Talk:Chola conquest of Anuradhapura

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Please replace the name 'Chola' (சோள) that means the name of an eatable grain with 'Chozha' (சோழ) which means that the name of a king and/or his dynasty.Helppublic (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox about Sri Lankan Tamils[edit]

This infobox about Sri Lankan Tamils, is not relevant to this article. The Cholas invaded and occupied what they themselves call "Ilamandalam - the land of the Sinhalas" and they fought the army of "the warlike Singalas", as per their inscription(s). No mention about any SL-Tamils. REF 1, REF 2

An infobox should not be used to mislead readers, more over this particular infobox has been created for just one purpose, namely to use it as a marker to lay Tamil specific claims. It has been attempted inseted to various other articles too. There's not a single mention of SL-Tamils in this whole article and that makes the infobox all the more irrelvant and misleading here. Please read the guidelines for use of infoboxes and please do not add this infobox to this article, without writing how exactly the Chola occupation is a part of SL-Tamil history, in the article. --SriSuren (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for moving title.[edit]

It is mentioned clearly within this article and the scope of the Cholan wiki articles, that the whole of the island except for Ruhuna came under Raja Raja Chola's reign who established a dominion in Polannaruwa called the 'Mummudi Chola Mandalam'(which was an extension of the Chola empire) after he defeated the Kingdom of Anuradhapura.

Rajendra Chola annexed the remaining Ruhuna to the Chola rule in 1017, King Mahinda V was enslaved.

Then during a civil war in the Chola country in South India, Vijayabahu I would ally with the Pandyas and Cheras would rout the Cholan rule and establish a new kingdom in Polannaruwa.

This is backed up by renowned historians within the articles such as K.A. Nilakanta Sastri and George W Spencer in the article itself. The title 'Occupation' is baseless since the territories was incorporated to be a part of the kingdom and administration, and 'Anuradhapura' equally so, since the whole island came under Rajendra Chola's rule(with most of it already being under Raja Raja's).--CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 13:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Nishadhi:
Nope wrong and Please stop moving the article.
For primary source read - Wilhelm Geiger. Culavamsa – Being the most recent part of the Mahavamsa. New Delhi, Asian educational Services;1998.p 186-189.
This is a map of the East India Company administered territories in erstwhile South Asia, perhaps you can see the princely states such as Rajputs, Travancore, Tanjore, Kashmir, Mysore etc. constitute between 40-50% of present-day India, which means the EIC at a maximum controlled less than 60% of the total territory, yet the article which is a B-Class article is titled Company rule in India. To dismiss the Chola empire in Sri Lanka as a see military occupation(while the full of the article uses the term 'rule') is a violation of the naming convention norms set by WP:TITLE and attempts to revert my edits without bringing here a concrete reason to do so, would be taken to the ANI.--CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 06:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the wiki article says rule, does not mean it is right. You cannot use Wikipedia as a reliable source, you should know that...right? Anyone could have edited in "rule" or what ever word, but just because the first editor did so does not necessarily make it correct.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Nishadhi

Son, your threats are empty and naïve. Remember this, “only cowards make threats”. This article was titled “occupation” for a reason. There are three prerequisites, to use the term annexation rather than occupation.

  1. actual occupation of the conquered territory
  2. proclamation of captors sovereignty over the captured territory
  3. explicit or implied recognition of this sovereignty by others

This last factor wasn’t fulfilled in this instance. Unlike in other situations Sinhalese resisted from the very beginning of the occupation and survival of Mahinda V son Kassapa reinforced it. Not only Sinhalese rulers, there were princes from Pandya, Kerala, Ayodhya and even from Kanyakubja in Rohana. (Indrapala – 236, and read the primary source).

Yes, in the article we use the term “rule”. For instance when we go through sources regarding the occupied France (during Second World War), we come across the words like “German rule” “Nazi rule”, but as you mentioned, the title has to be very precise.

The reasons that you have given for the move are baseless. Why don’t you come up with good reasons with sources and participate in a healthy discussion (or you can report me to ANI as you threatened). Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to tell you too, that I do not bother much whether I make an impression on you or not. I'am just trying to be civil, I apologize if that has gotten to you so much. From Alexander's empire to present day's Democrats regime in USA, any account of administration over a territory which has been included as whole or in part of its kingdom/government, makes it part of its empire/rule contradictory to your observations.

The Democrats are the perceived rulers of America even if a number of states have voted against them. On similar lines, Rajapaksa represents the people of Northern Province(and thereby rules them), even though most of them might not accept him to be so. It is to be acknowledged that the Cholas took control of the island(with or without popular or diplomatic support), ruled it and fell after close to a century. Though nobody dared to recognize them, it wasn't the Sri Lankan state(on whose map the provinces lay) but the LTTE that had governed the North and East for three decades. Tibetans continue to press for resistance against China, and there is an operating government in exile but does its wiki have "China Occupied Tibet" as the title? --CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 19:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing party politics with International Law here. And you are obviously trying to make a point here about the current ethnic issue. Can you try not to make everything about that?--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by Nishadhi:
Its seems this move was an emotional one rather than a rational one. Once you read about the subject you'll realize that its not a big deal. First they didn't completed their conquest of the island, or not even the Rajarata (central high lands were not occupied), and fighting continued in central highlands and Ruhuna.


However, I agree they had a administration, a viceroy, taxation system but that itself is not enough. (for instance, as you correctly mentioned - LTTE, Germany in France).
Above factors are not my observations they are the accepted criteria by law. There are exceptions like "anticipated annexation", etc. etc. which are not relevant to this discussion.
And I don't know about China and Tibet, but I know about Sri Lanka.
So do you have anything else to add? Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Among all the flaws in your argument one major flaw is that the name Sri Lanka is a new one, and was not referred to in the 10th century. The name of the kingdom was Anuradhapura. If you were serious in providing for a constructive article then you would have at least changed it to "rule in Anuradhapura" but its obvious you were trying to make a personal point here.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User Nishadi Well, I could say the same about you. The whole discussion only indicates your own despair and paranoia to politicize Tamil historic and geographic articles as I had mentioned. First you used the pretext of the full kingdom not coming into control, then move to popular dissent and now back to where you had started, I have clarified every of these two aspects in my first para itself.

Indrapala makes that statement with reference to 'Tamil inscriptions'. Lack of Tamil inscriptions or popular resentment does not mean an absence of rule in a particular territory. In fact, the latter arises as a consequence as opposed to what you are trying to prove: Vijaybahu rose only when there was a Chola rule upon his state.


There is an inscription in Kolar which explicitly states that "Along with the crown the Pandyas had gifted, the necklace of Indra, the whole of Iramandalam(Ilam) fell into sri Rajendra Sola Devar's valiant hands." [2]

So that probably should defuse the "whole of Lanka" contention. As for public dissent, it maens nothing here just as most other articles. And anyways if you agree that there was at least an administration in place, you are obviously asserting the fact that the Cholas had more than just a military presence in the island my dear. No zombie king would command his military to merely 'occupy' a piece of territory for over a century, without a reason to govern it. Since you conveniently made an example of the Nazis, let me tell you, apart from all the references that are made in the World War-articles, Please spare a bit of time towards these three articles Greater Germanic Reich, Flensburg Government and Nazi Germany and you'll probably realize the incongruity of your attitude with the rest of the encyclopedia(if you are noble enough for all that). Austria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Poland everything that were seized are plainly referred to as Nazi Germany. It reflects your deep grudge, Your comparison the Cholas with the Nazis, but anyways the Cholas too incorporated Sri Lanka among everything else and built the world's third largest empire in human history. Mind you, the Cholas possessed very less intention of Lebensraum when they invaded the island rather than the successive Sinhala-Buddhist presidents who blatantly led the colonization and militarization of Tamil and Muslim lands, with an obsession worse than even that of the Zionists.

As for the LTTE, I only mentioned that International recognition, merely meant nothing to whether they had ruled the North-East or not. The Sri Lankan government had neither institution nor authority in the Vanni till 2009, and the Wikipedia would certainly be rewritten some day whether another minority insurrection takes place in the island or the Tamil Eelam ideology is put to rest like the Nazi ideology. I have to cut this out here, since I'am being accused of something regarding bringing up international examples here(Chuck it, do you guys think yoyu are exempted from anything you do in this world?)too. I have clarified with the best of my goodwill, all is upto you now. The edit stays unless you can demonstrate something miraculous, like the forking the Nazi and Flensburg Germany into Nazi Germany + Nazi Occupied Eastern Europe. If something like that happens, then be my guest to revert mine as well.--CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 07:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackknight To the best of my knowledge, I have assumed Sri Lanka to be the only name that can be coined for the whole of the island. The lead at Anuradhapura Kingdom says:

Founded by King Pandukabhaya in 377 BC, the kingdom's authority extended throughout the country, although several independent areas emerged from time to time, which grew more numerous towards the end of the kingdom.

If you are knowledgeable enough to offer a rectification for my 'flaw' you have been able to identify, please provide an alternate name for the whole of the island that I may incorporate into the title instead. Like ancient name for present day Tamil Nadu, Kerala and (ahem) Naga Kingdom was Tamilakam, or ancient name for Britain and Ireland was Brittania. But since Sri Lanka was(and continues) used to refer a single geographic entity(i.e the island alone), I think that is absolutely not an issue here.--CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 07:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JJ - The Anuradhapura kingdom ended with the conquest of the island by the Cholas, didn't it? So to me "occupation of Anuradhapura" seems not to be the correct term. And "occupation" is also not really a neutral term. "Conquest" seems more to the point, I think. So the best title might be "Chola conquest of Anuradhapura", or "Chola conquest of Lanka". And let's leave out the Nazis; they won't further this discussion. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hear me out a little on this. The Anuradhapura Kingdom DID end with the Chola conquest. But conquest refers to 'the process of invasion', and surely this article is not on the war that the Cholans waged(there is a separate header for that). The island was annexed to the mainland Chola kingdom for over a century, hence calling it nothing less than 'rule' or 'kingdom' is undermining the Empire's real(and documented) historic and geographical affiliations, which our friends above are in hot pursuit to go about doing so. Thanks.--CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 19:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the conquested party did not agree that tey were part of the Chola empire. I see no undermining here, but different opinions (then and now). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: I see your point and I agree with you. "Conquest" is a better term than "occupation". I'm sorry i failed to see that and thanks for pointing it out. How about "Chola conquest of Anuradhapura", any other suggestions? Nishadhi (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Original title of this article Chola rule in Sri Lanka when the article was created in MAY 2011.Later changed to Occupation in 2013 and changed back to the Original Title.As this is a controversial move as per policy would recommend taking it to Wikipedia:Requested moves if you wish to change it to Occupation or Conquest and note the decision of the discussion there will be final no one will change the title after that . Through Chola rule is more neutral than Occupation or Conquest most sources refer it as Chola rule. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea Pharaoh of the Wizards, I'm surprised no one thought about that before. Either way "Sri Lanka" should not be used here as it is way out of context, the name did not exists back then and is only a recent creation (as far as I know). The proper term is Anuradhapura as that was the kingdom covered the whole island at the time, and was so for over 600 years before its ends, therefore it is not unreasonable. I will post a Requested move between Occupation or Conquest, but the country shall be Anuradhapura not Sri Lanka.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Indian History with Objective Questions and Historical Maps Twenty-Sixth Edition 2010, South India page 59
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Epigraphia Carnatica, Volume 10, Part 1, page 32 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved, but no prejudice against a new RM for an alternative proposal. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chola rule in Anuradhapura → Chola conquest of Anuradhapura – An act of military expansion into a foreign kingdom met with continuous rebellions. The kingdom is Anuradhapura not present day Sri Lanka. Blackknight12 (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- First impression: although the name "Sri Lanka" may not be exactly the correct name for ancient Sri Lanka, it is nevertheless widely used for the Island. Most readers, worldwide, will know immediately what it is about, while the name "Anuradhapura" will be meaningless for most readers at first sight. As for the term "conquest": this makes sense, since they were expelled quite soon, and apparently didn't manage to establish a firm rule at Sri Lanka. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way: "Chola rule in Anuradhapura" is incorrect anyway; there was no more kingdom of Anuradhapura then, was there? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The requested page for the move from the current page(Chola rule in Sri Lanka) does not adhere to the prescribed naming conventions in the project and is a serious violation of two of the core content policies, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The article which was originally created as Chola rule in Sri Lanka(there was previously an extensive discussion here)is neither just describing a military conquest nor Anuradhapura was the name of entire Sri Lanka, which perhaps pertains to only the original research of User:Blackknight12, who was not able to convince any of the parties involved with his arguments regarding the page's estoration to its original title. The user has probably come to initiate such a request only after after repeated cases of edit warring and lack of acknowledgment of his views at the talk page.--CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 15:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Feel that we retain the original name Chola rule in Sri Lanka by which the article was created in 2011 and further Lanka is the most common name for Sri Lanka as pointed by JJ and since the days the epic Ramayana was written it is known as Lanka ,rather than Anuradhapura.The Title Chola rule is NPOV compared to Conquest. Most sources refer to it Chola Rule of Lanka.Further we keep it as as either we retain Chola Rule in Sri Lanka or change it to Chola conquest of Anuradhapura if this request succeeds.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Joshua Jonathan & Pharaoh of the Wizards, I think we should define some terms here before we continue, the name Lanka is one which comes from a mythological context, or at least has a strong connection to it due to the Ramayana. The name "Lanka" may have existed before or may have come after the hindu epic, however my problem is its mythological connotations. However, Codrington, who is widely accepted, does called the whole island Lanka, given his use for the term, I may agree for its use here (pending more discussion). Having said that I still strongly think and recommend "Sri Lanka" should not at all appear in this article unless referring to the present, and "Anuradhapura" is the most legitimate name to use as it was the kingdom of the whole island at the time which existed for over 600 years before its ends. (a long enough period of time to suggest the names importance) Joshua Jonathan we should not let the readers lack of knowledge about the topic dictate how we write it, otherwise we continue to send the wrong message.
A few more things just for framing the discussion, according to Codrington:
"The new (Sinhala) king reigned at Anuradhapura but governed with difficulty, as the city was full of foreigners introduced by his late brother's general"
"The Chola emperor...took an opportunity (that) was too good to be lost..."
"Chola emperor Rajaraja I. (A.D. 985-101.2) conquered all the country, save the remoter parts which were still held by the Sinhala." (the whole island was not taken)
"Lanka became a province of the Chola empire"
"Polonnaruwa was renamed Jananatha pura" (by the Cholas)
"The conquest was completed about A.D. 1017 by the capture of Mahinda V."
"It was at this period that miny of the Hindu shrines in the city were erected."
We should keep these in mind when discussing this, of course the more reliable sources the better. I also think we should open this discussion to neutral non Sri Lankan/Indian editors for a more genuine response, what do you guys think?--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by JJ - Regarding neutral input, that's agood idea. So not even the India topics noteboard, but (random?) third opinions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes input from non Sri Lankan/Indian editors is best I think.--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose After several days of thinking it over, I think I prefer "Chola rule at (Sri) Lanka" "Chola conquest of northern Lanka", though I do understand that from a Sr Lankese point of view "conquest" might be more preferable. "Chola Lanka". Changing my mind again... User:Obi2canibe's proposal sounds good. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Chola conquest of Rajarata/ Northern Lanka" "Chola period in Lanka" I have summarized my reasons here. Thanks Nishadhi (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by JJ Thanks Nishadhi for your extensive research and arguments. They convinced of your proposal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think I would like to here a response from Pharaoh of the Wizards considering the information posted by Nishadhi and I.--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response by CuCl2 Either User:Blackknight12 is deliberately ignoring every of the points User PotW, User JJ or myself is raising questioning the logic behind his disruptive editing or I have to assume he is visually challenged or something to miss out everything close to being spoon-fed across this discussion. Firstly as User:Pharaoh of the Wizards brought it to our notice, it was he who moved the page without giving any reasons nor initiating a WP:RM. Now time and again, he has been ignoring the discussion above this section where neither himself nor User:Nishadi the other apparent party disagreeing, had been able to justify the present plethora of titles they want to hijack the article towards. Bringing to their notice again:
  • This article is not about a military conquest, but a period of sovereignty over a piece of territory. The conquest was complete within less than a year, so it is just blunt stupidity to even think of suggesting that term here. Imperialistic articles in Wikipedia have always titled as rule as opposed to occupation or conquest, British rule in Burma or British Ceylon, Dutch India etc(why the heck should there have not been a 'British Occupation in Sri Lanka'?). As I had notified earlier(and so did the others), the words 'conquest'(absolutely meaningless to the context) and 'occupation' are invalid and including it is a violation of the naming convention norms(Please for hecks sake, GO TAKE A DAMNED LOOK FIRST), and your vociferous stagnation to these terms only highlight your intent to vandalize Tamil articles in the encyclopedia.
  • Next, between Sri Lanka and Anuradhapura, I would appreciate if Blackknight12 would explain his revision in February, where he did not call upon any consensus towards changing the title to 'Chola Occupation of Sri Lanka'. If he was okay with Sri Lanka then, why is he all of a sudden opposed to having the term anymore? Is it because now there is too much of evidence backing for rule versus occupation. One good example apart from others, Company rule in India refers to a timeline when the resistance to the rule was much higher than the resistance against Cholas in Sri Lanka(save for a few disgruntled monarchs's feelings), and not even 50-60% of present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were directly ruled by the EIC. It is very corny that these do-good editors desperately babble away the interpretations of a handful in order to change their title in accordance with their(and theirs only) POV but pretend to be blind to the titles convened to the innumerable other articles on the project.
Their total silence towards the examples contrasted but vociferous noise to change the title all the same reflects no good faith or self-respect, only citing their incompetence and lack of deserving to be a part of the project.--CuCl2 (chat spy acquaint) 13:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by JJ:
  • The term sovereignty seems questionable here to me. It's clear that "the best interests of its own citizens" was not perceived different by the involved parties.
  • "Conquest" and "rule" are both not strictly neutral. So apart from rushing to conclusions, I'd prefer a neutral tone in the discussions on this subject.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by CuCl2:
  • You have a point there on sovereignty, but I think you should probably hold back your urge until the main aspect of this conflict is resolved. I guess it can wait.
  • This article has no other pages affiliated with it. As I mentioned its absurd to title a hundred year reign over a territory as conquest. And I would like to know why rule is not neutral especially since that was what had happened? If Chola rule was to be termed as merely an 'occupation' or a 'conquest', why is it that British/Dutch/Portuguese Ceylon are not called likewise, only a few remnants of the dispossessed rulers and those who wanted to regain power were reported to have engaged in rebellions, whereas colonial Sri Lanka has recorded that even the common masses were in opposition to their rule.
  • Please Note: Portuguese Ceylon/Dutch Ceylon never controlled the entire island(Only Britain did). Why is it that the editors don't oppose either of that? And if Blackknight12 wants to replace Sri Lanka with Anuradhapura, he should have forked The Portuguese Ceylon into Portuguese conquest of Kotte, Jaffna and Avissawella. Why has he not ventured into all that, as his justifications would suit both.--CuCl2 (chat spy acquaint) 17:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by JJ Being Dutch, I wouldn't mind calling the Dutch era an "occupation", or "imperialistic colonialism" or something like that... We were not invited there, were we? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Conquest is a too narrow word to describe what this article is about. The Cholan period of the island lasted for 84 years and was more than just the conquest of the Anuradhapura Kingdom. I suggest that the article be renamed Cholan Lanka. This avoids using an emotive noun (conquest, occupation, rule etc) and follows the naming conventions of other "foreign" periods of the island's history (i.e. Portuguese Ceylon, Dutch period in Ceylon, British Ceylon). It also avoids giving the wrong impression that the Cholan's only ruled Anuradhapura - at one point they ruled the entire island (K. M. de Silva, p.26).--obi2canibetalk contr 15:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by JJ - Good idea; it's neutral indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Nishadhi Good idea indeed. Thanks User:Obi2canibe. By using "Cholan" we can avoid the dispute regarding the conquest/ rule/ occupation. But I don't agree with "at one point they ruled the entire island". There are sources which says otherwise and I have given reasons for this different opinions in my facts section.
So counter suggestion, shall we go ahead with "Chola period in Lanka" (as per Dutch period in Ceylon). It'll neutralize the different opinion regarding the territory, don't you think? any other suggestions? Thanks.Nishadhi (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although my preference would be Cholan Lanka, I have no objection to your suggestion Nishadhi. Let's see what the two protagonists in this dispute - Copperchloride and Blackknight12 - have to say about these compromises.--obi2canibetalk contr 18:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good strategy Obi2canibe, avoiding the conflicted terms. I think we have definitely gotten far in this discussion, Cholan Lanka is good, but Chola period in Lanka is better I think. Given we end up at a consensus here, naturally the next step is going to be what the limits of the "Chola period in Lanka" actually were. Whether we like it or not I feel it is going to head that way.--Blackknight12 (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:Thanks. Cholan Lanka is a term that would suit the article, as Portuguese Ceylon or British Ceylon do. Very surprised at the turn of events, since just a few scrolls above, Blackknight12 was dead keen on having anything but the term Lanka, going all the way to citing mythology as an excuse. Given the context of the article, which is relevant to administration and sovereignty over a territory and not some timeline of events, Cholan Lanka would be appropriate. The conflicting editors who I sense have tried to drag the discussion all long without a meaningful purpose/agenda, again must understand period goes for mostly list-class articles on Wikipedia(again the naming convention guidelines) and both the Cholas(and the Dutch) were an empire and not events. And I find the Dutch period in Ceylon is a vary rare exception among other titles of imperial empires.

Again, it must be understood that these editors are not only disputing just the title, but as Blackknight12 hints, the nature of what Cholan Lanka was: rule vs occupation. So far to avoid the real confrontation, they have used the term 'Lanka' as another pretext to generate chaos. So what is probably going to happen next would be 'accepting' the change the title, and re-inserting terms to suit their prerogative from the extreme 'Occupation of Lanka' to the absurd 'Conquest' to undo the factual reality of the article. Regards--CuCl2 (chat spy acquaint) 17:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Sri) Lanka vs Anuradhapura /Rajarata/northern Lanka and Rule vs occupation/conquest facts[edit]

As JJ correctly said this dispute is due to two different opinions both then and now. Both Rajendra (Chola King/emperor) and Muventa Velar (Chola general) claimed their conquest of Sri Lanka was completed. As a result, both contemporary sources and some of the current day secondary sources based on these information state that Cholas made the whole island a Chola province with a well administered rule. However the situation in Sri Lanka based on both literary sources and epigraphical sources paints a different picture. Cholas failed to effectively subjugate Ruhuna, Central highlands (Malaya rata/Malaya Deshaya) and Mayarata. Importantly their presence was continuously challenged with rebellions in Rajarata and attacks from South. Additionally they didn't have an effective "administration" as depicted in Chola sources.

What is the objective?

To identify the best title to describe the situation in Sri Lanka during the 1017 to 1070?

Territories

Lanka was the name of the island. Anuradhapura was the kingdom. King of Anuradhapura had direct control over Rajarata. Maya (also known as dakkhinadesa) and Ruhuna kingdoms were ruled by royal family members (usually brothers of the king) and accepted the sovereignty of the Anuradhapura king. So, king of anuradhapura used the title Lankesvara to indicate their sovereignty over the island. Towards the end of the 1st millennium CE, King of Anuradhapura lost his control over Ruhuna and we see Ruhuna emerging as an independent kingdom. Malaya rata is the central highland; it was a geographical area rather than an administrative division.

Important maps. [1] [2]

(Sri) Lanka vs Anuradhapura /Rajarata/northern Lanka[edit]

Facts

Did they really capture the whole island?

According to George W Spencer; [3] available here as a free online paper. This paper was written by George W Spencer, then associate professor of south Asian history at northern Ilinois University. It’s a rare case study where the author analyzes both Indian and Sri Lankan sources.


According to Indrapala


According to K M de Silva They captured Ruhuna but soon slipped out of their control. [4]

What was the territory under Cholas?



Spencer also mentions that Vijayabahu used both Rohana and Dakkhinadesa (Mayarata) as a fallback position confirming that they were not under Chola control.

“Northern portion of the island of sri lanka” [5]

Considering all these sources I feel incorporating Lanka to the title is misleading as they didn’t subjugated the whole island and their territory was limited to northern part of the island. So I would to like to suggest either northern Lanka or Rajarata as per Spencer . Sri Lanka is the name of the current day country and it is factually wrong to use it in the title.

Rule vs occupation/ conquest[edit]

In my view the best word that describes the situation is occupation. But as we discussed before considering, neutrality of the title I would like to go with ″conquest″. If the Chola presence was accepted by the inhabitants like when happened during Elara or with Portuguese and Dutch. I would have go for the word ″rule″. But when evidence clearly indicates otherwise I cannot make myself agree to a misleading title.

Thanks.

Nishadhi (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to prove people didn't accepted the rule. Simply people stayed in the Rajarata unlike what we saw in 1215.

Anyway wikipedia is not a reliable source.

In lot of history documents when one party invading other it is not considered as occupation. Occupation is moving to somewhere. It is like moving the capital. Gengis khan and his son occupied in the northern china.

But most of the historical records shows when king isn't moved, invasion are effort of expansion. Roman empire, Mongolian empire, Persian empire didn't occupied in every where. They just ruled from the capital.

WP is the whole place where historians become jokers and jokers become historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.230.2 (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. This conversation isn't really going anywhere after 19 days of listing. The proposed title clearly doesn't have enough support to go through, so closing as no consensus. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Chola rule in Sri Lanka → Cholan Lanka – Following on from previous move discussion, I propose that the article be renamed as Cholan Lanka for the reasons already above. Relisted. BDD (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC) obi2canibetalk contr 13:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reasons already stated before. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I mentioned above, we see Chola period as an occupation. I don’t expect you to agree with me as long as you appreciate that there are two different views. (At least please read Spencer’s article – why do I get the feeling that nobody reads my facts sections). In this context "Chola period in Lanka" will provide a more neutral and more accurate title. (I thought we were trying to avoid conflict terms)

In the earlier discussion I saw several suggestions to change "Dutch period in Ceylon" to "Dutch Ceylon". I don’t see the rationale here as Dutch Ceylon is neither accurate (Dutch didn't begin a new settlement here and they didn't govern the whole island so it’s not accurate) nor neutral. If the only argument in favor is that, there are other articles with the same title, then we have to be careful because such arguments can fuel a Pluralistic ignorance and we are moving from a better title to a worse one. If one thinks that the article title should be about the "administration" rather than the "period", then the correct title is "Dutch Governorate in Ceylon". Same goes for the Portuguese. Accordingly Chola period would be "Mummudi Chola Mandalam in Lanka". Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have tried to understand the reasoning but simply referring to past discussion didn't make the intent at all clear. That being said, I oppose for a number of reasons: 1. There is absolutely no reliable source usage of the term Cholan Lanka[6] 2. Far as I can tell the commmon name is something along the lines of "Chola Conquest of Sri Lanka", "Chola rule of Sri Lanka" or titles of a similar variety, so the current title seems appropriate. 3. "Lanka" is more closely associated with the Hindu Mythology than as a common name for the island, thus there are clear ambiguity issues that does not reference the island as Sri Lanka.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lanka is the correct and historic name for the island, on the island as well as on the mainland; the 'Sri' is a recently added honorific, used partly because it is attractive to nationalists (cf. the equally redundant 'Great' in 'Great Britain'). Imc (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may indeed be correct but it doesn't change the fact that Lanka points to the mythology, that there is no source demonstration that than "Lanka" is most associated as the island's name (for the subject period or otherwise).--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current title is a bit anachronistic seeing as Sri Lanka has existed only since 1972 and the Chola period was a millennium ago. —  AjaxSmack  04:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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.[edit]

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) 09:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read the book again, spencer clearly mentions Cholas never consolidate(strengthen) their control over southern Ceylon which means they had the control of southern ceylon and did not strengthen their control over southern Ceylon. During the time of Raja Raja Cola, Mahinda V ruled the Rohana. Spencer clearly mentions in his book that "in 1017 Chola raids were launched southward from Rajarattha into Rohana. By his fifth year, Rajendra claimed to have completely conquered Ceylon", as we know Mahinda V was taken into India in 1017. His son Kassapa VI became the king of Rohana in 1029 . During these 12 years chola ruled the Rohana as there were nobody to rule the Rohana. More over visit Britannica website, lakdiva.org etc.., Ranithraja s (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I buy your argument. The Chola did not rule Rohana. They just had influence. Not having a proper Sinhalese king does not equate to Chola's rule. But I am a bit busy right now, so does not have time to read more and have a detailed discussion. I will make no edits until a consensus is reached.
However, I would think there is a serious need to rewrite most pages related to both Sri Lankan history, and Cholas'. They are poorly written and not very readable if you are not familiar with the subject already. I started with Raja Raja, Anuradpura, and some other pages and spent days making them appealing and readable. But I don't have time, and you seem to be interested in the topics. I am sure you have your own plans, but I just thought to let you know something that needs attention. You might find that interesting until we come back to this discussion.Lipwe (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Article[edit]

This article is titled "Chola conquest of Anuradhapura"

However, this article mentions 3 separate conflicts.

  1. Chola conquest of Anuradhapura in 993
  2. Chola conquest of Ruhuna in 1017
  3. Sinhalese revolt of 1070


These are 3 separate conflicts, therefore 3 separate articles should be written for each one.


SKAG123 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Epigraphia Carnatica, Volume 10, Part 1, page 32 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chola_conquest_of_Anuradhapura&oldid=1206673090"