Talk:List of Indian monarchs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Keeping the king lists real

I totally agree with you. It's like a curse with the Indian history pages in general, specifically south Indian dynasties. Some writers tend to exagerate the antiquity of the Tamil dynasties, even going to the absurd lengths of claiming an unbroken list dating back to c 9000 B.C.E!! See Pandya

I have restricted myself to writing NPOV articles on Cholas. I have therefore modified the list of Cholas to keep within reality.

parthi 02:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Vijayanarar Dynasty

For any one working on the Vijayanagar Dynasty of south India. I've up loaded two photographs of the dynasty tree. The was made by the archeological department at a site in Hampi. May be of help to people who are enthu on expanding the so called 'king list' Pratheepps 10:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bahmanids

Why are the Bahmanids not in the side box? Surely they're important enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.146.90 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Big copyediting

Hi! After 69 editions I think I finally fixed the format of this article. It was a mess. I also enforced chronological order. Now we should work on referencing it and checking the lists themselves, which sometimes differ from those in the main articles on each dynasty. --Againme (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Monarchs

-This list is pretty interesting. Only thing is: A lot of it comes from folklore and mythology. Perhaps the list should begin with fact-based dynasties rather than dynasties, whose existence we can only trust based on scripture or who may be combinations of several real people. I am really pleased with the acknowledgement of the Achaemenid and Indo-Greek rulers. -[[Afghan Historian 01:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)]] -I am not pleased with Persian dynasty and seleuid dynasty their empire boundries never crossed hindukush. It was only Alexander who empire stretch across hindukush and after his death Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta Maurya ruled indian parts of Alexandrian empire not selucus nector added by YashShah008 (talk • 13:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Shakyas

Should the Shakyas be listed here? I think it's doubtful whether their position in society should really be described as monarch. Right now, we're listing three such monarchs for the same time period. Also, if the Shakyas are listed, should they be under Magadhan emperors? - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Shakya dynasty ruled Kingdom of Kapilavastu present day Nepal not magadh and was a Kshatriya Hindu dynasty.So no they should be listed as seperate Indian monarch and not under Magadh . — Preceding unsigned comment added by YashShah008 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Large-scale section blanking

For the past four days, large sections have been removed from the article, mostly without comment. Now that editing on this article has gone quiet for the day (about midnight DST), I'd like to understand these edits better. At the moment (current diff), removed monarchs include all of the foreign emperors in North-Western India (c. 538 BC – 750 AD), the Hellenistic kings, and all of the British Raj monarchs. I can't see a good reason why these should be removed: for completeness, the article should include foreign imperial monarchs, regardless of whether or not they ruled the country legitimately. I 've stopped reverting the blanking for now per WP:3RR, as the editor doing the removal is relatively new to Wikipedia, and seems to be acting in good faith. Dai Pritchard (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Dai Pritchard, I absolutely agree with your position. In my opinion, the removal of foreign imperial monarchs is totally irrational - all of them (Persian kings, Hellenistic kings, British Raj monarchs) ruled over vast portions of India, or in some cases (like the British) ruled over the entire subcontinent. We shouldn't speak about whether they ruled over India legitimately or not - their rule is a historical fact, and it must be noted in this list. As for the editor - being relatively new to Wikipedia, and seeming to be acting in good faith, can't be excuses for section blanking which, honestly, looks almost like vandalism. --Sundostund (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

May be he feels because the name says Indian , the foreign names are really not "Indian" enough to digest for him !, so lets rewrite history ! Shrikanthv (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is also there exists no references, this will cuase some editwars in due time Shrikanthv (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not pleased with Persian dynasty and seleuid dynasty their empire boundries never crossed hindukush. It was only Alexander who empire stretch across hindukush and after his death Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta Maurya ruled indian parts of Alexandrian empire not selucus nector so plz check so don't make them indian monarch without proper proof .YashShah008 (talk 13:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@YashShah008: There are several problems with the way you are operating.

• In the first place, you are not putting edit summaries. So we have no idea what you are doing and why, except that you have deleted large portions of the page that have been here for a long time.
• When there are contentious changes, you should always raise them here on the talk page first, and get feedback from other involved editors before you make those changes.
• Barring that, once your change has been reverted at least once, you should be coming here and discussing the issues before you make the same changes again and again.
• Finally, you should note that when we speak "India" in the historic sense, we mean the entire Indian subcontinent. See the History of India page. So, even if these "foreign rulers" were in control of Baluchistan, Sindh, West Punjab etc., they would be listed here.

So, please open a separate section here for each contentious issue that you would like to raise, and tell us your rationale. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

To @Dai Pritchard: and @Shrikanthv:, as well as others concerned: As you can see, I've stopped reverting as per WP:3RR, and it will remain so. I have no intention to get blocked over this nonsense. I hope you two (as well as other users) will have some idea what to do with this editor and his irrational removal and adding of material to this article. I can only say - good luck, you'll need it! --Sundostund (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, see also what's going on at Lists of rulers of India. --Sundostund (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand @YashShah008: why did you remove timur ? , is not delhi part of India. I do not know if you have any personnal hatridisim, & how you view history does not apply to world, as per above, would suggest to discuss here before single handedly conquering India Shrikanthv (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I didnot remove timur I only removed Persian and seleuid dynasties — Preceding unsigned comment added by YashShah008 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you didn't remove the part about Timur: an administrator removed it in this edit, as part of a rollback of all edits to before the edit war started on the article. It's a shame that this rollback was required, when a simple discussion here could have resolved the disagreement amicably. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me know where and I'll add Timur to the list. --regentspark (comment) 14:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks RegentsPark. My understanding is that these sections about the Timurid and Rajput monarchs were uncontroversial additions, though as noted above some parts need referencing. Would all editors here agree with that assertion? Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Timurid section needs some improving. It does state that Timur conquered parts of India in 1398, but instead of years of his reign (as is the case in most other sections), we have years of his lifetime - 1320-1405, so it should be corrected in some way... As for the Rajput section, at first I also considered it as uncontroversial, but I'm definitely not so sure about it anymore. Not only some parts of that section lacks references, but it looks very overstretched, unnecessary big and unsystematic to me when I look at it (like its just a big pile of data). If we put it back in the article, it must go through a huge cleanup. --Sundostund (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Indian monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090119095422/http://paradoxplace.com/Insights/Civilizations/Mughals/Mughals.htm to http://www.paradoxplace.com/Insights/Civilizations/Mughals/Mughals.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Not accurate and based on fictional mythology

This article seems to be based on fictional mythological characters from puranas and vedas. Provide sources from non mythical and archaeological sources and update the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtheetla (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

BCE/CE - BC/AD

Shouldn't the dates on this page and this entire Project use the BCE/CE format? yes I agree

Shouldn't you use the more accepted B.C.E instead of B.C and C.E instead of A.D? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.167.97 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 9 July 2014

Nope, per WP:ERA this edit and the decades of edits after it established the usage of this page as BC and AD and it shouldn't've been changed without a new consensus. I don't feel like getting into any edit wars at the moment, but it should be restored and can be by any interested editor.

Personally, put me down for continuing BC/AD. A common era would be dated from an event common to humanity, like dating from the moon landing in 1969 or the Curse of Greyface in 1166 BC. If you're dating from the miscalculated birth of Christ, just say that. — LlywelynII 01:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Legendary dynasties

Obviously we don't need to spend a lot of time on it but this article should definitely have at least some mention and link to the legendary Solar and Lunar Dynasties that supposedly conquered the world and established Indian civilization and its kingdoms. It's important to Hinduism and India's own ideas about its prehistory, even if it's clearly ahistorical in its received form.

From the comments above, they used to be here. Someone kindly restore at least mention and a link, if not the full canonical list to the extent one exists. — LlywelynII 01:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)