Belated Merry Christmas and Hello from NSrinivasan a few submissions on contradictions in Indian History pages Thanks for your affirmative action in unlocking history pages  Dear Tiptoety  I request you to have a careful look at the pages of history edited by User Dinesh Kannambadi who while claiming to source material from reliable sources is at the same time indulging in feeding of completely unverified and unreliable pieces of information  This communication from me may kindly be regarded by you as one among a series of interactions with you with my sole aim being the betterment of history pages of Wikipedia and nothing else   It has been my experience while trying to contribute to history pages or indeed indulge in discussions for betterment of Wikipedia pages whatever we do users like Dinesh Kannambadi have objected to always and have branded our contributions as vandalism and sourcing from POV websites etc    Just take note of the contradictory nature of his editing of history pages especially on the Chalukya Empires especially with reference to the Chola Empire pls also remember that in Wikipedia for God knows what reason the pages on the Chola Empire have been christened as Chola Dynasty despite that the fact that the Cholas prospered at the helm of an empire having large territories not just in India but also overseas including Sri Lanka Maldives very large parts of South East Asia for at least  years of their existence  Here are the examples but before that I would like to say this that deliberately user Dinesh Kannambadi has been trying to mention or project the Chalukya dynasty as some sort of a contemporary of the Chola empire and has even gone on to mention the demise of the Chola empire saying that the Chola territories were taken over by the Pandiyas which has a great weakness    the Chalukya dynasty had very weak kings from  onwards and between  to  their kings were displaced and the Kalachuris under Bijjala I and Bijjala II ruled Kannada country in India  The Chalukyas did make a comeback but that was for just  years between  to  after which they went into oblivion  I request  that you may kindly contrast this with the fate of the Cholas whose kings from AD  though were not as strong as their kings between AD  yet one of their last great kings Kulothunga III on the strength of epigraphical and inscriptional evidence is said to have occupied Madurai Karur and Sri Lanka then known as Ilangai between  AD  He ruled for around  years though near the end of his rule he was indeed routed by the Pandiyans and held on to his empire with great difficulty having Hoysalas as his allies  Yet even with weak kings following him after  the Cholas lasted till  when their last king lost to the Pandiyas and the Cholas went into oblivion    Contrast the above ie the demise of the Cholas in  or  to that of the Chalukyas who were first of all without a capital for over  years and reemerged for just  years and became history by AD  or thereabouts  Yet jingoism seems to get the better of user Dinesh Kannambadi and he has written in the Western Chalukya Empire page as under  the link is httpenwikipediaorgwikiWesternChalukyas and the relevant portion of text is the following  This period saw the fall of two great empires the Chalukyas of the western deccan and the Cholas of Tamilakam On the ruins of these two empires were built the Kingdoms of their feudatories whose mutual antagonisms filled the annals of Deccan history for over a hundred years the Pandyas taking control over some regions of the erstwhile Chola empire Though technically speaking at least as per the version of Dinesh Kannambadi the Chalukyas fell and demised in  and the Cholas demised after almost  decades in about  ie within a hundred years of each other I would like to raise the question what is the justification for his expression This period saw the fall of two great empires  I mean what is meant by this period surely if both empires had fallen within two or three decades of each other then the expression could be a little contemporaneous but even as a weak empire the Cholas lasted till  almost  years after the Chalukyas demised then what is the reason and justification for mentioning the demise of the Cholas when the subject on the page ie the Chalukya dynasty which went into oblivion in the year  or    The point is that whether it is mentioning the Hoysalas another Kannada empire or the Chalukyas he is obsessed with their portrayals as some sort of contemporaries of the Cholas even while mentioning Chalukya architecture user Dinesh Kannambadi cannot resist bringing in the Cholas see this write up on Kasivisveswara temple built by the Chalukyas  httpenwikipediaorgwikiKasivisvesvaraTemple   The existence of a  CE inscription on a beam in the temple mantapa hall and the plainness of that part of the temple suggests that the original construction may have been simpler and that the profusion of decoration may have been added to the other parts of the temple at a later period with the end of Chola invasions of Chalukyan territory  This user also severely contradicts himself further while giving innumerable lectures to others about reliablity of sources etc when his own sources of information are thoroughly unreliable here is how  please now visit the page of the first Western Chalukya king TailapaII  Tailapas victories  The Cholas who were experiencing a minor crisis of succession of their own were in a position of weakness Uththama Chola had replaced Parantaka Chola II and Tailapa claimed victory in a battle against Uththama in     Strangely the user has only mentioned two authors below this page namely KANSastry and Suryanath Kamath as his sources but from both sources he has not been able to pin point which venue it was where TailapaII is supposed to have claimed his victory over Uthama Chola Sir it is well known in the anals of Chola history that Uthama Chola had his nephew Raja Raja Chola I the original claimant to the Chola throne as his general and both Raja Raja Chola I and his son Rajendra I are famous as two Kings of India who have never lost on the battle field But that is not the question here in Uthama Cholas anals there never was a war with TailapaII only his predecessor Sundara Chola fought against the Rashtrakutas and regained Thondaimandalam Nellore and nearby Telugu country and Arcot areas from them  Please read further from the same page  httpenwikipediaorgwikiTailapaII  Period of consolidation  In  Raja Raja Chola was vanquished and the Chalukya monarch secured one hundred and fifty elephants  Sir please contrast with the crystal clear information given on the pages of the Chola king Raja Raja I the relevant link is  httpenwikipediaorgwikiRajarajaCholaI   The southern kingdoms of Pandyas Cheras and the Sinhalas were often allied against the Cholas It was the case when Rajaraja came to the throne Rajarajas initial campaigns were against the combined Pandya and Chera armies There is no evidence of any military campaign undertaken by Rajaraja until the eighth year of his reign During this period he was engaged in organising and augumenting his army and in preparing for military expeditions  Sir the above information is very significant in that Raja Raja was supposed to have ascended to the Chola throne in the year  and as per information on the page on Chalukya king TailapaII Raja Raja I was supposed to have lost in battle to him in the year   The user has refused to make any changes to the page nor is prepared to come up with any proof or verifiable evidence despite the fact that I have shown him extracts from Epigraphica Indica which have been carried on in the site wwwwhatsindiacominscriptionssouthindianinscriptions which has contributions from the former Archaeologists from the Archaeological Survey of India but user Dinesh Kannambadi maintains that the findings of ASI have to be verified by historians of his choice    Kindly see this further httpenwikipediaorgwikiSatyasraya   Rajaraja Chola distracted the attention of Satyasraya by sending his son Rajendra Chola I to invade Rattapadi in the west and thus compelled him to withdraw his army from Vengi for the defence of his realm  During his reign the Paramaras and Chedi reconquered the territory that they had lost to the Chalukyas earlier But Satyashraya was able to defeat Raja Raja Chola and the crown prince Rajendra Chola when they invaded parts of Karnataka  Sir it is submitted that first of all it is pure jingoism when user Dinesh Kannambadi contributes that Satyashraya defeated both Raja Raja and Rajendra Chola when they invaded parts of Karnataka  Kindly see this portion on the page on Satyashraya itself once again  Seeing increased interference of Cholas in Vengi Satyasraya invaded Vengi in   Wars with the Cholas  The Cholas responded with a twopronged attack on the Vengi kingdom and on the Western Chalukya territory itself The Chola armies were led by Rajendra Chola I Rajendra marched up to Donur near Kudalasangama and Unakal near Hubli and plundered the entire county slaughtering women men and children and threatening the Chalukya capital Manyakheta Satyasrya was thus compelled to withdraw from Vengi and retreat to his kingdom i