Talk:Chola dynasty/Archive 2

Formatting mistake

The following is a discussion that arose when Sebastian protected the version and introduced formatting mistakes. It was originally a reply to section "Content dispute".

I'm sorry. I don't agree with this. This is a featured article, and if someone has content disputes it is rather appropriate to have an FA-review. I strongly appeal to editors to abstain from merciless editing.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "this"? The fact that there was an edit war? The fact that it has been permanently protected? The fact that I created a table to list the disputed issues? Or do you disagree with the way any of the issues are currently presented in the article? How should it be presented, and why? Please be specific and refer to concrete issues. — Sebastian 05:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I find that the lead section has been completely messed up. I don't understand why internal links are to be dealt with in such a manner. Next, edit warring has been mainly due to two or three editors.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I declare my intention to persist with this process-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute need not go for FA review, FA review is when an article no longer meets the FA requirements. This is simply issue over content, words, sentences, titles etc not about FA status. Let us assume good faith and see whether Sebastian can bring us to a better place in this article. Taprobanus (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Very well then. :-) But the first time I glanced upon this article and the contribution history, I thought his account was compromised-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 05:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see - it looked indeed weird! I wonder how this happened, and why I didn't see it. I normally always hit preview first. Anyway, I'm happy that it didn't destroy your faith in me. And thanks for finding this. Of course I will try not to mess up again, but if I do, please let me know first. — Sebastian 06:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Mediation

I very much thank Taprobanus, who has indeed acted very neutrally on this issue. I thank him even more for taking the first corrective step in removing the term 'Chalukya Cholas'.

As Taprobanus pointed out that this dispute resolution will take around six months and I am patient enough to go through this period and from time to time, I will keep pointing out the required changes to enhance the quality of this article, for approval of the neutral arbitrator Mr.Sebastian Helm'.

The first point I would like to touch in a major way (in the coming days, and obviously with the help of reliable references - mainly from the findings leading archaeologists and epigraphists associated with the Archaeological Survey of India (mainly with regard to South Indian Inscriptions) on the following (hopefully) non-controversial issues:

The first is that the article on Chola Dynasty gives a somewhat misleading impression that after the loss of Vengi and Gangavadi to both Chalukyas and the Hoysalas, the power of the Cholas waned and that from around AD 1118 or so, they were no longer powerful. (What I am saying here is quite significant, when seen against a sweeping comment made on the page of Chalukya King Vikramaditya VI, where it is commented without any foundation that following the defeat at Vengi under Kulothunga I around 1118 AD, the Cholas would never again raise as a major power in South India. That is of course an incorrect notion, if not an outright lie when considering the subsequent period of around the next 90-100 years of Chola history).

My attempt would be to prove that this was not so. The successor of Kulothunga I i.e. his son Vikrama Chola recovered the Eastern Part of Gangavadi and also Vengi. In fact, one of his generals Naraloka Veeran was responsible for Vikrama Chola's conquest of Kalinga, which would not have been possible without the Cholas having parts of Andhra or Telugu country including the Telugu, Renandu Chodas(Cholas) and indeed having the Eastern Chalukya empire on their side. My contention is that this happened during Vikrama Chola's reign, mainly between 1135-1149... this granted the Cholas political stability for the next 50-odd years taking them smoothly to the beginning of the 13th century, i.e. AD 1200, for we find the next emperor Raja Raja II (1150-1165) constructing a large temple (if not a massive one on the scale of the Big Temple at Tanjore) but a temple which is nearly massive for it is divided in two parts... i.e. the Airavateswarar Temple at Darasuram, Kumbakonam, a subsequent king Kulothunga II ruling peacefully without any loss of territory and embellishing the Chidambaram Siva temple with numerous grants and subsequently Kulothunga III winning Kalinga and building the Kampahareswarar Temple at Tribhuvanam, winning at Karur, Ilangai and Madurai. He later proclaimed his gratitude to the Telugu Cholas and even the Kadavas for enabling him to win in Kalinga. But after 1195 (his victory at Madurai), he and his marital allies the Hoysalas were unable to prevent the meteoric rise of the Pandiyans eventually losing within the next 20 years with his successor Raja Raja II becoming a tribute paying subordinate of the Pandiyans. So practically the decline of the Cholas started around 1200 AD which is the beginning of the 13th century or the end of the 12th century. Though a subsquent Chola monarch Rajadhiraja II intervened in the Pandiyan succession battle in siding with one Pandiyan prince, fighting another four princes who were aided by Parakrama Bahu of Ilangai ending in victory for the Chola king... weakness had undeniably set in. But this is not yapping in the dark by me, I will provide references and sources in support of the above contentions in due course for the consideration of Sebastian.

Another of my contention is that the Cholas never faced any threat from the Hoysalas because under Veera Ballala II there was a marital alliance with Kulothunga III and there was a subsequent alliance of marriage between Narasimha II Hoysala and the successor of Kulothunga III i.e. Raja Raja III. Any reference to history pages would show that the Cholas and the Hoysalas fought wars against each other only once, i.e. in the battle of Talacaud, because 50 years (or so) after Talacaud battle, Veera Ballala II was ruling Dwarasamudra (Halebid) or Belur and beset as he was with his opponents like Seunas first, the Chalukyas and subsequently the all-powerful Kalachuris, he had to settle with a reliable ally and he opted for alliance with the Cholas and along with the Cholas, the Hoysalas probably made their first overseas expedition in fighting with Kulothunga III at Ilangai and winning it.

No doubt, as anybody with basic knowledge of history is bound to realize, the achievements of Raja Raja Chola I and his son Rajendra I were so great that it is impossible for any other Chola king to measure up to their standards... but as Sebastian and Taprobanus would realize (having added the name of Virarajendra Chola in the name of great kings of the Chola empire) comparably 'lesser' kings like Rajendra II and Virarajendra were to inflict successive defeats (just like their predecessors Raja Raja I and Rajendra I) on exactly the same opponents including the Chalukyas (and also retaining their hegemony over Gangavadi (both east and western parts), the Pandiyans, Sri Lanka, Kadaram, Kataha (the last two named fall in S.E.Asia) and maintaining friendly relations with Kingdoms in Burma and Thailand all of which continued unhindered under the Later Cholas like Kulothunga I, Vikrama Chola, Kulothunga-II (whose reign was largely uneventful) Raja Raja II and the last great ruler of the Cholas i.e. Kulothunga III (who again has acknowledged the help of the Telugu Cholas and the Chodagangas) in enabling him secure victory at Kalinga (reversing an earlier defeat by Kalachuri Bijjala) and later on defeating the Pandiyas, winning both Karuvur (Karur) and Ilangai as he has proclaimed in scores of his inscriptions.

But kindly allow me to come with necessary references in the coming days for appropriate consideration of the neutral arbitrator.

Till then, many thanks for the timely intervention.

Srirangam99 (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just airing your views is not enough. You need to bring actual scholarship in published books to the table. This goes for any article. Again, leaving 5K messages also dont help as I have pointed out to you in vein over the last 6 months.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I am not party to this conflict and nor do I have any strong feelings about this or that position. As this is an FA quality we need to follow strict RS requirements further, I did not change from Chalukya-Chola to Later Cholas. What ever the mediation leads to, I will support and provide input if needed. Bottomline we cannot have indef protection of FA quality articles, we need to solve our issues and go forward without vandalizing articles.Taprobanus (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for keeping the focus on content; this is already a big step forward. Srirangam99's long text is also somewhat helpful, because it helps me understand where he/she is coming from. (That was hard for me to find out in this mediation.) So, to proceed, I have the following requests:

(Requests remain for now at talk page in section How to discuss content issues.)

Reply to Mediator Sebastian

I very much thank Sebastian for his comments and guidance. With reference to your objection on my phrasing "as anybody with basic knowledge of history etc. etc." that was only my 'part of speech' to you it was more of a communication than of my seeking that sort of posture to be contributed to any article on Wikipedia... of course posting or contributing with or without knowledge without reliable and reputable sources is out of question. Be assured about the quality of content and sources as far as I am concerned.

I also request you to kindly advice seniors who are somehow finding ways to get irritated over the length of posts of other contributors. What I have always encountered with such people is a blind deletion or contributions or seeking shelter behind admins who either block other contributors like me (twice wihout reason - especially without me having been given any opportunity to explain the reasons) or check my sources or even say a cursory word as to how I am right of wrong. No wonder, this allowed the naysayers to go on tom-toming all over wikipedia that I was a blocked user without bother to understand or explain as to why and how I got blocked or whether it was or not a blatant misuse of the powers of an admin on wikipedia.

Anyways. I don't want to dwell on it any further, but thought it fit to mention to you.

Srirangam99 (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sebastian,

Can I request you to kindly examine the question as to whether Kings like Aditya I, Parantaka I, Rajaraja Chola I, Rajendra Chola I, Rajadhiraja Chola, Virarajendra Chola, Kulothunga Chola I, Vikrama Chola, Raja Raja Chola II and Kulothunga Chola III should be included in the list of great kings of the Chola empire?

I failed to notice your objection to the formatting of my previous post. Pls. excuse me.

But kindly examine what I asked and let me know your response. Thank you.

Srirangam99 (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I overlooked your message for so long.

Thank you for the nice words. I am not offended by your 'part of speech'. The trouble is, it is connected to the issue you mention in the second paragraph: The length of your posts. Your posts contain a lot of words that do more harm than good. Just compare the length of your long posts with that of the average Wikipedian - they are about ten times as long as other people's posts! You know, most people want to be polite, and do you the favor to read what you wrote. It is not respectful to expect others to read such long passages. It is like talking without letting the other get a word in. Some people feel that you are stealing their time, and react by having less patience with you. You can't blame them for that; it is a completely normal human reaction.

Please, before you hit the "Save page" button after writing a long message, go through your post three times, and each time delete half of what is there, then hit "Preview", and think about which half of the remaining words you can delete. You can also do what I sometimes do: Copy them in a text file for later.

Also, please read what I wrote above for how to post messages here. I specifically asked to use the Issue name from the table for a headline. (Please also take a look at the table, which I posted just above this section as a sample for how I'd like the issues discussed. From now on, I will refuse to read sections with nondescript, unspecific titles like "Reply to Mediator Sebastian" or "A small but glaring point". — Sebastian 09:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of emperors: Table is different from article

(Original headline was "A small but glaring point")

Dear mediator Sebastian,

While in your first intervention you had pointed out and retained one of my suggestions about adding a few more names in the list of great of important kings of the Chola empire.

However, I found that Admin Yellow Monkey came into the page and in the name or process of 'removing or adding broken links' has deleted those very names which you had decided to add.

Is that not an interference in the work of a neutral administrator appointed by Wikipedia?

I had been busy with office work and was feeling thankful that there is a substantial period of six months to resolve this article, but I find that already the article is being illegally edited. Could I be told of the reason for such action by someone who is not supposed to have acted in the manner he did?

This was as under "Inclusion of emperors". Srirangam99 (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now I see what you mean. Sorry, that was my mistake. I meant to put them back, but then I somehow forgot to do that. I just corrected that. As for your accusations of other editors, though, I really have to admonish you to assume good faith. Nobody did any illegal edit after my change. Please check the edit history before you make such accusations. — Sebastian 07:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian, many thanks for your action. Only one request for the present from my side... the name of king Kulothunga Chola III was left out. You see he ruled for around 42 years between 1176-1218 and that too his rule was stable and he also had four important victories, Kalinga, Madurai, Ilam (Sri Lanka) and Karur. His name deserves inclusion. Pl. consider.

2nd Point: Also, as compared to other empires like Chalukyas and Hoysalas, the Cholas for a considerable part of their existence had both overseas conquests like Sri Lanka (In fact a brochure of the Sri Lanka govt. says that Tamilian conquests from the Pandiyans and Cholas lasted nearly 1500 years in that country, with most of time more than half of that country being occupied, if not full. Further under Raja Raja I and Rajendra Chola I overseas conquests of Indo-China, Burma, Andaman Islands (territories away from the mainland) and within the mainland, their territories out of traditional Tamil-country included parts of what is modern Kerala, Mysore-Kolar-Bellary belt of Kannada country (especially between 985-1135 - around 150 years) and areas up to Vengi (near modern Vishakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh, Telugu country) for nearly the entire period between 985-1200 AD. So, why should not the title of the article be changed from 'Chola Dynasty' to 'Chola Empire'? Can you consider this. Do get back to me on the Talk: Chola Dynasty page.

3rd point: The article mentions that the power of the Cholas declined around the beginning of the 11th century and came to an end around the end of the 12th century. I think it should be modified as under:

The power of the Cholas declined around the end of the beginning of the 13th century. (The reason is that as per available records, Kulothunga III had completed the conquest of Kalinga (modern Orissa) by defeating the Ganga kings of that region, with the help of the Telugu Cholas before AD 1200. This means that in addition to Madurai, Karur, Ilam and Vengi, eastern part of Gangavadi which he held by defeating Veera Ballala Hoysala II with him he had marital relations (in fact, in his inscriptions of up to AD 1210, Kulothunga III claims to be victor of Madurai, Karur, Ilam (Sri Lanka) and Kalinga. Naturally with Telugu Cholas acting as governors of Vengi province under the Cholas, his empire included the whole of South India (he had also control of Cheranadu because his mother was a Chera princess) plus the east coast of India up to the banks of Hooghly river). This was certainly up to AD 1200 if not AD 1210 itself.

Sorry if the post is getting lengthy now. But what I am seeking to convey through the dates above is that when the empire is this vast (between Kanniyakumar (if not Sri Lanka itself) to the Cuttack-Bhubaneswar area, the distance is around 1850 kms. This was the distance between the northern-most and southern-most points of the Chola empire at the peak of Kulothunga III's powers in AD 1210. In fact this was the position between the beginning of the 13th century i.e. AD 1200 till about 1210 AD.

Yes, between AD 1212-1215 (more specifically AD 1213), when Pandiyan King Maravarman Sundara Pandiyan invaded the Cholas, he first defeated Kulothunga III, who along with his son Raja Raja II had to flee as a refugee. Subsequently, his marital ally Veera Ballala II deputed his son Narasimha II from Hoysala country and they regained their capital back from the Pandiyan king who was defeated in the subsequent battle. But by 1216-1217, Maravarman Sundara Pandiyan under whom the power of the Pandiyans grew steadily, claims in his inscriptions of 1215 AD itself that he burnt both Woraiyur (the capital of the Cholas of the BC era and their much-cherished fortress) and Thanjavur (the capital of the Cholas till Raja Raja I whose son Rajendra I built and introduced Gangaikonda Cholapuram as the capital of the Chola empire, which it remained till the end of their rule in 1281 AD). Certainly subsequent to that the Hoysalas were pushed back, Maravarman Pandiyan defeated Kulothunga III (he died in AD 1220 after relinquishing rule in 1218 AD by appointing his son Raja Raja III as his successor), and the Chola king spent the rest of his life, from AD 1216, as a tribute paying subordinate of the Pandiyans and whose son Raja Raja III also was enthroned as a tribute paying subordinate of the Cholas. Later this Raja Raja III was also defeated by Kadava Pallava Kopperinchunga and even captured at Sendamangalam all of which events (from 1213 AD onwards) undeniably signal the constant decline of the Cholas up to 1280 AD when their last king was defeated by Kulasekhara Pandiyan. As you can see, in all the events of the Cholas leading to their decline mainly between 1200 to 1281 AD, the Hoysalas and the Cholas never fought a single war and the Hoysalas only came to the help of the Cholas with both of them finally being unable to stop the growth and prominence in South India, of the Pandiyans, whose period between 1200 to 1310 AD was very glorious.

Sebastian, what I seek to submit from the above paras is that the decline of the Cholas started from 1210 AD (almost) i.e. the beginning of the 13th century only, finally with the empire coming to an end by 1280-81 AD, which is the last quarter of the 13th century/beginning of the 14th century.

Similarly, when you look at the history of the Hoysalas, they themselves were battling the Seunas, Kalachuris under Bijjala I and Bijjala II followed by King Sovideva who kept the Hoysalas confined mainly to Gangavadi Mysore region with some possessions on the border of the Tamil country. In fact, Hoysala Someshwara himself had to face the invasion of Seuna king Singhana following which he shifted his capital to Kannanur Kuppam near Tiruchy.

The above is a pointer to two points: 1. the decline of the Cholas was not caused by the Hoysalas (certainly not by their 'growing power', they faced both defeat and loss of territory in Kannada country itself, as a consequence of which they ceded territory in their backyard and had shifted to the Kongu region and outskirts of Tiruchy regions. 2. The Cholas and Hoysalas never fought any war after Vishnuvardhana's conquest of Talakaud way back in 1114-1116 from the Cholas. Subsequent kings like Veera Ballala-II, Vira Narasimha II and Hoysala Someshvara maintained completely friendly relations with the Cholas with the Kannada kings fighting joint battles with (not against) the Cholas against the Kadavas and the Pandiyans at various points of time.

The reasons given above justify deletion of the line saying the power of the Cholas declined due to the growing power of the Hoysala. It should be modified that the power of the Cholas declined and was finally ended by the unstoppable growth of the Pandiyans who decimated both the Hoysalas and the Cholas before reaching the peak of their powers

Sorry for the length of the posts, but I suppose I cannot request you to make changes without backing up with enough reason. Is that ok?

Can you kindly examine these points and make appropriate changes? I will eagerly wait for your reply.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Srirangam99, I'm running out of patience with you. I have asked you many times not to post such long messages, and to give your messages meaningful headlines. I'm not reading your TLDR messages anymore. I give you one more chance: Please post your comments in the format I described above at #How to discuss content issues. — Sebastian 08:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian, sorry for any unintended offence.

I will try to format my request in the best possible manner. I am not yet good in formatting and presenting content in a tabular form. But I will try nontheless:

===Inclusion of emperors===
"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.~~~~

for the present, kindly examine this point. Thanks.

Srirangam99 (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying! It's actually easier than you thought: I only meant to just copy the part from the box as it is displayed - not with all the "nowiki" stuff around it. I'll do that now for you below. — Sebastian 07:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3