Talk:Pandya dynasty

Page protected

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)

it for good info Mukkulathu (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

ok plese protect this page Mukkulathu (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit war reported

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)

Another article I thorougly recommend you all read - and make use of - is the dispute resolution page. StephenBuxton (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Black magic

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)

Removed POV Template

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)

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)

Unfortunately, this does not answer Raja's comment. Admins, please solve this doubt. 59.184.165.226 (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Raghav Sharman

Date of establishment

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)

Etymology is wrong

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)

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)

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)

Etymology of the word Pandya and the origin of the Pandyan Kingdoms:

The word ’Pandya’ is closely connected with the Sanskrit word Panditah and the Hindi word ‘ Pandey’. The Oriya word ‘Panda’ is also connected to this word. The Sanskrit word Panditah means ‘a scholar’. According to the Wikipedia article on ‘Pandey’ it is the surname of the Hindu Brahmin communities of Northern and central India. But more importantly it is the surname of the Chhetri families of Nepal. The word ‘Chhetri’ is derived from the Sanskrit word Kshatriya, the warrior caste of the Hindu communities.(Wikipedia article on Pandey) Thus the Pandeys of Nepal appear to belong to a Brahmin class which had adopted war-like qualities of a Kshatria. A list of renowned Pandeys of Nepal is available in the above article. From the list it can be seen that Sri Damodar pandey was the first prime-minister of Nepal. Mahendra Bahadur Pandey and Surendra Pandey were prominent politicians of Nepal. The article also mentions that the word ‘Pandey’ according to some scholars is believed to be derived from the word ‘Pandya’ the oldest dynasty of South India. Thus it appears that there is a close connection between the Pandeys of North India, especially the Chhetri Pandeys of Nepal and the’ Pandyas’ of the South.

It can also be seen that the Pandyas were closely connected with the Mauryan emperors and also the Buddhist religion. The name of the daughter of Malaya Dhwaja (or Malava Dhwaja) Pandey was Tathagathai.’ Tathagat’ is the other name of Lord Buddha. Close association of the Pandyas with the emperor Ashoka is also self-evident. Ashoka ruled over the Indian subcontinent (250 B.C.to 210 B.C.) came up to the river Pennar in southern Andhra, which was the border of the Chola kingdom. But he did not proceed further. If he wanted he could have conquered the South Indian kingdoms- the Chola, the Pandya and the Chera kingdoms in no time. But he went back calling them as’’ Cheria putras or’ chelia putras’ (sons of royal housemaids). However he accepted pearls, gold, elephants etc. as tributes from them. After all his entire grandfather Chandragupta Maurya was also a son of the housemaid named Mura. Ashoka had already killed 99 of his half-brothers at Pataliputra to ascend the throne. He had spared the life of one brother only, as he named himself Tissa Kumara and became a Buddhist monk. It appears that this Tissa had been deputed to Sri Lanka to rule as a king there. A Sri Lankan King named Devanampriya Tissa (250 B.C.-210 B.C.) was a contemporary and also a close associate of emperor Ashoka. In fact the title ‘Devanampriya’ was the title adopted by emperor Ashoka.

The Chinese historian   in his 3rd century text mentions that the Pandya kings were of the same height as the Chinese. He also called their kingdom ’Panyue’ a name which is closer to the word Pandey. 

Devanampriya Tissa also called as Moggaliputta Tissa (Son of a maid called Moggali) convened the third Buddhist council in consultation with emperor Ashoka. Also Ashoka sent his daughter sangaqmitra and son Mahendra to Sri Lanka at the request of the Sri Lankan King. They had also gone to to some other south-east Asian islands to spread Buddhism among the womenfolk of these kingdoms. (Wikipedia- Sangamitta). All this would not have been possible without the active co-operation of the Pandya kings. Thus it looks that the Pandyan and the Sri Lankan kings of that age were closely related to emperor Ashoka and that they had earlier worked as commanders of different battalions in the Mauryan army. The name of the Sri Lankan King 'Gaja bahu gamani' which is purely a Sanskrit word means ( Gaja = elephant, bahu = shoulder, gamani = one who marches)- the commander of the elephant battalion which flanked the royal chariot. ‘Raja ratha’ which means the royal chariot, is also the name of the palace or the capital of the Sri Lanka Kingdom.. No wonder the early Pandyas took part in the Mahabharat war which seems to have been fought during the period between the invasion of Alexander the Great in 326 B.C.E. and the invasion of Seleucus Nicator during 303 B.C.E. At the end of this war which was called Mahabharat, it looks like that Chandra Gupta Maurya emerged as the sole monarch of India and faced Seleucids with great authority.( According to some scholars Chandra Gupta Maurya was none other than Lord Krishna. It is also said that the word ‘ Gupta’ means a 'secret', and this has been kept in place of the name Krishna. (Reference- KRSNA – by Swami Bhakti Vedanta Prabhupada ).This also explains the fact that Krishna and Arjuna married the daughters of the Pandya Kings. The fact that many Tamil Naga tribes migrated to the Pandya Kingdom and started living there during that period also proves the fact that the Pandyas were connected to the Naga tribes of Nepal and Bhutan. It looks as if they were the sons of the Mauryan- housemaids who belonged to the caste of Chhetri Pandeys of Nepal. The early Pandya kingdom went into obscurity during the fourth or fifth century because of the invasion of the Kalabhras.

As far as the Pandyas of the 13th and 14th century A.D. are concerned it is reported that 

that the Pandyan kingdom entered its golden age during the reign of Mara Varman sunder Pandya and Jata Varman Sundara Pandya during 1216 A.D.-1345 A.D. It is also reported that these people were repeatedly in conflict with the Chola kingdom, the Pallavas , the Hoysalas,and also conquered Sri Lanka which was once upon a time a close friend of the Pandyas. The name Mara Varman resembles the name Malava Varman which means that he considered himself as the king of Malwa, who adopted the surname ‘Varman’of the Kshatriyas. Similarly the name Jata Varman suggests that they were Jats who called themselves Kshatriyas. The Jats originally belonged to the Sindh and Panjab provinces that migrated to Rajasthan and central India after the invasion of Alexander the Great. (Wikipedia Jats ) Malwa kingdom was ruled by the Mauryas in recorded history of India. (Wikipedia- Malwa ). Thus it looks like that these latter Pandyas originally belonged to ‘Malwa' and they were Jats. ( WWW.jatland.com/home/malva). These Malwa kings who ruled over the Pandyan kingdom are mentioned in the Mahabharat ,Book 6 , Chapter 10, where Sanjaya informs the king Dhritarashtra about various kingdoms of the Bharavarsha. Coming to the kingdoms of the south he mentions - Dravidas. The Keralas, the Prachyas, ------- the Cholas and the Malavajakas,---and the Malavas. There is no mention of the Pandya kingdom in the list.(Ref: WWW.jatland.com/home/Bhishma Parva -Mahabharata/Book 6, Chapter 10).

Thus in conclusion it can be said that the early Pandyas who were the contemporaries of Chandra Gupta Maurya and emperor Ashoka belonged to the Chhetri Brahmin community of Nepal. They were the Children of those house maids of the Mauryan palace who belonged to the above caste. They were deployed as commanders of various battalions of the Mauryan army initially. No wonder they boasted about their achievements in the various wars fought by Maurya chandra Guta in the North-West Himalayan region. They might have also participated in the Mahabharata War on behalf of Krishna Chandra Maurya. They were later deputed by the Magadh emperor to take care of the pearl trade on the southern tip of the sub-continent. The Sri Lankan kings of those days belonged to the same caste or community,because there were inter-marriages between them. The Pandyan kingdom seems to have regained its strength during the eleventh century by the Jat kings of Malwa/Malva named Mara Varman/Malwa Varman and Jat Varman. That is why they were in constant conflict with the ancient kingdoms of Chola, Pallava, Hoyasala, Telugu Kingdom and the Kalinga. They appear to have conquered even Sri Lanka also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banda.krishna (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

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.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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?-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The only relation between Pandavas and Pandyas are that they sided the Pandavas in Kurukshetra war. Pandya king Darshak along with Cholas and Cheras was one of the Maharathis in Pandava side. As per Bhisma, Pandya king accompanied with various troops with prowess and full of energy devoted themselves to Pandavas Pandya king named Sarangadhwaja slayed many elephants, horses and soldiers with various weapons and in the war was killed by Ashwattama. Pandya king was present in the Rajasuya yaga conducted by Yudhistir and brought golden jars filled with sandal paste and many precious gems as gifts to the emperor Yudhistir. References of Pandya king being present in the Swayamvar of Draupadi also present in Mahabharata. Parun3247 (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

How can you add this by watching some mythical stories? Is that have any proof?

Tamil wiki said different thing. Why you peoples doing this thing?

We call this thing as "Echa" and "silra". Parun3247 (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

when did Marco Polo came to india.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ok fine i will come to you with your reliable sources.Their is nothing like done.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkatyan (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 

thanks Sandhyanathtiwari (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

when did Marco Polo came to india.

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.--Nkatyan (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This area of Wikipedia is written in English. Respectfully, you perhaps need to learn English more comprehensively before you post here, and also learn basic formatting. In reply to your slightly confusing question (which you have posted twice), it is generally accepted that Marco Polo visited many places, including South India. It is hard to understand why this is difficult for you to accept: you talk of 'Western people" and question their education, yet you offer no proof to the contrary that Polo did not visit South India. The onus of proof is on you to disprove the received wisdom that Polo visited South India. When there is a wealth of evidence to back up historical fact, those that question it have to do so by presenting evidence in a new light. You have every right to question history, but you must do it with objective rigour (and at least a vague grasp of the language you choose to do it in).

Religion

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.wiki.x.io/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)

Is Ramayana not centuries older than that? The earliest references don't seem to point to the Jain origin of Pandiyas. I'm yet to verify Britannica's legitimacy. 59.184.165.226 (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Srinath Ravi

Ramayana is an Epic and Belief. In wikipedia point of view Epic won't considered to be an evidence. But Brahmi Inscripted Jain beds and Peruvazhudi coins are archaeological proof's to argue Pandyas followed Jain and Vedic Practices in Same period.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Timing of Events

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)

Orphaned references in Pandyan Dynasty

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)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

State language

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 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)

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)

@Aggi007:, where is this mentioned in the source? I can't find it. Xenani (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sanskrit definitely finds a place in Pandyan inscriptions:

• "Kings of the Chola and Pandya dynasties also issued Tamil and bilingual Sanskrit-Tamil inscriptions."
• "Thus the state language was Sanskrit whether the inscriptions were from the north or the south and whether the dynasty was Gupta, Vakatak, Vardhana, Maukhari, Pratihara, Paramara, Chandella, Pala, Sena, Gahadavala, Haihaya, Ganga, Pallava, Chola, Pandya, Chalukya, Rashtrakuta, or Vijayanagar. Inscriptions were sometimes written in regional languages, but they invariably had a preface in Sanskrit."

Not sure about Prakrit. utcursch | talk 15:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Suggesting for removal of unnecessary content

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)

The content is now removed.Xenani (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Pandya dynasty change Reverted

Hello @Utcursch:, 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)

Hi @Kived:, 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)

Requested move 19 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No opposition after two listing periods, and seems reasonable.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Pandyan dynasty → Pandya dynasty – Almost all the RS that are cited in the article mentions the dynasty as Pandya dynasty. Also as per Britannica [1] aggi007(talk) 13:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Also this [2] [3] states that it is Pandya Dysnasty.aggi007(talk) 13:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Official language of Pandya dynasty

Udhaim14 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC) The Pandyan is a Tamil dynasty. Placing tamil as the first official language is appropriate and reflects the reality of the dynasty. When we say languages of India, we would start with Hindi because its the widely spoken language. Though Assamese is alphabetically first, to show the majority spoken language, Hindi would be the choice to state first. Similary, for Pandyan dynasty, that promoted Tamil sangams, that has given enough written evidences in lot of temples with tamil inscriptions, that has created lot of Tamil literary works including Bhakti texts and more important ruled the land with people who spoke Tamil, Tamil is the first official language. Placing Sanskrit before Tamil for alphabetical reasons doesnt reflect the history of Pandya tamil dynasty. Both tamil and sanskrit are great languages. But due respect to be given in places that reflect their significance.

In consideration of the above, if there are any differing views, please update here. If not, the order of official language could be reverted to Tamil and then Sanskrit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udhaim14 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Udhaim14, The languages are given in alphabetical order in NPOV to avoid edit wars on which language is superior over other. As per sources Sanskrit also used along with Tamil.aggi007(talk) 08:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aggi007:, The alphabetical order hasn't reduced edit wars. Is there a policy supporting alphabetical order in infobox? No mainstream dynasties have this kind of setting. I prefer putting the foremost languages in preceding order (as any other article has it). It seems as the alphabetical order is put for some nationalistic POV-pushing. Also, Sanskrit is only mentioned in the passing (in the above section). Xenani (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Xenani, We can involve other editors to share their thoughts on this including the major contributors of other dynasty articles. I checked few articles like Vijayanagara, Madurai Nayak, Tanjavur Nayak kingdom pages and they are all in alphabetical order. Is there any Wiki policy to put only foremost languages first or in which order languages need to be placed. And as per sources Sanskrit is also used along with Tamil. In order to avoid which language is superior than other they were kept in alphabetical order. I believe it is not a POV push.

@utcursch Can you add your thoughts too. aggi007(talk) 09:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but don't see a problem with Tamil being put first: scholarly works identify them as a Tamil dynasty. utcursch | talk 14:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Have made the edit now[4]. Xenani (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Religion

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)

Please provide a source per WP:V and WP:RS. utcursch | talk 00:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Can someone translate Maduraikkanchi, the Tamil Sangam Poem?

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)

(Tamil:பாண்டிய பேரரசு)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:400:6F0:9973:8555:8FE7:4BEA (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC) 

Religion

@Helenhgj: 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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ImperioPandya1251-1283AD.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The Map

The map 1, isn't entirely accurate, the map shows the empire stretching way further North than it actually did. I don't even have to provide a source for this as even the article itself does not corroborate it.

"Maravarman Kulasekara I, now virtually unchallenged, ruled over the Chola country and southern Tamil speaking portions of Hoysala kingdom. He also invaded Sri Lanka, ruled by Bhuvanaikabahu I, who "carried away to the Pandya country the venerable Tooth Relic", and the wealth of the island. Sri Lanka remained under Pandya control until c. 1308–1309 CE"

No where does it mention them going all the way north towards the Tungabhadra river or Vengi.

2 is a much more accurate map that better reflects the territorial extent of the Imperial Pandya than the current map. AlvaKedak (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Rawn3012 AlvaKedak (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)