Talk:Early Pandyan Kingdom

etymology

Unlike Chola Dynasty, this page misses the the list of all the pandya kings... and clicking on Pandya empire doesn't have this too and gets re-directed to Pandya dynasty... I remember seeing the list of Pandya kings sometime ago, but looks like it got removed (or was that available in a different page)? Could someone please put List of pandya kings back or add it if it was never here! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.132.139 (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

(debate moved from user sodabottle's talk page to here. Basically, user Sasisekar is introducing sourced info to replace the present partly sourced info about the origins of the name "pandyan")--Sodabottle (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Spaceman, you're paranoid: [1],[2]. Whatever. Sasisekar (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

One more:[3]Sasisekar (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your version (Early pandyan kingdom) says "Sarangdwaja participated in the Kurukshetra". This is wrong not to mention unreferenced. His name is Malayadwaja. Read the link that I gave. "In sangam tamil lexicon, Pandya means old country", ha!. Pandyan kingdom is considered old country as it was the first kingdom but it does not mean "old country" nor is the word Pandya derived from it.Sasisekar (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry we can discuss here. If i can refrain from reverting Fconaway's edit (he reverted mine) last week, I can refrain from reverting yours. Sasisekar (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not "my version". So if you can replace unreferenced assertions with referenced parts please go ahead. All i ask is this - Make a mention of the fact there are different theories floating around. and always attribute the source, like "nanamudhan devaneyan says pandiyan is derived from "pandi" and . And "nilakanta sastri has claimed it as having originated from the name for old Tamil country". Since there is difference among historians and tamil scholars about the origin of the name, we should mention that is a difference too.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is this : Even if we know that some of the theories are wrong (for example, nilakanta sastri only had basic Tamil knowledge and certainly no knowledge about sangam literature, so probably his version is suspect here), we can only point to other published works that refute those theories. So instead of replacing a version entirely, just put everything in saying "X says this, Y says this" and they differ.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok I will add all theories. Sasisekar (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is written in bad English. Why can't someone improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.8.38 (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the article confuses literature with history. Even a child knows that the essence of literature is imagination and exaggeration. How can we trust literature as an authentic source of history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.141.8.38 (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Early Pandyan Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130817135028/http://micheldanino.voiceofdharma.com/tamilculture.html to http://micheldanino.voiceofdharma.com/tamilculture.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Uncertain about boldface usage

Particularly that of the royals' names in the section "[h]istory, which may or may not contradict the [b]oldface section of the MOS, though the "redirect" part under "[o]ther uses" may allow for it. Could anyone please tell me which is the right option? Thylacine24 (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)