twice), it is generally accepted that Marco Polo visited many places, including South India. It is hard to understand why this is difficult for you to accept: you talk of 'Western people" and question their education, yet you offer no proof to the contrary that Polo did not visit South India. The onus of proof is on you to disprove the received wisdom that Polo visited South India. When there is a wealth of evidence to back up historical fact, those that question it have to do so by presenting evidence in a new light. You have every right to question history, but you must do it with objective rigour (and at least a vague grasp of the language you choose to do it in).

Religion[edit]

It says in the article that from being Jains in their early ages, Pandiyans became Shaivaites after some centuries of rule. I have heard in various discourses about Hindu Pandyas mentioned in Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa (I think I saw a mention in the English translation by Kale), Valmeeki's Ramayana (haven't read it), Mahabharata of Veda Vyasa (Ganguli's translation), etc. I recently found an example here:

(Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indradyumna#Indradyumna_in_Puranic_Literature) Indradyumna Pandiyan belonged to the lineage of Svayambhuva Manu, the very first Manu. 2 of the early Tirthankaras are ascribed to the Ikshvaku Dynasty (Ikshvaku was born manvantaras after Svayambhuva Manu), I can't find any clear evidence to establish the claim that Pandiyans were Jains in the beginning. It's clear that they were Jains at some point, but where does it say that they were Jains from the very beginning, when according to Historians, Jainism is newer than Hinduism? "Shramana also gave rise to Jainism", says wiki's article on Hinduism.

I don't believe much in these historical dates, since research is always active and they might change the attributed date tomorrow if they unearth some evidence which shows the religion as being much older. Unfortunately, I see that on many pages on Wikipedia people link religions and myths with history and deviate from truth by doing so.

I will try to find out about the legitimacy of the sources in Britannica, which has been mentioned as the reference-site here. In the meantime, I would be extremely happy to get an answer to my doubt. Thank you.

-- Srinath Ravi

Hi, Puranic evidence may not be history. Mangulam Inscription (300 B.C.) shows that Nedunacheziyan was a Jain. As well as Peruvazhudhi Coins in same age show that Pnadyan followed Vedic Practices. --Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Ramayana not centuries older than that? The earliest references don't seem to point to the Jain origin of Pandiyas. I'm yet to verify Britannica's legitimacy. 59.184.165.226 (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Srinath Ravi

Ramayana is an Epic and Belief. In wikipedia point of view Epic won't considered to be an evidence. But Brahmi Inscripted Jain beds and Peruvazhudi coins are archaeological proof's to argue Pandyas followed Jain and Vedic Practices in Same period.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)