Talk:Pallava dynasty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

fact check

• Last pallava king Nripathungan ruled from 869. --Vyzasatya 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• From this reference

The Mamallapuram Prasasti: A Panegyric in Figures Michael D. Rabe Artibus Asiae, Vol. 57, No. 3/4. (1997), pp. 189-241. Narasimhavarman III's rule ended 869. Make changes Accordingly.

Noticed lot of discripancies in the kings timelines. Whoever wrote the original timeline please cite the source so that it can be verified --Vyzasatya 22:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• The middle pallava succession given here seems to be proposed by T.V.Mahalingam in Kañcipuram in early South Indian history. Another two succession lines are given by different historians

--Vyzasatya 23:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• We need reference from an authoritative source for the following view:

Lajwantsingh1965

Second view is that they were an offshoot from the Cholas. It is claimed that the Pallavas were a lineage of the Chola kings who went on a maritime journey and begot a child who formed a seperate branch (Pallavam,meaning bud in Sanskrit).

Qualify the people making the quotes

The people quoted in the origins section are not given qualifications. Who are these people? What are their qualifications to make these statements? Where do they teach; what do they do? These need to be included. Also, the last quote is not sperated from the rest of the text with italics so it's impossible to tell where the quote ends. Can an expert fix this?--Lendorien 18:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Influence abroad

Pallavas were instrumental in spreading Vedic culture to South East Asia and had cordial relationship with Sri Lankan kings thus influencing their architecture and other cultural aspects. Cambodian kings claimed origin from a Pallava era Brahmin immigrant from Kanchipuram? Anyway someone should check this out and add it to this articleRaveenS 20:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. A good book to look into would be The Pallavas of Kanchi. I have read in several books that the first king of Cambodia was Kaundiniya I. There was also a Kaundiniya who ruled parts of Malaya and Inonesia. Wiki Raja 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pallava monarch Narasimhavarman helped the Sri Lankan prince Manavanma to regain his throne from his uncle, Manavanma was also said to have participated in the Vatapi campaign on Narasimhavarman's side.

Ref: Narasimhavarman, Mayilai.Seeni.Venkatasami (Tamil) Simha_NV 08:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag/Emblem?

Why is that the flags or emblems of Pallava's is not mentioned in this aritcle? All the South Indian dynasties had a flag/emblem of their own, Pallavas had Rishaba (the bull), which was later changed in to Simma (the lion) by Narasimhavarman to mark his victory over the Chalukyas at Vatabi (i am not sure of this fact, please check!) -Simha_NV 08:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Dravidian civilizations

Wiki Raja 09:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Indian Kingdoms and Borders, 600 AD

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/india_parthian_colony1.php

Unknown map source, India in 600 AD

I have 2 different source maps for the borders of India, circa 600 AD, and they both show major differences. The first map's source is listed, I don't remember my source for the 2nd map. Also, looking at the www.WorldHistory.com map of India in 586 AD, it is also different from these 2 maps. Which of these maps shows the correct borders for India in 600 AD? Thomas Lessman (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed POV Template

Removed POV template showing the kingdoms of Northern India as Empires, and kingdoms of Southern India as dynasties. No evidence as to whether all Northern kingdoms were Empires, while all Southern kingdoms were dynasties. Ashoka kingdom of Northern India is an Empire since it has controlled everything in South Asia outside its boundaries accept for Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Sri Lanka. While the Cholas of Southern India is also an Empire stretching from South India to Sri Lanka, Maldives, Malaysia, Sumatra, and Java with its Navies. "Middle Kingdoms of India" template shows only bias towards Indo-Aryan kingdoms, and also making it seem that the Indian Union existed for thousands of years. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Karunakara Thondaiman or Karunakara Pallavarayar

Guys,

I feel the Pallava section is incomplete without the mention of Karunakara Thondaiman. Why dont we include a section on the pallava chieftains who continued as vassals under Chola reign. One great example is Karunakara Thondaiman or Karunara Pallavarayar. He was a general under Kulothunga chola I and Vikrama chola and the great "Kalingathu Parani" was sung in his praise. I can provide with inscription/literature evidences etc. We might link it to the "Karunakar Thondaiman" article in the wikipedia.

Regards Kalingarayar (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

=

Official Language of Pallava

Why Tamil is stated next to telugu?The lineage of Pallava strictly need to be recorrected!!!!!!!.--Tan Meifen (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Alleged misrepresentation

An allegation of misrepresentation of sources has been made. Please could this be discussed here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the user is gonna respond. Am reverting article and leaving him a message. Hope he will respond then. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Thank you for the constructive request Sitush and for assuming good faith. The article is currently being expanded, and more reliable sources will be added. Others are welcome to contribute, however in future, I would appreciate if users did not remove all of the text without reason or discussion... Lifebonzza (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, until Lifebonzza provides reliable sources for his claims, what do we do with the article? I suggest reverting it to its older state until he provides references (btw, Lifebonzza deleted referenced material and inserted his unreferenced claims). --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

The burden is on the person who makes statements in articles to ensure that they are verifiable. If those statements are challenged etc then they should probably be removed pending discussion and/or provision of reliable sources. I am quite strict on this: if it is not referenced then it should not be here. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, however adding citation tags as an interim step while reliable sources are added to the verifiable information would be much preferred to removing everything wholesale while an article is being expanded. Lifebonzza (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not if it is challenged. You really need to do things in the correct order. That is, find your sources and then add the statements with citations. It looks like this has been going on for at least a fortnight and that is more than long enough. What happens if you drop dead tomorrow? (I hope you don't, obviously, but we'd be left with your assertions and nothing to support them). - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The information is verifiable. I don't believe one edit reverting all my edits on here was done on the pretext that it was all challengable and unverifiable. Lifebonzza (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I suggest as a compromise that you remove all unsourced statements for now and add them back when you have sorted out citations etc. Then we can look at the stuff which is sourced and contested. I know nothing about this dynasty and so will be approaching the issue with fresh eyes. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, i put back referenced material. Also added some new referenced content. If Lifebonzza wants to add in his stuff, he is welcome to do so with references. Was not able to check veracity of all statements so left it with "citation needed". Lifebonzza provided two references in the entire article from his end. One is "The Handbook of Tamil Culture and Heritage" and another is a URL from chestofbooks.com. Have retained sentences attributed to both the references. Just letting you know. I may not be able to follow this up. Hope you keep an eye on this article. Also suggest someone moves major portions of 'Origins', and the 'Chronology of Pallavas' from here to the article Origin of Pallava. Thanks. Bye.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Origin of Pallava

Recently pallavas are stated as telugu power,it doesnt matter if they are telugu or tamil but why the prove that is found in tamil literature is denied by stating pallavas as a telugu power based on only inscription rather than a written account that is found on the tamil sites.Other than that,we all know that pallavas had made a lot of contributions to tamil language,they created pallava grantha to write sanskrit rather than using tamil script,an effort to protect the tamil language from the influence of sanskrit.Why this pallavas(stated as telugu power) are so bothered to do all these things for tamil?Other than that famous pallava king Mahendravarman 1 are known as father of tamil script, inventing cotemporary tamil script.If This pallavas are telugu why there are so bothered to contribute to tamil languague rather than telugu language.There are no effort like this made on the telugu language.As known the pallavas are patronizer of sanskrit,(an influence from satavahanas),but there were also major tamil literature works were formed.Is there any telugu literature works formed under patronization of these pallavas.As stated by somebody the pallavas cant be something in between telugu or tamil because tamil is not an medieval language as telugu.In my opinion I strongly believe that pallavas are tamil.Some effort are made in comparing pallavs with central asian dynasty which is only an idea(cant be said as hypothesis)from historians — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan Meifen (talk • contribs) 07:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Why should a non-tamil not promote Tamil? Kings everywhere left inscriptions in the native regional language. Vijayanagar kings left inscriptions in tamil regions in tamil language. Some Maratha kings wrote in chaste Telugu. Maybe they liked the language or maybe it was just strategy to endear them to native speakers. So what? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Is these reasons to further manipulate the origins of Pallava?--Tan Meifen (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Making unreferenced claims to suit one's own origin theory/imagination is called manipulation, which the likes of Lifebonzza have done here. Instead of protesting on talk page, feel free to do your research and provide referenced inputs to the article.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Some of the sources like this [1] are miscontrued to state Telugu origin, while they are used to denote a Telugu lineage after 12-13th centuries. The section needs a rewrite.

Ssriram mt (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)ssriram_mt

After 12-13th centuries you say. Please provide references for your claims. Cholas, Cheras and Pandyas formed the Sangam trio. Pallavas are not mentioned in Chola Nadu, Pandya Nadu and Chera Nadu. Pallavas fought against Cholas to establish their rule in Tamil regions. Sufficient references are provided in the article itself. Just becoz Manimekalai posits Ilamtiriyan as the son of a Chola does not mean it is a historically acceptable fact, especially when there are copper plates stating otherwise. Manimekalai and sangam compositions are poets' imaginations inspired by what they see -- does not mean they have to be historically correct. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Both literature and inscriptions were sources of current scholars to explain the past which has same priority.Commenting about accuracy of Tamil literature based on your own imagination is completely irrelevant.If the sources overlap,just add everything with reference,whats the harm in doing so? It is noted the Pallavas was post or late Sangam age dynasty who occupied Thondai Nadu which nothing to do with Chera,Chola or Pandya Nadu and were mentioned in Sangam literature as rulers of Tamilakam,maybe not as early as the the Three Crowned Kings maybe because of their presence in late Sangam age.Pandya and Cheras were pre-Sangam dynasties.--Tan Meifen (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Pallavas were mentioned in select Sangam literature (ahanuru, manimekalai and perumbanarrupatai) -- have already mentioned so in the article. If there are other sangam period works mentioning the pallavas, please mention so in the article (with references). As for the rest of your claims, feel free to provide references or it would be called your own imagination.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Pallava used Sanskrit and prakrit.very few Tamil clan lived under them.they have used Granta scipt.pallava king used Varma title.only Kshatriya using Varma title all over india.and there is no Kshatriya clan in Tamil caste.only Andra Kshatriya Raju still using Varma title.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wnInXtrPzwk&feature=youtu.be (06-30 to 7-30) (15.50 to 17.30)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UD8BDHkB6lE&feature=youtu.be (7.15 - 9.00)

Culture

How come there is nothing written about the culture during the Pallavas' reign? --Madhu 12:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you write something?

Parthi (Venu62) 21:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I would if I have any information and references on that. --Madhu 14:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pallavas are telugus or tamils?or something "inbetween?can somebody clarify this?bhotiporrulu scriptsare much older then pallavas right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnaidu (talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not correct to assume they must have been Telugus. We only know they moved from current Telugu regions into Tamil lands. True they were ruling in Telugu regions before the Tamil regions. Historian KR Subramaniam says they were a telugu power. But perhaps that is only indicative they were from Telugu lands. Their mother tongue cud have been anything. They could have come from anywhere. In telugu regions they left stuff in Telugu and in Tamil regions they left stuff in Tamil. That is what all rulers did. Maybe they nativized in Telugu areas before moving into Tamil lands. That is a strong possibility considering they nativized in Tamil regions as well. If so many southern cheiftains ganged up to resist incoming Pallavas they must have originally come from elsewhere, not necessarily Southern India, and must have been a powerful foe. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Ya,maybe the Pallavas move from current Telugu country,but we cant be sure to what extend were the Telugu or Tamil countries in those medieval period as the homeland of Pallavas stretches from Nelloor,AP to the whole of Northern TN--Tan Meifen (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You cud do some research and provide the extent of Pallava territories, apart from the ones mentioned in this article. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

what is the evidence that pallavas used tamil in andra region? the article mention tamil and sanskrit in the main box...but mentioned they used prakrit in fine print. where is the evidence they used tamil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnaidu (talk • contribs) 03:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Kadava

Noboru Karashima is being misrepresented by a bunch of caste pov-pushers who are engaging in a form of sanskritisation. Karashima is using the term vanniyar in its medieval regional sense of warrior; the pov-pushers, who are of the Vanniyar community, are attempting to conflate the two, conveniently ignoring the pseudo-history that their community has been establishing since the British Raj era, when they were known as Palli rather than Vanniyar.

Theirs is a complex piece of synthesis but Karashima himself has said on several occasions (one of the more accessible is p. 15 here) that connecting the ancient names to modern communities is a very dodgy thing to do. - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Pallava have mentioned themselves as belonging to Bharadwaja gothra.

Pallava have mentioned themselves as belonging to Bharadwaja gothra. Is this information ok to add in article. Expectng fedback from users. Proof provided below

https://books.google.com/books?id=78I5lDHU2jQC&pg=PA115&dq=Gothra+South+India&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1CSgVdTzHtK4ogTN8oKoAQ&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Gothra%20South%20India&f=false Some Early Dynasties of South India By Sudhakar Chattopadhyaya

https://books.google.com/books?id=qXcwAQAAIAAJ&q=pallava+bharadwaja+gotra&dq=pallava+bharadwaja+gotra&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XiagVZ_aCZS0oQSNoZjYBQ&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ Sarojini Chaturvedi Saṁskṛiti, Jan 1, 2006 - History - 262 pages

https://books.google.com/books?id=El9uAAAAMAAJ&q=pallava+bharadwaja+gotra&dq=pallava+bharadwaja+gotra&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XiagVZ_aCZS0oQSNoZjYBQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA P. P. Nārāyanan Nambūdiri Inter-India Publications, Jan 1, 1992 - India, South - 259 pages

https://books.google.com/books?id=HTluAAAAMAAJ&q=pallava+bharadwaja+gotra&dq=pallava+bharadwaja+gotra&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XiagVZ_aCZS0oQSNoZjYBQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBg History and culture of the Andhras Telugu University, 1995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desty cn (talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Parthians

@Ssriram mt: There was already discussion about this year ago regrading Persian & Parthian origins, sources were moved to appropriate sentence regrading interpretations of similar sounding names. We have kept ancient texts as primary sources for a reason, while Tamil, Telugu and other Northern origins theories are also discussed below, please read the entire section as to why the source was moved to appropriate section. 117.192.202.89 (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Origin

There are many conjenctures which strongly point towards Pahlava/Kambhoja origin of Pallavas. 1. Palnadu (roughly present day Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh) was the seat of Satavahanas under whom Pallavas were vassals and who became independent later. 'Palnadu' can be traced to 'Pallava Nadu'. 2. The same region was known as Kammanadu since 3rd century CE. The origin of the name can be traced to Kambhojas akin to Pallavas who ruled the region. 3. The Pallava-Cambodian connection can be traced to the name Kambhoja and Khmer (Kammavar, a caste that is still predominant in Palnadu/Kammanadu region). 4. The language spoken by ancient Pallavas was Tenugu/Telungu/Telugu. 5. Many Puranic evidences spoke of Kambhoja settlements in South India (E.g Garuda Purana). 6. A popular anthology of stories in Telugu language "Kambhoja Raju Kathalu" (Stories of Kambhoja king).

Origin of Pallava is highly misleading. Somebody is trying to promote their propoganda of glorifying the legacy of Persian or Central Asian culture. I mean somebody is trying to force the opinion that Pallavas and Chalukyas are of Central Asian origin, which similar to the attempt of connecting Shakyamuni (Buddha) to Saka origin, based on pseudo-historic references. Such arguments are a disgrace to Wikipedia.

Regarding pallava origin The pallavas are ancient race who descended from aswattaman of mahabharatha and who ultimately went on to become the crowned kings of kanchi. Several pallava princes have founded kingdoms and ruled in south east asia,like in funan. All pallava literature agree with this.associating them to deccan states, their natural enemies is pure non-sense and an attempt to manipulate info.

Pallavas

Is the Pallavas Telugu speaking or Tamil?OR are they speaking some form ancient Dravidian language which give rise to both languages?The wikipedia states official language as Tamil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshnaidu (talk • contribs) 15:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Dance forms on the beaches of mahabalipuram pay respect to the kings of the pallava dynasty

You state too many baseless claims. Just because a region was called Palnadu and later called Kammanadu does not mean anything (btw, check out in tamil what Kammanati means). --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Pallava used Sanskrit and Prakrit and Granta script. All pallava kings ending with Varma. only Kshatriya using Varma title all over India and still only Andra Kshatriya Raju using Varma. Below are few examples. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wnInXtrPzwk&feature=youtu.be (06-30 to 7-30) (15.50 to 17.30)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UD8BDHkB6lE&feature=youtu.be (7.15 - 9.00) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth 4321 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Pallava official languages

Early Pallavas used sanskrit and prakrit as their offical languages.

https://books.google.com/books?id=0UCh7r2TjQIC&pg=PA63&dq=Pallava+prakrit&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5xSjVb_rDoXSoATpj5qwCA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Pallava%20prakrit&f=false

By Sheldon Pollock

University of california

https://books.google.com/books?id=NDrqaELkKTEC&pg=PA15&dq=Pallava+prakrit&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5xSjVb_rDoXSoATpj5qwCA&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Pallava%20prakrit&f=false

By Madhav Deshpande  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitha rani111 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC) 

I have removed all of the language claims for now. I can well believe that the official written languages were Sanskrit/Prakrit and it looks like you have found good sources for that. Nonetheless, there has been a lot of recent edit warring over that parameter in the infobox, so I thought it best to blank it and try to get consensus here. We can then add the relevant languages with the sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Early pallava used Sanskrit and Prakrit. example. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wnInXtrPzwk&feature=youtu.be (06-30 to 7-30) (15.50 to 17.30)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UD8BDHkB6lE&feature=youtu.be (7.15 - 9.00) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth 4321 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Pallava doubts

• Pallavas were decent of chola and nagas, according to manimekalai. illanthirayan of kanchi in sangam period was first Pallava king. Chola's northern expand, pushed pallavas into satavahana territory , so pallavas adopt the Sanskrit prakrit languages. After satavahana decline, pallavas declared independence.
• Telugu Born out of mixture of kammanadu tamil dialect and Sanskrit during salangayana period in 3rd century AD, so satavahanas and pallavas don't speak Telugu.
• Due to bramin domination in king's courts and rituals and treating bramin as high caste most of kings told that they were also decent of some bramin sage. eg: salangayanas- vashista gotra. Pallavas - barathvaja gotra. Ananda gotra.
• Pallavas branch ruled in Cambodia in 6th & 7th century by keeping martial alliance with Chenla lineage (cambodia).

சதீஸ் (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Kshatriya of Andra still using Gotham. It's not Brahmin if someone using gothram. All pallava king named as Varma. From Rajasthan to Kerala, only kshatriya using varma.and they spoke Sanskrit with themselves. Only last 50 years of pallava, Tamil inscription available.and Brahmin were not giving higher importance, they participate in court like other caste.

Sathavahana are also south India kshatriya. Surya vamsa and Chandra vamsam is division present only in kshatriya.still in Andra region, kshatriya using this division. Sathavahana belongs to Surya vamsa kshatriya raja. Sathavahana - saptha vahana -> chariot of 7 horses is Surya bagavan. They were belong to Surya vamsa kshatriya. Telugu and Sanskrit are language used in pallava. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M 123 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Varman

In this whole page, all king names are mentioned as varman , to show that they belong to Tamil origin. It should be changed to Varma. Varma is caste name. And it's a Sanskrit word. There is no word called "Varma" in Tamil. Martial arts used by Varma are called Varma kala.. even "kala" is a Sanskrit word . M 123 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Bharadwaja gotra

The early Pallavas claimed Brahmin Bharadwaja gotra , would like to add this , please discuss

https://books.google.com/books?id=CNFqCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT243&dq=Pallava+bharadwaja+gothra&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixyLqIra3gAhVjIjQIHeXCALUQ6AEIUzAI#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=El9uAAAAMAAJ&q=Pallava+Bharadwaja&dq=Pallava+Bharadwaja&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjiyZalrq3gAhWgCTQIHVetDX4Q6AEIPjAE

https://books.google.com/books?id=wnVuAAAAMAAJ&q=Pallava+Bharadwaja&dq=Pallava+Bharadwaja&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjiyZalrq3gAhWgCTQIHVetDX4Q6AEIWDAJ

Sangitha rani111 (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2019

add only common/administrative language 2405:204:7000:D72B:F907:2629:AB52:C89A (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC) 2405:204:7000:D72B:F907:2629:AB52:C89A (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2019 (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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Origins section

Destroyer27, please note that all edits to Wikipedia are subject editor consensus. So this kinds of edit summaries are not helpful. When an edit is reverted, WP:BRD recommends that you discuss the issues here.

Personally, I think the Origins section is too big already, and too meandering to keep the interest of the reader. It needs to be summarised much more succinctly, and without so many twists. If there is sufficient material, I would recommend creating a separate article for the origins. See Origin of the Gurjara-Pratiharas for an example. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are sections bigger than that on the page. Moreover, it's not just that the content I have added is relevant, but also that there is more emphasis on the theory of the dynasty's Andhra origin. I only have added 3 paragraphs, so I seriously wonder why is there such a ruckus about it. But anyway, I completely understand your point. Do consider my edits though. I have added more citations now. Since I am a new user I am unable properly affix citations. Could you please help me?

Thanks.

Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Reset the discussion. Abecedare (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Abecedare:, and @Kautilya3: Here's a response to the "valid" concerns raised by LovSLif (talk · contribs) on Abecedare (talk · contribs)'s in quotes: "Well, let me explain from my perspective over this. First of all, there were numerous theories about the origin of pallavas." Right, that's what I have been saying. "1. Each one has to be in accordance with valid ref or epigraphical evidences." Your opinion. It doesn't need to be. If you think that epigraphs are more reliable than literature then that's your POV. Duh! And I have cited several sources. So there's no dearth of references. 2. "To presented in non redundant way. Well, here what has been written by the user was a repetitive content across 2-3 paragraphs laying high emphasis on single source and mythological theory" Well, it wasn't repetitive. I had rearranged the content in a chronological order and deleted repetitions, but Mathglot had deleted my edits, leading to further repetitions, which probably had baffled you. If you'd gone through all the edits, you'd have known that. Probably the language was just too informal for you to comprehend. Furthermore, you have been laying emphasis just on one inscription, and also the entire section lays emphasis only on one particular theory of the dynasty's ethnic origin. "it says Manimekalam which is a poetic composition trace origin of pallavas to chola prince. In the same paragraph it was stated that epigraphical information of velurpalyam plates prove it wrong and it is nothing to do with chola." Absolutely false, half-baked half-truth. The source states, and I quote, "A Sangam Period classic, Manimekalai attributes the origin of the first Pallava King from a liaison between the daughter of a Naga king of Manipallava named Pilli Valai (Pilivalai) with a Chola king, Killivalavan, out of which union was born a prince, who was lost in ship wreck and found with a twig (pallava) of Cephalandra Indica (Tondai) around his ankle and hence named Tondai-maan. Though Manimekalai posits Ilam Tiriyan as a Chola, not a Pallava, the Velurpalaiyam plates dated to 852, do not mention the Cholas. Instead, THEY CREDIT THE NAGA LIAISON EPISODE, and creation of the Pallava line, to a different Pallava king named Virakurcha, WHILE PRESERVING IT'S LEGITIMISING SIGNIFICANCE." Therefore, I said the epigraph "partly corroborates" the poem, which you describe as "mythological." Even epigraphs could be, in that case, mythological, or hyperbolic, or fallacious. For instance, some of the inscriptions on Gautamiputra Satakarani of the Satvahana dynasty have been found to be so. "So when we have epigraphical and other sources reliable content, mythological poem does not hold to be valid source." Again, your POV. You ought to dispense with your rather idiosyncratic notion that poems are merely based on a poet's chimera. That isn't true. By your logic, Thomas Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard can never be considered as an attestation of Richard West's death. Anyhow, to give you a germane example, the main source for the available information of the early Cholas is the early Tamil literature of the Sangam Period. And they did offer us certain glimpses of truth, for instance take, Karikala Chola, Kochchenganan, Perunarkilli, and so on. And the existence of these kings were corroborated by later inscriptions and literature. Now in this case, while Manimekalai's verses have been although only partly corroborated by the Velurpalaiyam inscription, it does not necessarily contradict (which the dictionary defines as "denial of the truth of (a statement) by asserting the opposite") Manimekalai. It just presents us another version of history. While that could seem like a Philadelphia lawyer's argument, it all the same, is true. "Also , paragraph 2 about velurpalyam grants was a shortned and core info. So I asked the user not post redundant content on a mythological poem which contradicts with epigraphical sources spanning across 2 big paragraphs. Hope nothing is wrong here and sounds well." Everything is wrong about this statement, and it sounds really awful, to be honest. A) It's "shortened." B) It's "Velurpalaiyam." (It could have been typo errors. It happens when one oftentimes uses "layman's terms." But they are errors. That's the point). C) Now turning to your argument, you hadn't removed any redundant info, but a piece of info that you just do not want on this page, for reasons I do not know, and retained only the info that you approve of. D) The existence of contradiction among certain primary sources does not necessitate by any regulation the exclusion of some. If you find the paragraphs too big, may be we can emend them concisely in a way that the paragraphs retain the core essence of the info. "spanning across 2 big paragraphs." Huh, as though it were 2 acres. "This new user has been indulging in such addition of content in order to highlight the content of his choice thus violating WP:NPOV." A baseless charge. Therefore, I think you haven't gone through the edits. I haven't been "highlighting the content of my choice." I hadn't used any highlighting tools. If you can accommodate the blocked quotation in one paragraph, I don't mind. But bear in mind, you've just claimed that the content isn't readable. And I hadn't removed or tweaked a single content that previously had existed, but had only added new ones, which destroys your claim that I have been "highlighting content only of my choice." In fact, I'd claim have been doing so by repeatedly removing my edits only for your as yet half-baked opinion that "it's redundant." As I said, the content that you claim to have retained only reflects one consistent narrative, which evidently suits your comfort. "Also the entire passage was self written WP:RSSELF clearly masking [WP:RS]] even I can notice news articles been newly cited today." A lie. It wasn't self-written at all, which again explains your ignorance about the subject, and also clearly shows that you haven't checked the citations. The sources I had cited contains those quotations, many of them even verbatim. There was a reason behind each citation I added. More of in-line citations lends more credence to the article. If the info is a literal quotation, without even a slight alteration, it would lead to copyright issues which "experienced users" like you (no pun intended) must know. "This user has been using highly informal language when I tried him explaining the things. He was not even signing his comments. Seems he is unaware of wiki NPOV and good faith norms and also seems poor at the subject. Please do the needful. Thanks!" Hmm. "You tried me explaining the things," is it? I see. No comment. Cheers!User:LovSLif Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Kautilya3 I am putting forward my points over here again. The content on Origin of pallavas is as per the valid ref and should be maintained readable format. The content Destroyer27 was saying some '3 paragraphs' which is too big to the section, redundant and biased with high emphasis on theory which was already proved myth. 1. Length wise , the content is big and core content is already retained in current version. 2. Data Destroyer27 is trying to add is completely redundant and same content spanned across 3 paragraphs and earlier same source was used more than thrice. 3. The content he is trying to add is from mythological poem which itself contradicts with epigraphical information in his own statements. '3 paragraphs explaining how Sangam literature incorrect and contradicts with Velurpalaiyam grants'? Mythological info can be present but when the same proved incorrect it need not be presented with high emphasis spanning 3 paragraphs explaining the same; when we have still better proven sources handy about their origin. 4. Also the content looks to be written with self research WP:RSSELF which overrides good faith and NPOV favoring the user and merely highlighting a poem. Recent studies and reasearch clearly prove the other theories and these also prove mythological content to be myth. In such scenario one cannot showcase highly across 3 paragraphs as if mythological theory to be the actual and thus downgrading the factual research. Also, the user is stating that the content shows 'Andhra origin'. That is not biased rather the references and all the attached sources both epigraphical and by research scholors holds true and it is the fact which sources speak not me. Well that is what I have to mention all about. I request all the new users like Destroyer27 to understand NPOV and not to disturb the readability and factual content of wikipedia with self research points. Thanks ! I request him to use formal language while putting his comments as he been using abusive kind of words against me. One such example on his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Destroyer27 Even prior to creating his own user page(I had to create one), this user has directly hit many articles to disturb the content even utilizing news articles in one such instance. Its upto the admin like you to decide whether to allow such edits on this article which may mislead the content & disturb readability or to stop such users from doing so. Please take valid action which you think is apt. Thanks! By LovSLif (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Rather than furnishing the same old arguments in your rather deplorable grammar, which I already have categorically refuted, why don't you address mine? ..."is stating that the content shows 'Andhra origin'. " Absolutely not. I said that only that seems to be the recurring theory in the article, of the multiple theories that exist. As you can see dear Abecedare, he hasn't been able to rebut a single argument of mine, and continues to poison the well with his standard ad hominem responses. He's been consistently, as is evident, making a propositional fallacy, namely, by affirming a disjunct. I can't invest anymore of my time on him. Please take a look at my arguments let me know if you find them convincing. Thanks much. Btw, I am not in favour of devoting 3 paragraphs to Manimekalai. I have not done that at all. It's just about 2 paragraphs, with one block quotation, each expounding upon the Pallavas relation to the Nagas, and to the Cholas, respectively. Clearly he hasn't parsed through the citations or even read my edits. From his above arguments, one can I think, Abecedare, probably suss out the parti pris nature of it. He decides that the theories that exist on the page are the best, most accurate, and unalterable, when confronted with another. All symptomatic of a deep-seated confirmation bias. Furthermore, one would agree that when it comes to history one is always in the ballpark. One cannot with absolute certitude make any claim or affirm a story to be gospel. Ergo, it's best to incorporate all existing validated versions of it as much concisely as one sees fit, but comprehensively. Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC) @Destroyer27: can you breakdown the changes/additions that you want into smaller pieces. Can you maybe start with 1 or 2 statements/quote the exact content that you want added along with sources? We can then discuss whether these changes are redundant or not. Nittawinoda (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Dear Abecedare , Nittawinoda and Kautilya3 Have a glance at the same old fashioned pose of Destroyer27 statements and his pretty foul english. Well, he himself unclear to what was he furnishing over here. Really humorous to hear. In very first of his statements on Admin page he said '3 paragraphs' later brought down to 2-3 and now he is stating to add '2 paragraphs'. At one instance on admin page of Abecedare he didn't even spare admin, kept blaming admin; stating he favoring me. What an irony! Well, look at the below phrasing of great Destroyer27. He writes --" "spanning across 2 big paragraphs." Huh, as though it were 2 acres." "-- Holy Jesus! I wonder if he really could meter the same in what he specified. This Destroyer27 has got pretty nil knowledge or wisdom (both) about the origin of pallavas and he is only firm on sticking his '3 paragrah' or 2 paragraph debris on Wikipedia with all the false content and outdated myth self written to showcase his 'Tamil' Savour here. Not even single line of him is relevant and is a comprehensible myth which he wants to paste and showcase something out of nothing. Admins have to really verify at the content mentioned in the ref to what is he trying to add. Purely WP:OR and should be detached here. For Jesus sake! I will no more be entertaining such baseless points by Destroyer27 . I cannot spare anymore time for his meaningless content. I leave it to you admins to take necessary action. Well, I suspect him to be WP:SOCK Of some other userid probably could be Panda619 who was once blocked for his WP:SOCK and similar edits. Please verify the same as well. Well that's all, I cannot spend anymore minute for Destroyer. Thanks !! Cheers By LovSLif (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 😂😂😂😂 Gotcha! Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Hello @Nittawinoda: Sure. Thanks for the ping. Here you go: A Sangam Period classic, Manimekalai, attributes the origin of the first Pallava King from a liaison between the daughter of a Naga king of Manipallava named Pilli Valai (Pilivalai) with a Chola king, Killivalavan, out of which union was born a prince, who was lost in ship wreck and found with a twig (pallava) of Cephalandra Indica (Tondai) around his ankle and hence named Tondai-maan. Though Manimekalai posits Ilam Tiriyan as a Chola, not a Pallava, the Velurpalaiyam plates dated to 852 AD, do not mention the Cholas. Instead, they credit the Naga liaison episode, and creation of the Pallava line, to a different Pallava king named Virakurcha, while preserving its legitimising significance. ...from him (Aśvatthāman) in order (came) Pallava, the lord of the whole earth, whose fame was bewildering. Thence, came into existence the race of Pallavas... [including the son of Chūtapallava] Vīrakūrcha, of celebrated name, who simultaneously with (the hand of) the daughter of the chief of serpents grasped also the complete insignia of royalty and became famous. As you can see in the first paragraph, along with the newspaper I have cited another book named Ancient History of India, pages 421-442, which state the same. The Pallavas, a book by Gabriel Nouveau Dubreuil on page 22 explicitly points to the name of Virakurcha on Velurpalaiyam inscription. Hence, the citation. The fourth citation is The Māmallapuram Praśasti which contains similar statements, and also https://books.google.co.in/books?id=bCFuAAAAMAAJ&q=while+preserving+its+legitimising+significance&dq=while+preserving+its+legitimising+significance&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkxJTeqOniAhUaVysKHSVgBRMQ6AEIKDAA on page 149. Now the blockquote is an exact quotation from pages 5 and 6 of chapter 3 of the book From Indus to Independence, also from page 149 of the book The Great Penance at Māmalapuram, which incidentally also is the source of the first paragraph on Manimekalai and Velurpalaiyam plates. Take a look. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=bCFuAAAAMAAJ&q=pallava+the+lord+of+the+whole+earth&dq=pallava+the+lord+of+the+whole+earth&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1lY6Mq-niAhVNbn0KHV3zCZwQ6AEILjAB . Kindly refer to page 172 as well of the latter. Several more sources exist. Would be happy furnish them here. Thanks, again. If you cannot access the in-line citations, then use these: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Pallavas.html?id=6o9XCT3XiaMC -pg. 421-442 https://books.google.com/books/about/History_of_Ancient_India.html?id=rOVpOG6MPMcC -pg. 22-23 Here's another one from The South Indian inscriptions, Volume 1, page 13: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=6t1tAAAAMAAJ&q=from+him+(ASvatthaman)+in+order+(came)+Pallava,+the+lord+of+the+whole+earth&dq=from+him+(ASvatthaman)+in+order+(came)+Pallava,+the+lord+of+the+whole+earth&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE8PWcrOniAhWJX30KHYNXBEMQ6AEIMTAB Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC) @Nittawinoda: Good at least now he is on track to discuss the content in the sources. let us now go by what destroyer Destroyer27 has mentioned. 1st paragraph: Destroyer states --" A Sangam Period classic, Manimekalai, attributes the origin of the first Pallava King from a liaison between the daughter of a Naga king of Manipallava named Pilli Valai (Pilivalai) with a Chola king, Killivalavan, out of which union was born a prince, who was lost in ship wreck and found with a twig (pallava) of Cephalandra Indica (Tondai) around his ankle and hence named Tondai-maan."-- My open point: only single source you cited for the above. the book "History_of_Ancient_India" - It states various theories of origin of pallavas. The page traces theories stating 'pallavas could be foreign intruders of pahalva or pathians' or 'dekkani' , 'cola-naga liasion' or 'Sangam literature calls them tondaiyar, Naga cheiftians who were vassels of Satavahanas'. Each one in short n sharp. Can you clarify now where the above Sangam classic manimekalai came into picture and in which part or page of this book can I find. Well I do not find anywhere about manimekalai. Now it's open to you. Do clarify! Also do clarify the below. As per book, 'As a result of liasion between killivalavan Cola and Naga princess, pilivalai, daughter of king valaivanan of manipallavam (an island near the coast of Ceylon ) the son was born to them named ilam tiraiyan, who was made ruler of tondaimandalam by his father and dynasty came to be called by his mother's native place' And have a glace at first statement placed by you! Open point 2 : where is it mentioned 'first pallava' and below story ? --out of which union was born a prince, who was lost in ship wreck and found with a twig (pallava) of Cephalandra Indica (Tondai) around his ankle and hence named Tondai-maan.--- News articles are not valid source and for a moment even if I consider to check the news article quoted by you ,there is no where mentioned in article about pallavas. So are clubbing the both to bring up a new story line on your self research WP:OR? @Abecedare , please have a look once the discrepancies and WP:OR in his very first paragraph. Will move to the poem once Destroyer27 clarify the above one. Please don't cite here news articles as these are not considered valid source. Good Luck :D By LovSLif (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC) By LovSLif (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Hello fellow editors @Abecedare:, @Destroyer27:, @LovSLif:, I feel the bit about Chola-Naga story mentioned in the epic Manimekalai may be added. However it has to be reworded to avoid copyright violation. The following source [2] supports the Chola-naga story as per the epic Manimekalai. Next the bit about how the Velurpalaiyam plates proves Manimekalai wrong may be omitted. There is more than one origin theory and each may be mentioned. I do not find it necessary to prove any one story as true or as false. We can also use the following source [3] as it once again supports the Chola-naga story but also gives the interpretation of various historians like Rasanayagam (Chola-naga origin) etc. According to the second source, Krishnaswami Aiyangar opines that the Pallavas were called as Tondaiyar. This needs to go first before we talk about the Manimekalai so that the reader does not get confused with the term pallava and tondaiyar. The same source also states that the dynasty was named after the mother's native place (Manipallava) and hence the name Pallava. Having said that, I believe what the first source has to say about origin of Pallavas - that "the information available is still inadequate to categorically fix the origins of the Pallavas and there is no consensus among the historians about the beginning of the dynasty." Nittawinoda (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC) @LovSLif:, Excuse me, be a little civil, and better mind your words. Don't need to get so worked up. Also, I am under no obligation to answer your unlettered questions. You're nobody. If you have some sense of shame, do not engage with me. You have already made many ad hominem attacks, and you also had said that you don't even want to "spare a minute more "on" me". Now why do you talk to me? If any administrator or an educated editor asks me the same question, I shall reply. @Abecedare I have requested you on my talk page to preclude him from partaking in the discussion. One does not expect to have discussions with such people on Wikipedia. They're the ones who botch up every article, particularly the India-related ones and then spark up some silly parochial debate. Please do something about it. We've got to raise the bar of discourse here. Thanks. Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC) @Nittawinoda:, Precisely. Manipallavam actually connects them to Sri Lanka. Couldn't agree more. Best, Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Destroyer27 well I need not mind uncivilized sock of panda619. Your WP:SOCK of more than 3 accounts tells you who you are. Better you mind your grubby tounge. The moment something been highlighted against you, well you started your real pose. Let me only address to admins here. @Abecedare , @Nittawinoda: Well, as Nittawinoda specified from a source of a mythological story that Naga princess to be srilankan origin, in contrary we have many sources stating Naga prince and chutu Naga dynasty were vassels of Satavahanas from vanavasi and they who once ruled over Andhra near the banks of Krishna. Also , from another theory https://books.google.co.in/books?id=TVNuAAAAMAAJ&q=naga+princess+pallava+origin+andhra&dq=naga+princess+pallava+origin+andhra&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE8a_jyOriAhUIeysKHZ6YDSkQ6AEINDACby K R subramaniyan that Pallava' was born to ashvattama Muni and Naga princess. So we have numerous mythological stories written as per their findings about Naga liasion'. So I believe if we are adding the srilankan liasion' then we should add the rest as well. For ref : even in the book sourced above, https://books.google.com/books/about/History_of_Ancient_India.html?id=rOVpOG6MPMcC It is stated that 'Sangam literature calls them tondaiyar, Naga cheiftians who were vassels of Satavahanas' So as a whole, the mythological origin of pallavas span across naga-Ceylon origin , pahalva origin , naga-ashvattama origin and Deccan origin. And the list goes on until we had various epigraphical research came into live. Most recent studies of various grants have clearly indicated that early pallavas were from guntur-nellore regions who later conquered or intruded into kanchi. Even the book by Gabriel states the same. https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=6o9XCT3XiaMC&dq=the+pallavas+gabriel&source=gbs_navlinks_s https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=Yg5uAAAAMAAJ&q=pallavas+amaravati&dq=pallavas+amaravati&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLhcfTj5PhAhV07HMBHS2NDN8Q6AEIPjA As per Velupalaiyam plates there is a mention of victory over Kanchi by pallavas from North. Early pallavas plates found in the same area near the banks of Krishna river(ex: maidavolu) also hold the same. After a careful study of Pallava genealogy with all the available material, of no less than 45 inscriptions, Rev H Heras put forth the theory that there was an unbroken line of Pallava kings, twenty-four of them in number, who originally ruled at some city of the Telugu country, possibly at Dasanapura, which the Darsi copper plates state as their adhisthana and later migrated to kanchi. So this information of current version holds better now. If one has to add mythological sources then we have numerous theories many of them proved to be myth as per the inscriptions and copper plates. So I believe if you are considering to add srilankan naga-cola liasion of the story then better we include other theories as well like 'pahlvan or parthian' 'ashvattama-naga liasion' , 'ganga-pallava liasion' , chutunaga- satavahanas origin and others. The current version has already been framed accordingly with more focus on recent studies and looks precise enough. Now it's up to you to decide to add the mythological theories or not. Even if we add each of the theory across 2-3 paragraphs possibly the content may span too big overriding factual content what recent studies and research says. That is the core point why I had raised this discussion in a nutshell. Thanks! By LovSLif (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Any linking with mythological fables such as Manimekalai was nothing but desperate attempts to some how link Pallavas with Tamil origins. Tamilakam Sangam literature calls them 'Vadugar's and mentions only Chera, Chola and Pandya as original Tamilakam Trinity. Sangam literature does'nt recognize Pallava dynasty and Satyaputo dynasty as original natives of Tamilakam. Pallava 's were by brought by Satavahana conquests and made them their feudators - who happened to settled in Pallava nadu or Palnadu region of present Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. All the inscriptions till the time of Narasimha varma I were in Prakrit and Sanskrit. Even the Pallava king titles like 'Satru Malla', 'Maha Malla' and 'Eka Malla' were all in Sanskrit and Telugu Prakrit. Malla is a Telugu word for wrestler. Even the Mahabalipuram is also called as ' MahaMallaPuram' after it being commissioned by 'Maha Malla' Mahendravarma I. Now a days it has been corrupted into 'Mamallapuram' by Tamil speakers. Yes, it is also fact that from the times of Mahendravarma I, Pallava kings heavily patronized Tamizh language. Sourcecharita (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC) @Abecedare , @Nittawinoda: I shall, to begin with, lay the premise of my core argument. I don't and can never claim or assert, weighing the numerous citations that I have examined, that the Pallavas were of Tamil Nadu or Andhra-origin. In point of fact, their origin doesn't even to a picayune matter to me. I have already in the arguments that I'd presented above submitted that, "since very many theories of their origins exist, one cannot with absolute certainty make any claim to that effect." I get an impression from the arguments that have been posited by certain users that their entire conception of the origin of a particular dynasty or a ruling class is "linguistic," which is IMHO a very parochial, not to say, a seemingly bigoted approach to history, and does not even barely bear any semblance to the intellection of a proper historian. Such notions are not just anti-scientific or anti-intellectual, but eventually lethal. Being acquainted with the complexities that attend the subject, I am sure none of us can draw any certitudes. If the argument is just surrounding the ethno-linguistic origin of the dynasty, then I'd retire from this discussion. But I ingeminate vehemently, that it is not, as a matter of fact, and must not ever be. For instance, on the Satavahana dynasty or the Vijayanagara empire page, when very many users had tried to include Tamil in the common languages field, they were obstructed and opposed by dint of a Wiki regulation (supposedly formulated and enforced by editors, I do not know) that only the predominantly used administrative languages must be taken into account. But here one still sees Telugu in the field, that too sans any citation, and on the Shilahara page one sees Marathi, merely predicated on the fact that that was the language of a chunk of their inscriptions. That suggests, probably not a bias, but a clear lack of consistency on the part of the editors in the implementation of a rule. But that apart. You see, I don't make a fuss about such trivialities. I am no linguistic nationalist as certain users here seem to be. Apparently, ultra nationalists of any stripe usually have an inferiority complex embedded in their systems that are full of bile. They all shall make great politicians in India, particularly if they join any of her regional parties. Good on them! Now I, turning back to the arguments, make the following case: 1) Firstly, one has to sink in the fact that the origin of the Pallavas is still uncertain, which is attested by the very first citation in the section on Origin. None of the so-called "new researches" have in unison explicitly affirmed that the dynasty is of Andhra-origin, contrary to what certain users have asserted citing a few sources. None other than Romila Thapar herself in her book, Early India: From the Origins to A.D. 1300 in which she quite tersely in no uncertain terms states, The Origin of the Pallavas is remains a matter of debate, and goes on to enunciate the reasons for it, and also narrates the numerous theories on it. [4] 2) There's no solid reason to assume that the dynasty's "Northern" affiliations should directly imply an Andhra-origin. That's absurd, since on page 133, Volume 1 of the book Puspika: Tracing Ancient India Through Texts and Traditions, published as recently as 2013 (just to point out to a user that it's about a century later that 1933), in which the author examines about a thousand inscriptions (not a bare 40 or 50) clearly states and I quote, "unbelievable as it may sound it is probable that most of the Pallava inscriptions have been read in Situ and have been edited by a single person, sometimes only years later..." Visit the page for full quotation. [5] This, validates all of my previous points. 3) As I'd said earlier, and I reiterate once and for all, that the Velurpalaiyam inscription have "partly corroborated" the soi-disant "myth," rendering it sufficient legitimacy, and also leading historians such as Rasanayagam to cite it and trace the dynasty's origin to Chola Naga, as Nittawinoda had pointed out, and therefore, I had submitted that it must be mentioned here on the page. This is certainly not a contradiction of the other theories that posit an "Andhra origin (which are quite plausible)," but is surely at odds with it. The same goes with the theories that suggest a Chola-Naga origin, which is clumsily construed just as "Tamil" by certain users. No matter what they believe or contend, the fact is still that the origin of the dynasty is contested, and that multiple theories still prevail, which certain bigots interpret from a linguistically schismatic prism and obstruct it from being posted. If certain dolts reckon that a mere mention of Sangam literature or Chola-Naga liaison episode is a desperate attempt to prove their "Tamil-origin" (a word I have not used in any of my previous arguments), then it's their fault or rather their error of judgement. Wikipedia isn't in any way responsible for that. Maybe if Wikimedia Foundation is generous enough it can pay for every surgery they undergo to cement their acid-dripping voids of empty space, as part of its CSR. This whole frantic piffle about languages gets on one's nerves. 4) K. P. Jayaswal, for instance, proposed a North Indian origin, putting forward the theory that the Pallavas were a branch of the Vakatakas. Page 35 of the journal issued by the University of Madras entitled Administration and Social Life Under the Pallavās unequivocally states so. [6] And also page 271 of Studies in Indian History, by Kollappa Pillay: [7] Similarly, the book Cambridge Shorter History of India, on page 196 states that the Pallavas were of a foreign origin (could be any country outside of India, maybe even in SEA or Persia as some historians have suggested). [8] Also, in Buddhist Remains in Andhra and the History of Andhra Between 225 and 610 A.D., by K. R. Subramanian states on Pg. 75 that Pallavas were a mixed race, although a distinct one from the Tamils. Take a look: [9] 5) "After a careful study of Pallava genealogy with all the available material, of no less than 45 inscriptions, Rev H Heras put forth the theory that there was an unbroken line of Pallava kings, twenty-four of them in number, who originally ruled at some city of the Telugu country, possibly at Dasanapura, which the Darsi copper plates state as their adhisthana and later migrated to kanchi." A quotation that probably was plucked out of some digital trashcan. Probably a blog, b'coz that's all that showed up on the web, at least to me. And I can't cite them here because those sites are blocked by Wiki. Someone who lectures others on how to not cite original researches, that too when they don't actually do it, himself slyly does it. Newspapers are considered way more reliable than blogs by the way. But anyhow it doesn't matter. After all, when one rummages through a dung heap even a plastic bead glimmers like pearl. At any rate, even if the quote exists in any other book or journal that does not in any way refute my previous arguments. 6) Very many books still state that the progenitors of Pallava dynasty are unknown, and refer to them as either "legendary" or "mythical." Very many historians futhermore disagree about the theories of their origin, because of the languages they used other than Tamil, to wit, Sanskrit and Prakrit -- the debate on the question as to which is older, continues to this day. Historians who strongly believe that Prakrit is older have contended that the dynasty were of a northern-origin and were the erstwhile feudatories of the Satavahana dynasty (for instance, H Heras, and so on). If asked, I can cite the sources for the same here. Also, I must impress upon everyone here, that poems or literature sometimes could be a very accurate reflection of reality. Someone who has thoroughly understood literature as a subject would definitely know that. So do not dismiss it all universally as a "myth." 7) One yet again commits a propositional fallacy, scilicet, affirming the consequent, when one avers that merely because Manimekalai should be cited (which has been proven to be legitimate), other myths or legends or poems must also be cited, suggesting that it is incumbent upon the editors to do so. It's analogous to saying, "I slept last night. I had dreamt that I had a sedative, so I indeed must have," which is arrant nonsense. Such arguments simply don't hold water. That said, it was the same user who had deleted the same info from the page some months ago, citing that it relies only on one source, and that there's too much emphasis on it. Now that there are several citations, and also that the info has been proven to be accurate, considering the arguments I've floated as to why it's Wikiworthy, I think now it must be posted. Whether other similar info too should be added or not, or discarded is a separate question, which is again, subject editorial consensus, but this one now, at least insofar as I'm concerned, must be added. There's no "Wikioracle" here who has the sole authority to decide what must be posted on the page and what mustn't be, or what is a "myth" and what isn't, as certain users here believe and appear to have arrogated to themselves the same. And I wouldn't object to any further additions of gen, even if it's a "myth," just as he did, provided it contains valid citations. Lest dunces be discombobulated by the truckload of info and then begin to holler, I'd suggest we comprehensively, but concisely incorporate as many theories as possible that pertains to the dynasty's origin, and not just one or two monolithic ones, which currently happens to be that of their "Andhra" and "North-Indian origin." Maybe we can cull off certain theories that essentially infer the same, and cite others. Best, Destroyer27 (talk) 2:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC) (Copied from my talkpage since user was having problem posting it themselves. Abecedare (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)) References Dear Abecedare, The precise striking points on the discussion by me and other users were already in place. The attempt to deviate or mask the same with epic pross is made just above this comment by Destroyer. There is a famous note 'Whether running a meeting or giving a speech, be a standout speaker by keeping it short, sweet, and striking. Enough said' - When one does not have precise cutshot points and content , writing an epic is the only way to boast. Also 'When you cannot make out something just fake it' - this aptly applies to the above dross by Destroyer. When we have had solid rationale and content backed by suffice fact & foundation, one need not get so married to an idea that one has to work hard to justify it. The best strategies, ideas, and plans are to be supported by powerful foundations of fact. Writing an epic to boast 'Something out of nothing' encrypted with self contented rules doesn't really workout here on Wikipedia. Oh Na! 'Nothing one can make out of Nothing' Destroyer should remember the fact that Neither admins not fellow users has really got time to decipher the epic and favor foolish ideas of some brain which contradict among themselves with zero lucidity lacking head n tail. Nor the wikipedia is a socia media to put your self contented ideas thinking no bigbrother watching. Request you to wind up the discussion by deciding on the 'myths' to add up in article. Epigraphical and research content by notable scholars hold apt and is backed by all relevant sources which are already in place and if needed ready to bring up more more ref as well. If the above one mythological myth on 'Naga cola' had to be added then other mythological theories had also to be added as the others also stand on the same( or even better)supportive ref. I advise Destroyer to Keep short & striking when he has something. Relax, accept the reality and turnoff when he has nothing. The latter shall apply here!Holy God ! It's pretty bad someone ruin the time in such a bad route. Have a good day! By LovSLif (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Hey @Abecedare, @Nittawinoda, @Kautilya, Having skimmed through the responses to my arguments, I don't see a single cogent refutation of them. To be honest, I only found Abecedare's objection on my talk page to my style of debating to be more valid than the series of rebuttals and recriminations posed here, which at the moment, happens to be of no interest to me. Anyway, if you or any other user has arguments to counter mine, do present them. I shall respond only to that. Best, Destroyer27 (talk) 3:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Hello editors, I request both sides to keep their responses short and to the point. Wikipedia runs on veriifiability of content from reliable sources and not on personal opinions. Accordingly I would support adding the following content as per these two sources [10] and [11]: 1. Pallavas were also known as Tondaiyar in Sangam literature as per historian Krishnaswami Aiyangar 2. Origin of Pallavas traced to the prince born out of a liaison between Chola king Killivalavan and Naga Pilivalai of Manipallavam as per Manimekalai. The prince was called Tondaiman after the creeper found around his ankle. The dynasty was also called Tondaiyar, after this prince. 3. Name of dynasty was based on the native of the prince's mother, i.e, derived from Manipallava. 4. Yet another version is that the origin of Pallavas is traced to the liaison between Aswathama and a naga princess. This is as per the Bahur plates. On a personal note, I have no intention of arguing about this as I personally believe that the Pallavas were originally of Southeast Asian stock not just Nandivarman II but also those who came before him. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC) @Nittawinoda:, Seconded! Thank you. Destroyer27 (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC) @Nittawinoda:, "Yet another version is that the origin of Pallavas is traced to the liaison between Aswathama and a naga princess. This is as per the Bahur plates." This yet again buttresses my point that even inscriptions could read myths. Furthermore, the fact that Velaiyapuram plates have been proved partly in consonance with Manimekalai's narration of the Chola-Naga liaison must be added, imo. And these are just 4 lucid statements, not paragraphs. Destroyer27 (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC) @Nittawinoda: Abecedare Hello both. @Nittawinoda, Looks like you had just splitted the naga-Cola liasion' into 4 points. Good! Well I have got here few more theories supported by various books. One book is even common to that of the once you sourced. Good we have pretty common sources too. Well, below are the theories with supported ref. 'naga-Cola liasion' if had to be added then why not below sourced content. Well factually holds on same line. If any user had to contradict on any of the theory they can mention striking reason in precise manner. So that I can better reply them on the same basis lines similar to naga-Cola myth and how well these theories too to be fitted. -- Theory 1: 1. Pallavas were indegenous growth and came to the power after the resolution of Andhra satavahanas empire. 2. According to Dr. V A Smith he says 'in fact nothing definite can be said about the origin of pallavas but one thing is sure that they were feudatories of andhras who declared Independence and came to power in middle of 4th century. 3. By 350 AD they had established themselves on the east coast of India between Krishna and kavery. Source Book: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=cWmsQQ2smXIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Theory 2: 1. The earlier sources of pallavas are three copper plates in prakrit. They mention names of some rulers. 2. It is thought Bappadeva was founder of pallava power. 3. He held sway over the Telugu andhrapath near kachi. Theory 3. Theory of Parthian origin: The exponents of this theory supported the Parthian origin of the Pallavas. According to this school, 1.The Pallavas were a northern tribe of Parthian origin constituting a clan of the nomads having come to India from Persia. Unable to settle down in northern India they continued their movements southward until they reached Kanchipuram. The late Venkayya supported this view  and even attempted to determine the date of their migration to the South. 2. A crown resembling an elephant's head was issued by the early Pallava kings and is referred to in the Vaikunthaperumal temple sculptures at the time of Nandivarman Pallavamalla's ascent to the throne. A similiar crown was in use by the early Bactrian kings in the 2nd century BC and figures on the coins of Demetrius. 3. It is presumed on this basis that there is some connection between the Pallavas of Kanchi and Bactrian kings Source book : https://books.google.co.in/books?id=92zsCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Theory 4: 1. Pallavas were autochthons of the land associated or allied with the kurumbas, kallars, marvars and other predatory tribes. 2. After welding them pallavas were believed to have emerged as mighty force Theory 5: 1. Sangam literature calls them Tondaiyar and They were decended from Naga cheiftians 2. Naga chieftians were the vassels of Satavahanas -Same common source which you sourced for this theory- Guys, apart from these Oh Yes! There is one more Naga-ashvattama liasion'. And another theory of Naga dynasty which belongs to vanavasi . Will get that by the time the above content is ready for addition in page. That's all Folks! Good day! By LovSLif (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC) @LovSLif:, Nittawinoda, Abecedare, Kautilya Sure, but the first theory and the fact that they were alluded to as Tondaiyars in Sangam literature, and also the bit about the about the Naga-Ashwatamma liaison, although in very few words, is already mentioned on the page. The rest of the theories could surely be summed up in another paragraph. Furthermore, I'd suggest the removal of certain theories that essentially extrapolate the same (for instance, the multiple allusions to the dynasty's North Indian and Andhra-origins). Again, that could be accommodated in another paragraph or so. Now I don't see any objection whatsoever by you to the inclusion of the content I proposed, but merely your expectation, or rather your proposal (as implied by your current phraseology) to include others as well, which is again subject to editorial consensus. But I certainly won't object to that, as I said earlier, and of course, had never intended to, so long as it was being backed up by apt citations. And yeah, I am rather glad that you've now conceded the fact that the dynasty's origin is still disputed, which ironically has also been demonstrated by this rather acrimonious exchange. So I hope the discussion from now on would be peaceful. Regards, Destroyer27 (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Destroyer27, Holy God! Yet another shoot in air. Your statement below -- "I'd suggest the removal of certain theories that essentially extrapolate the same (for instance, the multiple allusions to the dynasty's North Indian and Andhra-origins). " -- Who are you to suggest the removal of it! That's the pretty factual & proven content when one look at the research and epigraphical info. That infact is synchronous to few historical theories and factual derivation from plates & grants.Hence the same holds solid as it is the proven theory at last. When naga-Cola proven myth can be included in article then other theories holds even better with stronger ref. Also, if all these theories can be summed up in single paragraph or two, undoubtedly naga-Cola liasion' cannot span more than 2 lines of space. Also, No need of comparitive note between 'Velurpalyam plates ' and naga-Cola liasion as both are totally independent . A myth and epigraphical fact. One cannot mess up adding - Ex: ' Velaiyapuram plates have been proved partly in consonance with Manimekalai's narration of the Chola-Naga liaison must be added' what partly? No where velurupalayam mention about cola Naga liasion and manimekalai. One cannot mess up adding ' proved contradictory to agastyamuni-naga , proved contrary to parthian origin'..goes on! Rather the plates and other grants & plates in prakrit of early pallavas better hold strongly Andhra origin of the dynasty. So do cease RSSELF or Original research. I have many more theories from valid ref on chola dynasty liasion as well. Well, on the same line of your 'naga-cola' if added,I would undoubtedly come up with those theories very shortly on chola talk page. For now,No objection with all the theories(including yours) added up in not more than 2 lines each without disturbing or overriding existing format/content and readability. Or better under new sub section stating mythological theories. If you still contradict then let's land up in dispute notice board with fresh tussle.One may write numerous theories until proven facts hit the screen and what holdd from then is the proven theories which sync with the epigraphical and research derivations. Had enough! Cannot prolong more.If unhappy lets land up to such a place where faster n better resolution can be drawn. By LovSLif (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC) @LovSLif:, Nittawinoda, Abecedare, Kautilya Be kind! Don't get worked up. 1) "Who are you to suggest the removal of it!" A user, just like you, but unlike you, who'd objected rather authoritatively to adding relevant content. The reasons why I suggested that was are the following: A) The multiple allusions to that makes it redundant, and furthermore some of those sources also expound on other theories. B) We can add one paragraph of it with several citations, lest you, particularly, or anyone else do not complain of illegibility or verbosity of the content. 2) "That's the pretty factual & proven content when one look at the research and epigraphical info. That infact is synchronous to few historical theories and factual derivation from plates & grants.Hence the same holds solid as it is the proven theory at last." You mean other historians who suggest a Persian or South East Asian origin of the dynasty are not being factual? What do you imply? 3) "Also, No need of comparitive note between 'Velurpalyam plates ' and naga-Cola liasion as both are totally independent . A myth and epigraphical fact." Dear Abecedare and Nittawinoda, please note that this is the last time I am addressing this argument. They are indeed independent primary sources, but the fact that Manimekalai has partly been legitimised by the Velurpalaiyam plates must be added. Also, I repeat, it's your POV that it's a myth. That does not make it a fact. If literature could be myth, then so could be inscriptions (the Bahur plates, for instance), as is evidenced by my previous arguments. Furthermore, again please note Abecedare, when he stated that these primary sources are contradictory (a word that he probably mistakenly used, if not misused, without grasping its literal meaning) in nature, was he comparing them, or treating them as independent? Certainly, the former. But now he advises us to do otherwise. Fantastic!👏👏 4) One cannot mess up adding - Ex: ' Velaiyapuram plates have been proved partly in consonance with Manimekalai's narration of the Chola-Naga liaison must be added' what partly? No where velurupalayam mention about cola Naga liasion and manimekalai. That's not something that I am saying, but a source states, which I cite here once again. Take a look: [12] Why does that inconvenience you, btw? 5) "Rather the plates and other grants & plates in prakrit of early pallavas better hold strongly Andhra origin of the dynasty." Your POV, again. Read what Nittawinoda has said in his letter. 6) "So do cease RSSELF or Original research." I haven't. Not even once, unlike you who had apparently copied over a piece of content from a blog. So stop repeatedly making this accusation or casting other aspersions on me. Dear Abecedare, I request you to please intervene in such cases. 7) "I have many more theories from valid ref on chola dynasty liasion as well. Well, on the same line of your 'naga-cola' if added,I would undoubtedly come up with those theories very shortly on chola talk page." Sure, but let's first get over this. I'll see you there. 8) "For now,No objection with all the theories(including yours) added up in not more than 2 lines each without disturbing or overriding existing format/content and readability." Right now, even I can ask "who are you to say that," in fact, to almost every statement that you've made here. But I won't because, I know that you're another user. But unlike me, you're implying an order here, and not a proposal, to which I protest. Be careful with your choice of words, because remember, nobody here is at your command. Regards, Destroyer27 (talk) 9:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC) @Destroyer27:, Nittawinoda, Abecedare, Kautilya , @@Destroyer27:, Let me answer you one last time , further can land on dispute notice board. Be kind! Don't get worked up. 1) "Who are you to suggest the removal of it!" A user, just like you, but unlike you, who'd objected rather authoritatively to adding relevant content. The reasons why I suggested that was are the following: A) The multiple allusions to that makes it redundant, and furthermore some of those sources also expound on other theories. My Comment: Redundant ? I belive it was you against Redundancy and well thats not illusion and your content is issusionary myth. Can we exclude the redundancy of your myth theory. B) We can add one paragraph of it with several citations, lest you, particularly, or anyone else do not complain of illegibility or verbosity of the content. My Comment: One paragraph? can we confine naga-cola to one line? lest someone do not complain just like me on the verbosity of these myths. 2) "That's the pretty factual & proven content when one look at the research and epigraphical info. That infact is synchronous to few historical theories and factual derivation from plates & grants.Hence the same holds solid as it is the proven theory at last." You mean other historians who suggest a Persian or South East Asian origin of the dynasty are not being factual? What do you imply? My Comment: Well again, one example 'Until earth was proved spherical' many theories propounded. Do you consider the other theories factual stating earth is flat or uphold pythogorous & aristotle. Persian origin and your manimekalai origin downgraded by recent epigraphical evidences.Need not emphasize more.again, am saying 'emphasize'and not saying 'not to add' at all.What has to be emphasized is 'andhra origin' which is in sync at both. 3) "Also, No need of comparitive note between 'Velurpalyam plates ' and naga-Cola liasion as both are totally independent . A myth and epigraphical fact." --Dear Abecedare and Nittawinoda, please note that this is the last time I am addressing this argument. They are indeed independent primary sources, but the fact that Manimekalai has partly been legitimised by the Velurpalaiyam plates must be added. Also, I repeat, it's your POV that it's a myth. That does not make it a fact. If literature could be myth, then so could be inscriptions (the Bahur plates, for instance), as is evidenced by my previous arguments. Furthermore, again please note Abecedare, when he stated that these primary sources are contradictory (a word that he probably mistakenly used, if not misused, without grasping its literal meaning) in nature, was he comparing them, or treating them as independent? Certainly, the former. But now he advises us to do otherwise. Fantastic!👏👏-- by Destroyer My Comment: I uphold my comment 'Contradictory and unrelated to each other' get the velurupalayam grant content and prove it anywhere it even utters foolish myth of manimekalai. Abecedare , Here look at the sources cited by him. Manimekalai is sourced at a single instance and thus derived such a big story based on it from self research. 4) One cannot mess up adding - Ex: ' Velaiyapuram plates have been proved partly in consonance with Manimekalai's narration of the Chola-Naga liaison must be added' what partly? No where velurupalayam mention about cola Naga liasion and manimekalai. That's not something that I am saying, but a source states, which I cite here once again. Take a look: [13] Why does that inconvenience you, btw? My Comment: Oh yeah! Gotcha here! Can you recollect your first comment 'Redundancy'.Can I download and add all the content present in the books for other theories? :D 5) "Rather the plates and other grants & plates in prakrit of early pallavas better hold strongly Andhra origin of the dynasty." Your POV, again. Read what Nittawinoda has said in his letter. My Comment: Its not POV. Below are the sources. Do you know where nagas actually belongs to? https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=e8o5HyC0-FUC&dq=pallavas+amaravati+inscription&source=gbs_navlinks_s https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=jHaVqNy-V6UC&pg=PA18&dq=naga+kingdom+andhra&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjetsPev_LiAhUdTI8KHfZZAfsQ6AEIUDAH#v=onepage&q=amaravati&f=false 6) "So do cease RSSELF or Original research." I haven't. Not even once, unlike you who had apparently copied over a piece of content from a blog. So stop repeatedly making this accusation or casting other aspersions on me. Dear Abecedare, I request you to please intervene in such cases. My Comments: Can you eloberate which content and blog. I belive you said newspaper is better than blog. The same newspaper article states '42% of Tamilnadu is telugu people' will you still feel news articles better. just bcz it doesnt satisfy your zeal :D 7) "I have many more theories from valid ref on chola dynasty liasion as well. Well, on the same line of your 'naga-cola' if added,I would undoubtedly come up with those theories very shortly on chola talk page." Sure, but let's first get over this. I'll see you there. My comment : Sure! why not? Also can be parellel. 8) "For now,No objection with all the theories(including yours) added up in not more than 2 lines each without disturbing or overriding existing format/content and readability." Right now, even I can ask "who are you to say that," in fact, to almost every statement that you've made here. But I won't because, I know that you're another user. But unlike me, you're implying an order here, and not a proposal, to which I protest. Be careful with your choice of words, because remember, nobody here is at your command. My Comment : It was you who said will add up in a paragraph. so your myth or any myth probably cannot span more than 2 lines as per minimal consensus. @Abecedare, Kautilya Most of the hostorical sources speak of naga liasion. I have numerous sources to say 'nagas and chutunagas are from andhra/deccan origin'(both epigraphical and historical facts)- can refer above sources as well. Even the common ref shared by Nittawinoda - agrees that sangam sources identify nagas to be chieftians of Satavahanas. So, when one has to add the mythological theories of any Naga liasion - should also breif where do nagas actually belong. Amaravati & Jagayapeta inscriptions hold the better info of Nagas. Now about Destroyer27, I still do not find rightful striking counters for my points I put forward from Destroyer, rather than simply shooting in air with lucid statement which themselves either contradict with his own perceptions/other comments with no head and tail. Ex; he says 'why not include' when the points he feels contented with tamil zeal. Else he says 'redundant' just eliminate. 1st and 4th comments. Look at point number 2. He states the data is in book so he shall add. When it comes to other theories he speaks 'redundant'. :D He also says add '3 paragraphs' often/theory and now states all in a paragraph. He says 'news papers better than blogs' if contented in his favor else no.:D No reply even over his WP:SOCK of Panda619. My bad that I had to entertain such a pure POV boast. Good Day Guys! By LovSLif (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)   Dear Abecedare, I Agree with LovSLif. Historical speculations may be added with NPOV but in precise way.No worries unless & until righteous content not demoted. Idea of new subsection can be mooted for mythology speculations to isolate further conflict with the content. Reflist of LovSLif sounds strong enough. RViN341 (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC) User:Abecedare and User: Nittawinoda, Just to inform you both, lest you be misled, none of the sources that he's cited in his response to point 5, namely, [[14]] and [[15]] state or attribute the origin of Chutu Nagas to Andhra, rather ostensibly most historians have suggested a Karnataka-origin for them. Except for this, none of his comments merit any response, but a complaint on the administrators' noticeboard, which I as it is have registered. Destroyer27 (talk) ,9:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Dear RViN341, Have you perused my arguments above? I already have responded to this point a plenty of times. Destroyer27 (talk) ,9:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC) User:Abecedare and User: Nittawinoda, LovSLif in his response to my argument writes, "he says 'why not include' when the points he feels contented with tamil zeal," which is a violation of good faith and is also quite laughable. He's made many suchlike comments above. By the tone of his rather astonishing assertion which is quite revealing, incidentally, of his credulity, that "the same newspaper article states 42% of Tamilnadu is telugu people will you still feel news articles better. just bcz it doesnt satisfy your zeal," it seems particularly racist, in that it expressly reveals his racial prejudice, although Wikipedia may have different definition of a "racist comment." Had I responded to that, you @Abecedare would have complained that I'm engaging in petty carping, so I didn't. That said this guy is absolutely bigoted, and obviously he has never been to school, and I urge you to somehow placate his ethnic fervour and resolve the issue. The arguments have been presented by both sides. Now it is for you to evaluate them and finally decide which argument is the most convincing and what must be posted. Other than bluffs, blatant lies, red herrings, and personal attacks, I don't see any argument presented by him that refutes mine, or any of his arguments that I haven't refuted. Now that I have said this he could copy over the same statement on his post, but never mind. I don't give a flying toss. Regards, Destroyer27 (talk) ,9:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Destroyer27 , Yes. I have been through the discussion and Agree with LovSLif. @User:Abecedare Looks like Destroyer27 is misleading other users over here. @Destroyer27 been through the source https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=e8o5HyC0-FUC&dq=pallavas+amaravati+inscription&source=gbs_navlinks_s by LovSLif as he stated Andhra/Deccan presence of Chutunagas is what it bore both Andhra & Deccan spread. The heading itself states 'The Andhras and the chutus'. What is the confusion here. Request you not to mislead.RViN341 (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Dear RViN341, I don't think you've read either of our arguments. There's a clear difference between originating from a particular country and being a considerable minority in another. You can't conflate the two, and I am not misleading. But LovSLif certainly is either misled himself, or misleading others. Anyway, let the administrators decide that. When they read the statements carefully, they would know who indeed is. Destroyer27 (talk) ,9:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC) @Destroyer27: From the above discussion, Neither I have made any personal attacks nor I have misled self or someone. My concern is only with 'reliable content'/'size of the content'/'WP:NPOV' and 'to safegaurd righteous data' with righteous order of emphasis. I took considerable time explaining point by point over all the speculations considering you being new user. I even ignored the derogatory comments made by you just like the one few lines above. The same was mentioned by admins over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Personal_attacks You Being a new user, request you to stop indulging in such edit wars and request you to gain experience in understanding what/how/which content to be added by maintaining NPOV. Good luck! By LovSLif (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Neither I have made any personal attacks. I mean, seriously?! Goodness gracious! Just stop it man! By now the everyone here must have clearly sussed out the sort of person you are. Not worth engaging with you at all. Just can't stand the vile remarks you've made. "You Being a new user, request you to stop indulging in such edit wars and request you to gain experience in understanding what/how/which content to be added by maintaining NPOV." Hah, hah, you talking about a "NPOV"? I mean, really? "New user"? As though, that disqualifies me from making edits. At least, I have no racial prejudice. All of the comments that you've made is redolent of that. You've violated good faith so many times. On a serious note, you must change your username from "LovSLif" to "HateSLif," because that's all that you have spewed out all over the place with your absolutely unfounded rumours and half-baked theories. You were the one who ungraciously removed my edits, btw, before discussing it on the talk page. "The same was mentioned by admins over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Personal_attacks." Huh, why don't you mention the fact that one of the editors said it's worth considering reporting your comments, because they're inflammatory? Not saying anymore. The administrators shall evaluate our arguments. Until then, do not talk to me! Because I've had a vastly different upbringing. I judge people for what they are, and not where they are from. Peace! Destroyer27 (talk) ,12:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Destroyer27 ROFL yet again. Yet again you shown how matured enough are you. On the same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Personal_attacks Highlighted what are called 'personal attacks' with your dialogues in foul language which you used sofar. Looks like the way you comment and again get slammed, totally immature way.You were in so rush to complaint on me and finally hope you got to know that moderators do not entertain such baseless claims. I don't find 'inflammatory' on so called notice page. Did you mess up with other conflicts if any? Also you have been warned to refrain from edit war on same notice page. Good luck! By LovSLif (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Dear Abecedare,Nittawinoda, Kautilya3 This is completely getting out of hands. Please intervene. Thanks. Destroyer27 (talk) ,6:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 Administrator note I have warned Destroyer27 and LovSLif about the discretionary sanction regime applicable to this article and potential meat-puppetry issues, and provided some notes on how to continue the discussion about the content. I have also collapsed the above discussion because I think it had become hard to follow and likely, by its length and tone, to keep outside participants away. @Nittawinoda and Kautilya3: feel free to undo or modify my archiving, or extract any relevant posts, if you believe they are useful. Abecedare (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Moderated discussion

Thank you, Abe. Destroyer27, LovSLif, since one-to-one discussion didn't work, I suggest we try a moderated discussion. I am willing to moderate, provided you follow some simple rules:

• We focus only one content; no talking about the conduct of each other; no personal jibes or complaints whatsoever.
• I will ask you questions to which you will give me answers. You won't address each other.
• You will need to answer the questions as succinctly as possible. If your answers are too long or go off on tangents, I will strike off irrelevant portions or even delete them.
• I will do my best to get you to agree on a common position. But if that is not possible, I will state my conclusions from the discussion and you are free to accept it or reject it. If you reject it, you are welcome to go to WP:DRN or mediation as the policies allow.

Can each of you state if you are happy to follow these rules? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya3, Thanks for moderating. Yes I agree with your approach. Please take it forward. Thanks! By LovSLif (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya3, Sure. In fact, this is what I've been demanding for a very long time. But I just have one condition. If the issue is resolved and the content to be posted has been decided upon, and yet if someone's is still unhappy, then you'll also opine on whether it's worth going to WP:DRN just so as to ensure that nobody misuses it merely to draw out the discussion, making trivial objections, and thereby postpone the edits. Agreed? Destroyer27 (talk) ,3:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! Please look forward rather than backward, and be positive. Both of you also need to review the techniques for talk page usage at HELP:TALK. I have reformatted each of your posts in the last few edits. Please check how I did it.

Destroyer27, on your question, yes, I can advise you regarding the next steps to take if we fail to reach consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

First round

LovSLif, the first question is for you. You have reverted the content contributed by Destroyer27 (copied below). Can you please state succinctly, up to three most important objections you have for this content? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Contribution from Destroyer27

A Sangam Period classic, Manimekalai, attributes the origin of the first Pallava King from a liaison between the daughter of a Naga king of Manipallava named Pilli Valai (Pilivalai) with a Chola king, Killivalavan, out of which union was born a prince, who was lost in ship wreck and found with a twig (pallava) of Cephalandra Indica (Tondai) around his ankle and hence named Tondai-maan. Though Manimekalai posits Ilam Tiriyan as a Chola, not a Pallava, the Velurpalaiyam plates dated to 852, do not mention the Cholas. Instead, they credit the Naga liaison episode, and creation of the Pallava line, to a different Pallava king named Virakurcha, while preserving its legitimising significance: ...from him (Aśvatthāman) in order (came) Pallava, the lord of the whole earth, whose fame was bewildering. Thence, came into existence the race of Pallavas... [including the son of Chūtapallava] Vīrakūrcha, of celebrated name, who simultaneously with (the hand of) the daughter of the chief of serpents grasped also the complete insignia of royalty and became famous.

Hello Kautilya3,
Sure!
First of all Thanks for moderating this.
Before proceeding to the above theory. I will breif in simple terms on what - most of the books clarified about the origin of pallavas. In simple n short way. Most of the research and book sources clearly state
that pallavas first reigned from andhra region near krishna basin who later moved further south to conquer kanchi' and 'pallavas are not of tamil origin'. They rose to the power after satavahanas who ruled andhra. Virakurca to be the first king.

Discussion of sources

Ref List and what each states on the same: 1. Indian History book : -C-121 states it much favored thesis and gains credence as per the recently discovered inscription at palnad of Guntur. 2. 'The Pallavas' by Gabriel : Clearly states the same that skandavarma's father Virakurca reigned at amaravati after Satavahanas. Skandavarma's son Kumaragupta conquered Kanchi. Source: 3. Source: states early settlement of Pallavas was Pallavanadu, which was called Palnadu(in guntur district of andhra) afterwards. lt was Virakurca Varma first pallava ruler - Page number 25 4. Source: History of Ancient India: Earliest Times to 1000 A.D Page 227. 17th Chapter - This source States 'In fact nothing definite can be said about the origin but one thing is sure that they were feudatories of andhra who declared independence in mid 4th century and established themselves on the east coast of India near krishna. -- there are even n number of other sources/books in support of the same. They clearly used the terms 'Much favored', 'sure' and 'conclude'. So clearly based on both epigraphical(Amaravati,Palnad,Maidavolu, Veluruplayam inscription/plates) and scholoarly research - The pallavas originated after the fall of satavahanas in andhra region and short lived at amaravati Guntur region before intruding south to conquer kanci by kumaravishnu.

Now I will explain why I had reverted the content added by the user.

1.Content: Except this one source rest all quote a very limited content spanning 2-3 lines of the same along with other theories like 'Parthian' /scythian. Even in this book this is mentioned under 'story' in a separate block without disrupting actual flow of the same. This is unproven thesis based purely on a story in a peotic book. As per K R Subramaniyan - The story was never proved. Neither single reference of pallava chola relationship is found in inscriptions nor is there any slightest resemblence between mythical ancestaries of cholas and pallavas. Epigraphical plates contradict with such genealogy. So this theory is of lower significance over actual one

2.Placing the content : This mythological story cannot down take the the most proven content on the page. Adding across 2-3 paragraphs in first paragraph and then in second paragraph demotes the above proven content. So the position of this theory is not appropriate is what i belive.

3. Length/emphasis: 2-3 paragraphs of high emphasis on a mythologial story which was least favored. There were other theories like 'Parthian' Scythian , 'autochthons'which were on same line of uncertainty. Adding each 2-3 paragraph now or in future(by someone) clearly disrupts the readbility and demotes the factual content.

4.Redundancy/POV:The following sentence user tried to add :
"Though Manimekalai posits Ilam Tiriyan as a Chola, not a Pallava, the Velurpalaiyam plates dated to 852, do not mention the Cholas. Instead, they credit the Naga liaison episode, and creation of the Pallava line, to a different Pallava king named Virakurcha":
This again states Velurpalaiyam plates geneology of Virakurca. -There is enough content on Virakurcha in the page as supported by majority of sources. So comparing 'Manimekalai' thesis with that of epigraphical findings is nothing but redundant(though copied from one source) and the following line
--"Though Manimekalai posits Ilam Tiriyan as a Chola" this is self written to favor the 'Manimekalai' which doe not hold good & kind of POV. Even a newspaper article was also been used to cite.

Due to all the above reasons, I had reverted and suggested to discuss on the talk page. I am not opposing the addition of other theories. We may add in precise 2-3 lines of each theory (manimekalai,parthian,scythian others) and in the order of precedence / relevance. Appreciate if you could consider adding the same under sub-section 'Other theories' which shall help to retain integrity and readability of the same.

Thanks again for helping here to resolve the same in peaceful manner. By LovSLif (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I was drafting remarks for opening a second round of discussion when I discovered that Destroyer27 has been indef'ed. So I will just summarise the discussion so far and leave it at that:

• LovSLif's first three points say essentially that Destroyer27's content gives more importance/emphasis to the Manimekalai theory than the reliable sources do. At this point, let me remind everybody that WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION (part of WP:NPOV) state that the Wikipedia content should give emphasis to theories in the same proportion as the reliable sources do. So this criticism is policy-based.
• The point 4 is critiquing the second part of Destroyer27's contribution. Unfortunately, I understand neither the contribution nor its critique. Who is Ilam Tiriyan? What do Velurpalaiyam plates have to do with Manimekalai which was written some half-millennium earlier?

On the whole, I think the Manimekalai theory should be covered only to the level at which reliable SECONDARY sources cover it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Kautilya3, I totally agree with you. By LovSLif (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

References

References

Reorganisation

@Kautilya3: I don't want to speak out of turn but I have some suggestions related to the changes that are currently under discussion. Should I just pitch in now or should I reserve this for later? A few examples would be (Of course I intend to provide references from reliable sources where it is necessary):

1. Suggest creating an Etymology section as Pallavas were also called Kaduvetti[16] and Tondaiyar[17] in epigraphs

2. Suggest ordering the content in origin section chronologically from earliest to latest

3. All references to Andhra origin could be clubbed together instead of going back and forth between other theories

4. According to [18], "the information available is still inadequate to categorically fix the origins of the Pallavas and there is no consensus among the historians about the beginning of the dynasty." This source makes this statement after considering all origin theories including a Telugu origin. So this can go at the end to state that the origin of Pallavas is inconclusive. Thanks, Nittawinoda (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@LovSLif: since Nittawinoda has made concrete proposals here for reorganising the section, please record your agreement/disagreement to the proposals here. And, please be brief. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Disagreements

@Kautilya3, I have noticed that Nittawinoda , has edited the origins section in inappropriate way.

@Nittawinoda,As suggested by admin Kautilya3 in above discussion, the content should be emphasized as per what sources say. In the process of clubbing 'andhra origin thesis' you cannot remove or place the core content,(which has been most favored thesis supported by many scholars & research), at the bottom of origins section. You have removed the content from first paragraph and added in last paragraph.
As per your latest comments above, I contradict with your point 2 of ordering the content in chronological order.
As suggested by admin, one cannot lay high emphasis on secondary sources by placing the same in first /second paragraphs. Just to add even if one has to go chronologically(which i don't think so valid criteria) early pallava regime(after satavahanas) dates much earlier to 3rd century when the dynasty has actually originated as per the sources.
As suggested by admin, You may add the content back if any as per the level of emphasis what sources speak. If you still not contented or agree with the same, then I would suggest we move to DRN page.
I also contradict with the etymology section you added. I have not reverted/edited the same yet despite content vary with the sources cited. I will confine this discussion for 'origins' and I will open new discussion for 'etymology'. Thanks! By LovSLif (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare:, @Kautilya3: I see that LovSLif (talk · contribs) has reverted my version. What do you have to say to LovSLif's behavior who is coming after a fresh block after he tried pushing POV using socks? What is wikipedia's stance on this? As for my edits, I think I am totally within limits in rearranging the content. I have not removed anything, I have merely placed the Andhra origin theory at the end. The statement that "the Andhra origin theory is the core content" is in itself a POV by LovSLif (talk · contribs). I disagree with this. Moreover, In the process of reverting my edits, he has removed the info from Bahur and Velurpalaiyam plates that state that the first king Pallava was born from Aswatthama. He has also reintroduced the following which seems incomplete:

"A prashasti (literally "praise"), composed in 753 on the dynastic eulogy in the Kasakadi (Kasakudi) plates, by the Pallava Trivikrama, traces the Pallava lineage from creation through a series of mythic progenitors, and then praises the dynasty in terms of two similes hinged together by triple use of the word avatara ("descent"), as below:[13]"

He has also removed the following sourced statement:

"It is important to note that there is no consensus among the historians when it comes to fixing the origin of the dynasty."

The neutral version is that there is no consensus among historians about the origin of Pallavas whereas Lovslif has been unfairly advocating a Telugu origin.

For reasons explained above I am reverting to the neutral version of the article. Nittawinoda (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Dear @Abecedare:, @Kautilya3:,

User Nittawinoda has voilated POV and despite admin Kautilya3 provided his suggestion that secondary sources need not be emphasized heavily. He is stating that I involved in WP:SOCK which I can say that I have not involved in any sock rather I used shared PC. This is out of context matter over here. If user has any valid points then he can put forward. He has moved much favored thesis' at end and highlighted secondary sources. I will move to DRN if he continue to indulge in POV with clear bias towards Tamil or myths. Also etymology part clearly shows his POV towards specific language. Sock is not the valid reason to debate here. Destroyer27 supported by Nittawinoda is confirmed sock and was blocked indefinately. I even suspect Nittawinoda to be involved in Mass Sock of Destroyer27. By LovSLif (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya3 ,

Request your moderation here. You had categerized the comments by Nittawinoda as reorganization but he has got no valid reasons to state why he had to put most favored thesis at bottom and least favored ones by secondary sources in first paragraphs. Also no answer to my queries on etymology section which I had sought clarification. Please suggest if I can move DRN? Nittawinoda is stating that I reverted sourced content. I ask him how can he make the changes to sourced content and add content from secondary sources when the discussion is not yet finalized. I request Nittawinoda not to comment on my block which is out of context. Even he was blocked in February 2019 for making personal attacks and harrasment. By LovSLif (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I am indeed trying to moderate. Nittawinoda started by first proposing certain principles for reorganisation, and since he didn't receive any objections, he went ahead and implemented them. Once you returned to the page, your first task would seem to be to express your agreement/disagreement about those principles. So, please do that first, and then we can decide how to proceed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Kautilya3,

I have already explained the factors for my disagreement to his proposals of arrangement. I will again comment on each one of them

Nittawinoda comment-- "1. Suggest creating an Etymology section as Pallavas were also called Kaduvetti[15] and Tondaiyar[16] in epigraphs"

My comment : I have already raised another discussion on etymology.Shall I club both over here? I request user to clarify on the same. As I could notice clear POV suppressing the facts and masking Sanskrit which is the source of etymology. Sanskrit/ prakrit were the very first languages of pallavas.

"2. Suggest ordering the content in origin section chronologically from earliest to latest"
My comment: Ordering chronologically should be applicable when all the theories have equal emphasis. Masking 'most favored' thesis is not apt. Also even if one has to go chronologically, 'Andhra origin' thesis should go first as this belongs to 3rd century when pallavas originated.

"3. All references to Andhra origin could be clubbed together instead of going back and forth between other theories"

My comment: The references and content are minimal enough and the content is not redundant to be clubbed.

"4. According to [17], "the information available is still inadequate to categorically fix the origins of the Pallavas and there is no consensus among the historians about the beginning of the dynasty." This source makes this statement after considering all origin theories including a Telugu origin. So this can go at the end to state that the origin of Pallavas is inconclusive."

My comment: First of all let user understand that this is not 'Telugu origin' rather about the region of origin. The information on 'Andhra origin' is suffice enough and if one refer the sources and it's content in the main discussion, scholars are very clear and sure about 'Andhra origin' and they credited the same with the terms 'much favored' ,'sure'.
I request Nittawinoda not to comment on personal things or involve in personal attacks(for which he was blocked once) rather appreciate if he could address moderator.
If still unhappy over what moderator suggests, will move to DRN.Let the credibility of all the thesis and content be decided there. All I want is to protect integrity of data. When the same cannot be retained no point in contributing to wikipedia. I hope factual content prevail. By LovSLif (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Trilochana Pallava not mentioned in ancestry of Kanchi Pallavas

The current article devotes a section for the theory that the Pallavas were a Telugu power. As per the article this whole theory rides on a chief called Trilochana Pallava who is mentioned in 11th or 12th century epigraphs. This inference is clearly wrong and needs to go for two reasons. One because Trilochana Pallava is never mentioned in the ancestry of the main line, that is the Kanchi Pallavas. He is simply not heard of in the records of the Kanchi kings. Second, he seems to be a chief claiming Pallava ancestry. He may be Telugu but that does not make his Pallava ancestors Telugu. For example Pottapi Chola, a Telugu Chola claims descent from Karikala. Does this mean Karikala is Telugu? Kanchi Pallavas may have taken queens from Kannada, Telugu, Kerala countries etc. and their progeny may be Telugu, kannada, Kerala but this does not mean the Pallava ancestor is of Kannada, Telugu or Kerala origin. The current article is a joke for it is full of such ridiculous theories. Nittawinoda (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Kanchi Pallavas (Main line) never issued Telugu records

Till now, no telugu records of the Kanchi Pallavas is forthcoming. Nittawinoda (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Genealogical claims

Hello Kautilya3 I could notice Nittawinoda has altered again the content in origins section by removing sourced content. We are already discussing the same through your moderation. You have mentioned that you would come up with initial draft. In meantime twice the user has altered the content. I ask user what is the core point of discussing here through moderation if one has to alter sourced content or push POV at any cost.Why can't have patience and give time to moderator. One cannot simply revert based on own assumptions.WP:RSSELF and user was doing the same. I want to add few lines on the reverted concept of Trilochana Pallava.

---

First of all there is no clear concensus on ancestral genealogy or heirarchy of founders on pallavas.Neither of the grants clear it. For instance the velurupalayam plate grant missed many prominent rulers. "Trilochana Pallava" which was found from the inscriptions of 11th and 12th centuries bore the title "Trilochana",incarnation of 3 eyed Lord Shiva to Pallavas'.Though the epigraphics are from very later stage,Historians believe him could be one of famous early pallavas as we know by the time kanchi was conquered it was already 5 generations past. K R Subramaniyam's quoting them as Telugu power was nothing but synonymous to present day Andhra. Tamil country/Tamil power was also used many a times synonymous to Tamilnadu. All the orders issued from early reignal years of Kanchi in Prakrit clearly speak about land grants made by their father in Andhra region.

---

I have no intention to ping Nittawinoda the moment he said 'kanchi was never conquered'.
Much revered Velurupalayam grants clearly state the conquest of kanchi by pallavas. The translation of grants can be referred in the book "Rev. H Heras, SJ (1931) Pallava Genealogy".

Neither the ancestors of kumaravishnu who conquered kanchi, are from the region nor the early inscriptions are from Tamil land or Tamil language. There is only one origin geographically and no space for second one. @Kautilya3, Hope you consider all these facts before intial drafting. I request let us not intrude article/talk page until discussion ends. By LovSLif (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Well, I have learnt through my reading that lions have not always been around in India. Apparently they came to India only around the time that the Aryans came to India, around 1500 BC. But as soon as they came, they were immediately recognized as symbols of power, valour and kingship. Today, there are probably tens of millions of people in India called "Singhs".

Prior to the lions, cobras served the same purpose of symbolising power, valour and kingship. That is what the names with naga signify. Western scholars translate naga as "snake" or "serpent" and completely miss the point. You never heard anybody named sarpa, have you?

According to D. C. Sircar,

...they had probably in their veins an admixture of the blood of a Brahmana family of the Bharadvaja gotra hailing from northern India and that of an aboriginal family of the Nagas. This Naga family held sway over the district round Kanchi, modern Conjeeveram in Chingleput District, Madras State. This land lying between the northern and the southern Penner was called Aruvanadu which is apparently the same as Arouarnoi of Ptolemy's Geography (c. A. D. 140). According to the Greek geographer, Arouarnoi was, in his time, under the rule of a king named Basaronaga, no doubt belonging to an aboriginal family of the Nagas. (Sircar 1970, pp. 275–276)

Perhaps you people can explain what the "northern and southern Penner" are? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3,I do not know how relevant is it to discuss 3500 year old aryan invasion and the admixture of blood,caste and gotra of pallava family.For that matter many dynasties of India have similar gotras/castes but originated in different corners.

Deriving origin of their dynasty from a particular region based on such data does not sound apt to me. Author might be referring later pallava's based on following. Pallavas belonging to Brahmana caste and bharadwaja gotra are clear from grants.As per same grants, their connection with nagas established post marriage of pallava king with naga princess to strengthen their position.This again does not mean pallava dynasty originated out of naga blood. As per sources I read Nagas or naga kingdom were not only confined to penner rather widespread in many parts of deccan including karnataka/andhra/maharshtra. Neither their origin is from mere penner/penna region(which flows in karnataka and Andhra) nor it has anything to do with contemporary pallavas.

I do not know why the discussion is going out of track when sources are pretty clear.Have you got chance to refer the book Rev. H Heras, SJ (1931) Pallava Genealogy which translates veluruplaiyam grants clearly stating conquest of kanchi. First let us wind up on geographical origin of dynasty and then we may move to ancestral genealogy.
Even Tamil literary books do not consider pallavas to be from their own land. Sangam texts clearly speak only about 3 kingdoms(pandya,chera,chola) ruled until north region of tondaimandalam(including kanchi). Refer this book which states about the occupation of kanchi by pallavas(Introduction 6,7) By LovSLif (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I have got another latest source by famous Tamil scholor K._D._Thirunavukkarasu. Refer page 4 and verify yourself. By LovSLif (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no further need to continue this thread at this stage. Please comment my "first draft" above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

References