Talk:Pandya dynasty

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Edit war reported 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Black magic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removed POV Template

message: 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)
thread_title: Date of establishment

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fanciful etymology. The Pandyas have nothing to do with the Pandeys. They, obviously, had some relation to the Pandavas - "Pandya" becoming "Pandava" just as "Ayodhya" became "Awadh". The name Jatavarman which is spelt as Sadayavarman has nothing to do with the Jats of North India. The story of a Mauryan Empire sending Nepali Brahmins to South India is not found in any reputable history book. I wonder where you got it.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

text:  The website jatland is not a neutral academic source to be used. By the way, where did Malwa come into the picture. Were these theories proposed by P. N. Oak?-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology is wrong 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  when did Marco Polo came to india. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: The second paragraph starts with this sentence: The early Pandyan Dynasty of the Sangam Literature faded into obscurity upon the invasion of the Kalabhras. This sentence could really use a date. If not an exact year, then at least a century. 
Also, at the start, it says the Dynasty lasted to the 17th century, but elsewhere it says that the "kingdom" was disestablished in 1345. The History section only goes to the 14th century. This could use some clarification. 
—MiguelMunoz (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing of Events 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Pandyan Dynasty's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Lindsay1":
From Indian maritime history: Lindsay, 101
From Indo-Roman trade relations: Lindsay 2006: 101
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Pandyan Dynasty]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pandyan dynasty. 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://archive.is/20161123181101/http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/462306 to http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/462306
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There seem to be none consensus about the languages used by Pandyan dynasty. The question is if Sanskrit and Prakrit was a language also used by the Pandyan dynasty. The given source https://books.google.co.in/books?id=D-dIbnuJCjUC&pg=PA265#v=onepage&q=pandya&f=false does not directly confirm that, or at least I could not find anything such. The problem should be discussed here before adding anything in article and unnecessary creating an edit war. Xenani (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, it is not about official state language. That section need to list all common languages. As per source Sanskrit is being used in inscriptions. I haven't seen any Prakrit related inscriptions in the cited source. If you find any source saying Prakrit had been used, you can add Prakrit too. aggi007(talk) 09:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

text: , where is this mentioned in the source? I can't find it. Xenani (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  State language 

message: I think the part under the section "Sources" under "Sangam literature" has some content that is not related to article that I suggest could be removed. I am thinking of the content starting from "It is difficult to estimate..." to "some historians have even denounced these colophons as later additions and untrustworthy as historical documents". I think the whole part, which is not sourced, is not anyway related to the article and could be removed but I think it is better to discuss it here before removal at least. I think there are better content related to the article that would suit under "Sangam literature" instead.Xenani (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The content is now removed.Xenani (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggesting for removal of unnecessary content 

message: Hello ,
I am new user here and so I have missed to reply to your mail . 
I strongly believe that the people of pandiya's used only Tamil Language. Pandiyan even started a Sangam (group) to develop their own language 'Tamil'. They were very good in trading. And they traded with more countries like China,  Rome, east and western Asian countries, Northern India,  etc., and it's common that so much foreign people were presented in that period. But they used only Tamil Language.  So please delete the Sanscrit language from the page.
Thanks
Kived Kived (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , Wiki is not based on beliefs. According to sources, the Epigraphs that were found were in both Sanskrit and Tamil languages. aggi007(talk) 08:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pandya dynasty change Reverted 

message: I added Christianity and Judaism as religions. If you are confused on why this exists, be aware of an ancient trade route at Muziris at the Malabar Coast. Thoughts are welcome.Manabimasu (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a source per WP:V and WP:RS. utcursch | talk 00:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Hi,
Can someone help render the accurate translation for the following line from Maduraikkanchi (line 144) ?
தென் பரதவர் போ ரேறே
The context is:
நற் கொற்கை யோர்நசைப் பொருந
செற்ற தெவ்வர் கலங்கத் தலைச்சென்று
அஞ்சுவரத் தட்கும் அணங்குடைத் துப்பிற் . . .140
கோழூ உன்குறைக் கொழு வல்சிப்
புலவு விற் பொலி கூவை
ஒன்று மொழி ஒலி யிருப்பில்
தென் பரதவர் போ ரேறே
The full poem can be accessed at https://www.projectmadurai.org/pm_etexts/utf8/pmuni0071.html
Thanks,
Nittawinoda (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone translate Maduraikkanchi, the Tamil Sangam Poem? 

message: The "earlier Jainism, after conversion Hinduism" bit that you're adding implies that the Pandya kings were originally Jains since the inception of the dynasty, and later converted to Hinduism. But the book that you are citing implies that some of the Pandyan kings converted to Jainism from another faith, and then switched back. Also, the book doesn't support the "for a long period of time" bit that you're adding. Please cite a page # and quote that supports your changes. On a side note, this is a 1922 book and pretty much outdated -- consider using a better source. utcursch | talk 16:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion