Talk:Kalabhra dynasty

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pvasque8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

[Untitled]

Removing the following para:

"Buddhists and Jains were a powerful minority and had to face constant persecution from their Hindu rulers. Saiva religious texts such as Periyapuranam document one such persecution of Jains in Madurai by the Pandya king when he ordered the execution of scores of Buddhists by impaling them."

There are several issues with the above:

1. There is no citation! 2. The Paragraph is self-contradictory. It confuses Jains with Buddhists. 3. There is no corroborating evidence from within Jain and/or Buddhist literature of any kind of persecution from the Pandyas.

Kalabhras-Kalapirar

It was known as Kalapirar kalam or known as dark period according to the tamil literature where unknown became kings.After that cheras,cholas and pandyas(descended from original ones during mahabharata) ruled again but some of them were not legitmate ones.This has been modernly called Kalabhras where in reality its a period.

For more of this link 1 Link 2

14.140.179.162 (talk) 07:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Kalabhra or Kalabhras?

Is the singular "Kalabhra" or "Kalabhras"? Should the adjectival form be without an 's', as in "the dynasty of the Kalabhras is the Kalabhra Dynasty"? Compare Pallavas, Pallava dynasty. Also note that the article on Simple English Wikipedia is titled "Kalabhra dynasty" [1] Pelagic (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kalabhras dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ponniyinselvan.in/history-discussion-f26/some-questions-t24691-20.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Dubious

@NitinBhargava2016: Hi, thanks for your recent edits. They however suffer from some POV issues. For the Arunachalam source (already used elsewhere in the article, btw), you appear to have simply cited the three pages that appear when you search his book for the term "Kannada". None of the three resultant snippets, including the one you've quoted, explicitly mention the Kalabhras (as all we see is "their"). Do you have access to the entire book? I'm sure he covers all the other origin theories as well. Some of these origin theories are mentioned in the Parmanand Gupta book you've referenced next, but you've only focused on the use of Prakrit. Lastly, you appear to have synthesised a conclusion from two separate passages in the Narasimhacharya book you've cited. One page notes that the Karunadagans are mentioned in the Velvikudi plates and the other states that the Kalabhras are mentioned in the same inscriptions; it is not stated anywhere that they both refer to the same people. Please expand on this. If possible, please consider summarising all prevalent (reliable) theories on their origin rather than just their possible Karnataka/Kannada identification. The section (and the rest of the article for that matter) is currently something of a mess and could use some love. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: Hi, the entire Arunachalam source is definitely mentioning about the Kalabhra tribe, its free version is unavailable online or with me. The possible Tamil origins by P. T. Srinivasa Iyengar and others have been clearly refuted by Arunachalam's detailed assertions and proofs in - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=dvq1AAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=tamil. The page 48 of R Narasimhacharya's book clearly mentions the Kalabhras to be Karnatas. The below Kannada newspaper link - http://vijaykarnataka.indiatimes.com/edit-oped/columns/-/articleshow/45014835.cms clearly states Madurai Kamarajanadar university's retired Kannada professor Paa Sha Srinivasa stating that the Velvikudi grants mention Kalabhras as Kannada rulers by none other than Pandyan king Sadaiyan Parantakan of 770c. I've added few other citations. These proofs are in no way dubious and have any POV issues. Please clear those markings soon. Thanks -- NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@NitinBhargava2016: Unfortunately, Indiatimes is not a reliable source. And your claim of "Arunachalam source is definitely mentioning" carries no weight if you don't have the book with you and are relying on the same snippets that I can see. If he has refuted other theories in detail, then please add said details as the previous paragraph in the article talks about other origins. Furthermore, even if he refutes other theories, that doesn't mean that he's right. The other source that you've made use of is Parmanand Gupta and his book (whose reliability I'm unsure of) was published 10 years after Arunachalam and he still mentions multiple theories. So there's nothing definite about their Kannada origin based on your provided sources. Also, Narasimhacharya names him Parantaka, not Parantakan, and is very likely referring to Jatila Parantaka Nedunjadayan who has no article yet. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: Narasimhacharya addresses the same Pandyan king as Sadaiyan Parantaka on page 34 and as Sadaiyan Parantakan on page 48. Both refer to the same person. Just adding an 'n' at the end (Tamil way) doesn't change the person itself. He clearly states 'The Kalabhras mentioned in the Velvikudi plates (c.770) of the Pandya king Sadaiyan Parantakan as having gained possession of the Pandya country are believed to be Karnatas.' Also, Nedunchadaiyan is same as Nedunjadaiyan or Nedunjadayan or Nedunchezhiyan. The Epigraphia Indica Vol. XVII clearly states that Jatila was also called as Parantaka. Pandyan king Sadaiyan also held the title 'Madura-Karunatakan' meaning the sweet Karnataka person. https://indianhistorybooks2.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/4990010104060-epigraphia-indica-vol-17.pdf - page 295, Venkayya states that the Kalabhras may be the Karnatas. The above sources are perfectly fine. I'm really not getting why you still seem to be doubting/refusing so many references and proofs. We are including all possible origins and not just Kannada related. Thanks — NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@NitinBhargava2016: Just as WP does not use Raja Raja Sozhan for Raja Raja Chola, it uses Parantaka rather than Parantakan. (From what I can tell, it's unusual for him to be referred to with Parantaka as some sort of surname. There is also nothing wrong with red-linking notable names.) FYI, I'm not familiar enough with the Kalabhras to know what the current theory about their origin is (and I only know of them as an unknown "hill tribe"). And please understand that you might well be completely right about what you are saying. However, what you are indulging in is synthesis where you piece together information from multiple sources and interpret them yourself. What we want to do is to cite reliable sources clearly without any interpretation or assumptions on our part. IOW, it's fine to state that the Kalabhras mentioned in the Velvikudi plates "are believed to be Karnatas" (as in the source), but it is not fine to say that Kalabhras are referred to as "Karunadagan" because that is not what the provided source states. And for some reason, you are also leaving out other theories laid out by Gupta such as the equivalence of Muttaraiyar with the Kalabhras, Kalabhra being the Sanskritised version of Kalvan, etc. Also, as above, piecemeal snippets by Arunachalam that you believe to be about the Kalabhras are unreliable. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: I do not intend to indulge in any synthesis. Please go ahead and make these changes too. Kalabhras mentioned in the Velvikudi plates "are believed to be Karnatas". The equivalence of Muttaraiyar with the Kalabhras, Kalabhra being the Sanskritised version of Kalvan, etc. Please also check this as to how Arunachalam deduces Kalabhras' Kannada origins from Kannada words like 'adendu' used by them even 300 years after their downfall in 600CE, even around 900CE - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=dvq1AAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=endu. This is not at all possible unless the Kalabhras were a native Kannada speaking people. Wikipedia must get hold of this book in order to clinch the conclusive evidence. Please let me know if we can remove the dubious-discuss alerts as the proofs have been discussed above. Thanks. — NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@NitinBhargava2016: I have removed Arunachalam and fixed the Narasimhacharya quote. Please re-add Arunachalam's theories once you have access to his book. I've made a few other changes as well. Please look through the edit history and let me know if you have any issues with them. Thank you.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock: Most of your edits are fine. I have corrected few issues. Please check. Thanks. — NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Kalabrha Dynasty

This wiki article contains a number of statements using vocabulary with degrees of uncertainty (probably, possibly, likely, etc.)

Multiple missing sources.

From =Reasons for the Unpopularity= "They enjoyed it for a long time. Then a Kali king named Kalabhran took possession of the extensive earth, driving away numberless great kings." Unsourced value statements. Writing lacks professional voice. 

Pvasque8 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)