Talk:Rajendra I

Untitled

• Please replace the name 'Chola' (சோள) that means the name of an eatable grain, with 'Chozha' (சோழ) which means the name of a king and/or his dynasty.Helppublic (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Dear Venu62,

the map could have been more extensive, good work though ;its that the Kalinga , Bihar and Bengal conquered are included as very thin strips of land, and not justified . Kindly review . Also include Isthmus of Kra, and Bakong in the empire and also mention them in the Overseas Conquests section. Senthilkumaras 08:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The map was based on K.A. Nilakanta Sastri's 'Colas', University of Madras (reprinted 1984). Sastri clearly states that the expedition to the Ganges was nothing other than a rapid raid across these countries to fetch the water for the consecration of the new capital. No territory was taken and added permanently. It is true that Rajendra's army defeat the kings of Sakkarakottam and Dhandabhukti and Mahipala. There is no evidence the these territories were added to the kingdom on a permanent basis. Even the Vengi kingdom was not part of the Chola terrotories, rather it was a protectorate.

The same holds true for the overseas conquests as well. These campaigns are mainly commercial in nature to secure the trade line betweeen China and Cholamandalam and the Srivijaya and Kadaram territories were given back to their rulers after they acknowledge the overlordship of Cholas. These territories were never part of the Chola empire proper.

Given the above facts as we know, I think the map I created is a very generous one in line with the widely expected extent of the Chola empire.

parthi 09:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• So, is it just because one( KANSastri) donot know whether it was a conquest or a raid( a 50-50 odd ?!)one should not be allotting 50% land or even a thin strip of Kalinga and Bengal . It is ridiculous, and generosity doesnot come here , who are we [[including historians] to grant generously "let you have Kalinga, and let he

have Bengal, " or " hey Rajendra I give you Bengal have it in your map!!"

• Remember throughout middle Tamil history , kings Cholas and Pandyans gave themselves titles like "place" -konnda "title" like "Maduaiyum Eelamum konnda Perumaan(Paranthaka I), and many others . Dont you think Gangai konnda Chola means conquest of Ganges, I think u know wat konda means .?

• Be clear, if Rajendra coonquered Bengal, Kalinga and Vengi then add full Bengal and full Orissa to the map. Or else if you and your illustrious Sanskrit and English scholar KANSastri , think it was just a raid then erase out all the north Indian extent in your map, kindly and limit the empire to within limits of Tamil Nadu . No 50-50 business please .

• I think protectorate and overlordship acceptance mean to be a part of an empire.

• • In your other map in Karikala Chola Uraiyur was displaced to around Pattukottai, I think Uraiyur is old Thiruchchi .

• • Also the later Telugu-Prakrit stone inscription naming Karikala , why would a Telugu king describe achievements of a Tamil king who ruled a thousand years before him .

• • do you think the name of Karikala in the stone in an alien language was a joke or a foulplay by a Tamil fanatic of 11th c.[just like many other Old Tamil literature ?fanatics today, whom the indifferent and disrespecting neighbours chose to hate at all times, which perhaps resulted from Chola domination in Kar,AP,Keral,and SL, add Bramn geniuses . We see many atime these showing troubling indifff like in Vengi page a few anonymous editors(209.180.28.6 , 203.197.227.228 see also their other contributions so peculiar about the antiquity of Tamil ) for the umpteenth time erased a mention and link to evidence of king's (Tamil) long name in Satavahana coins. and who can forget the tussle of Arvind- and Bangalore Iyengar -Hattigas from Karnataka .]

Senthilkumaras 09:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that there is no definite evidence to the exact extent of any of these empires. Given that there is no point splitting hair regaring whether a particular district is included in the map or not. It is a known fact that Rajendra's armies conquered the Pala king. However whether these territories came under direct administration of the Cholas is not accepted. The meaning of the word 'protectorate' is simply that - the conquered kingdoms were give independent authority with the understanding that they accept the Chola superiority.

The Cholas might have migrated north to the Chola country during the Kalabhara's reign and established the Telugu Choda dynasty. We don't know for sure. They might have maintained a memory of the bygone glory days regarding the legendary Karikala. We can't say for sure. This is just like the inscriptions of the later cholas claiming descent from the Sun.

As far as the Kondan title, they also had the title 'Tribuvana Chakravarti' -Ruler of the three worlds. Do we hold this true as well?

I know none of your troubles with the Vengi pages.

The main point again is when writing history only write verifyable authentic sources and don't insert legends.

Parthi (Venu62) 10:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

started his rule as parakesari

1. Hail ! Prosperity! Until the third year (of the reign) of Ko-Parakesarivarman, alias the lord Sri-Rajendra-Soradeva, — Arvar Parantakan Kundavaiyar, (who was) the venerable elder sister of the lord Sri-Rajarajadeva (and) the great queen of Vallavaraiyar Vandyadevar, gave to the images which she had set up herself, — gold which was weighed by the stone (used in) the city and called (after) Adavallan, and jewels which were weighed by the jewel weight called (after) Dakshina-Meru-Vitankan. Those (jewels), which could be weighed (separately), were weighed without the threads, of the frames, the copper nails, the lac and the pinju. Those jewels, the net weight of which could not be ascertained, as they were united with the lac and the pinju (were weighed) together with the lac and the pinju. (The amount of this gold and these jewels) was engraved on stone (as follows) : - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.32.252 (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Large section removed today

I removed this text because I suspect it has been cut & pasted from elsewhere, and therefore breaches WP policy on copyright. See WP:COPYVIO. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Rajendra Chola in Souteast asian history (Malay)

Hikayat Iskandar Zulkarnain

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Sejarah-Melayu/conversations/topics/444

https://www.facebook.com/791664790920603/photos/a.791707297583019.1073741828.791664790920603/851339264953155/

https://mindaahad.wordpress.com/2010/09/

http://aku-macjay.blogspot.com/2010/12/melayu-bangsa-yang-hilang.html

http://pentaskajibuku.blogspot.com/2011/12/kertas-kerja-zulkarnain-moyang-raja.html

http://zakisamsudin.blogspot.com/2009/02/lessons-from-puyi.html

18:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not one of those is a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Inscriptions

Is there really any point in showing the ancient inscriptions? If there is then the section needs to be reformatted per WP:MOSQUOTE but I think we can get away with something like Ancient inscriptions relating to Rajendra Chola have been identified at temples A, B and C. and cite this. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Readers, User Sitush and I have a difference of opinion. To keep or throw away the Inscription section of the article. I would like to keep it the way it stands now for various reasons detailed below while User Sitush would like to get rid of it. I believe the way Sitush wants it restructured is severely lacking in details like for eg. it does not give the full title of the king as Parakesarivarman alias Udaiyar Rajendra Choladeva. Request all avid readers and those interested in Chola history to voice your opinion and vote here.

Reasons why I added it in the first place

1. The inscriptions help resolve any confusion regarding the different monarchs in Chola dynasty who have held the name Rajendra Chola

2. To show that Rajendra Chola the conqueror of Purvadesam, Ganges and Kidaram is Parakesari

3. That his natal star is tiruvadarai

4. That his sons were Rajadhiraja, Rajendradeva and Virarajendra, the first and last of whom refer to their father as the one who conquered Purvadesam, Ganges and Kidaram in their inscriptions

5. That his achievements is not to be confused with those of his namesakes, like for example, Rajakesarivarman Rajendra Kulottunga who came much later.

Request you to please vote. Thanks, Nittavinoda (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

With one or two exceptions, we do not do "votes" on Wikipedia. This is not one of those exceptions. People just comment and someone judges what the consensus of those comments happens to be. I don't see any reason why the inscriptions have to be quoted etc in order to derive/support the information that you state above. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I know you take an interest in archaeology and ancient civilisations etc, so would you care to comment? I don't think a specific knowledge of Indian history is necessary to do so. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

My first comment is that those certainly do not appear to be actual inscriptions. I don't have the foggiest idea why they are presented as such. And why can't I find the "Yet another inscription from Konerirajapuram," sourced to https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.532621/2015.532621.topographical-list_djvu.txt this] The reasons given for including this are original research, we'd need academic sources interpreting inscription in this way. So no, the "not inscriptions" shouldn't be included. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Hi Doug, first of all let me tell you that this is what i've been saying all the while here in my talk page that what I've included are not the actual inscriptions but rather the interpretation of historian Rangacharya who has authored the book. The reason you could not find is because the characters are out of place in the ".txt" version which you have included. For eg, Konerirajapuram is actually printed as "Kdnerirdjapuram". Please search using keyword "kundavai".You will find it under 1216. It is under Tanjore district. The author V. RANGACHARYA, m.a., l.t.,Assistant Professor of History, Presidency College, Madras was a professor of history and so how can this be original research. Why is this not an academic source since he has also used Notes and References of other historians in his commentary? While you're at it please also give your opinion on Colonial-era sources as User Sitush is biased and against any source that was printed during the British era in India. Thanks, Nittavinoda (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

So the section is mislabeled - what are you doing, paraphrasing? It isn't clear at all. And V. Rangacharya seems to have mysteriously still been writing in 1985. Ah, Parantaka Chola II Uttama Chola and Raja Raja Chola I all have the same time-travelling source. Giving the date of a reprint is extremely misleading. I wouldn't use him for this claim[1], that's for sure. And since I don't see this used much at all in GBooks or GScholar, I wouldn't use it. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought. Boothi Vikramakesari has Epigraphica India as 1987, not 1957.[2] Then there's " Madras (India : State); B. S. Baliga (1983). Madras District Gazetteers: Pudukkottai District. Superintendent, years after his death.B. S. Baliga. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sastri's work on Cholas: To Keep or Dump, Please Vote here and Voice your opinion

K. A. N. Sastri's History of South India dates from 1935. As such, we would usually bin it as unreliable. I am aware that he has still got supporters but also that he has been criticised for a pro-Brahminic slant on history. Can we not find more recent sources to replace this one? - Sitush (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I say we keep Sastri's work but use discretion while quoting from it. Nittavinoda (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Can't really do that because it would involve original research. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Battle of kedah.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Conquest of Sri Lanka; Disputable content

I saw this page on Rajendra 1 and the page on Rajaraja 1 have some disputable information about their conquest of Sri Lanka. Both pages indicate that they conquered entire island which is disputable. Rajendra 1 conquered most of the island but there was a small part of resistance which Sinhalese later used to organize and regain the island back.

See this: [3] I will add required primarily literature in a bit. However, I have not made any changed to the page as I prefer discussing with other authors before making changes. Lipwe (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Lipwe (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Moreover, Spencer talks about the continuous line of Sinhalese kings during the Chola period in the Rohana kingdom.

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

Thus it is clear that Cholar only had an influence on the Rohana kingdom of the south of Sri Lanka, not direct control. So I made correction to the relavant map. The corrected map only included the Principality of Ruhuna (Ruhunu Rata) as the area of influence, while the entire Principality of Malaya was put under Chola control, even though this might not be the case.

Saivism is not a religion, but a sect of Hinduism. Hinduism is a religion, Saivism isn't.

Adding this topic here, as a user named 'Muruganadimai' is engaging in edit war and calling my edits as vandalism on this article as well as others. My edits were not vandalism, but only to correct info and I've decided to stop editing till we have a solution, here after discussion and debate, hopefully without disturbing any admins as any more edits by me may also be called as edit warring.

Let's try to build a consensus here and debate both our view points & edits. I'm open to more people joining this discussion to reach a solution.

As it is known very well, Hinduism is a major religion which is one of the oldest surviving religion of the world. Those who follow Hinduism are called Hindus. Shaivism, like Shaktism, Vaishnavism and various other traditions or forms of worship is one of the sects of Hinduism. Shaivism is not a religion, but a sect. Those who follow Shaivism are known as Shaivaites only to be differentiated from Shakta & Vaishnav. But Shaivaites can't be differentiated from Hinduism or Hindus as they are a part of Hinduism and come under the Hindu umbrella.

My humble request is that if Muruganadimai wants to add the Shaivaite tag to the King mentioned in this article, I welcome that. But that tag should not be added in place of Religion, but under another tagline named Sect. As the king's religion is Hinduism, but his sect was Shaivism. I'm not even questioning the sources mentioned by Muruganadimai since he's using these sources to say that the King was a Shaivaite, there is no doubt or disagreement there. But I strongly oppose using Shaivism instead of Hinduism as his religion. We can always add more options in infobox which can describe the sect of the King, apart from describing his religion which is Hinduism.

Muruganadimai and anyone else is free & welcome to give their point of view regarding this issue. I'm sorry If I've offended Muruganadimai or any other Wiki user who is from Tamil Nadu or Hindu or admirer of Chola kings and their dynasty. Any edits made by me were in good faith and to the best of my knowledge, I'm neither from Tamil Nadu, Southern state of India where these kings ruled primarily. Nor am I a Hindu, so ignore or inform me about my mistakes, if any.

Thanks! FofS&E (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Strong Oppose.

User 'FofS&E' is the one to engage in edit war and he edits contents that are already cited and engaging in Vandalism. WP:VANDAL

My response:

The Hinduism you are talking about is a modern term that came only during the British rule. During the Chola Era, these sects (such as Shaivism and Vaishnavism) existed as separate religions along with Buddhism and Jainism. The kings of Chola era patronised and worshiped Lord Shiva more than any gods. The Saiva literary works and most number of Saiva temples they have built is the evidence for that.

Here were are writing about history. So we talk about what is followed and norm during that time. If the Chola king is of 21st era the we can call them as Hindus but here we are talking about religion and worship of the Chola Kings 1000 years ago. The Chola kings family deity is Chidambaram Natarajar (Lord Shiva). They were coronated in Chidambaram Temple every time. Chola built more Shiva Temples than for any other gods.

Shaivism is a religion during their time. Even the Chola's themselfs wouldn't have know a religion such as Hinduism existed. I support to keep it as Shaivism only in the Religion section of the templates. Don't confuse and mix History with present day norm. Muruganadimai (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I have also informed Muruganadimai about this post on their talk page since I don't know how to tag a user. I'll wait for 48hrs before correcting the article again, if they fail to respond. FofS&E (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". What are your sources? No matter how big an essay you write in talk page, Wikipedia won't take original research. Do not settle scores in Wikipedia.--2409:4073:4E87:6720:8CE3:32AC:2CBD:BD22 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Shaivism was never a religion, always a sect. Calling Shaivism a religion is your personal opinion, not a fact. It is not a religion today, and was not a religion in the past either. Lord Shiva is a Hindu God, not a God of single sect. A Sect may worship one God exclusively, but that doesn't exclude that God from the religion or for those who don't follow any sect/branch. Yes, they worshipped Shiva very much, and more than any other Gods, but did they not worship Lord Vishnu? Was worshipping of other Hindu gods outlawed or forbidden by king's order? No. And whether Cholas would know about Hinduism or not is not the matter which we are discussing here. These are only your speculation. Don't confuse & mix history with your personal opinions. Shaivism was & still is a sect, never a religion. Period.

FofS&E (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Highly oppose

Saivam was a separate religion during Chola era and thus must be called so as the religion of Chola Dynasty. Period. Calling Shaivam a sect during the Chola era is your opinion and not a fact. Only after British era Saivam and Vaishnavam came under Hinduism. Back then Lord Shiva is the god of only Saivites. During that era the worshippers of Vishnu did not consider Lord Shiva as superior or even as a god. There were constant battles between the two religions such as Saivam and Vainavam. Even chola kings prosecuted Vaishnavaites and those who worship Vishnu many times in the History. Did the cholas worship Vishnu? Maybe. So did then they worshipped Jain gods and Buddhism and built temples for the same. This only says that the Chola kings were mostly tolerant with religions they do not follow such as Vaishnavism, Jainism and Buddhism. Just worship of Vishnu alone does not make them a Vaishnavites and it does not change the fact Saivam was a separate religion by itself 1000 years back. Tamilpadai (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Shaivism was and is still a sect, never a religion. Calling Shaivism as religion is your point of view. The Chola kings as well as their family worshipped & made Lord Vishnu temples. If they were just tolerant, then why worship or make temples of Lord Vishnu? Yes, Just worshipping of Vishnu doesn't make them Vaishnavites but worshipping both Lord Vishnu & Shiva doesn't mean that these worshippers do not come under the Hindu fold. FofS&E (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

No Shaivism was a separate religion during Chola era in the tamil country back then. Shaivism became a sect only in modern times. Calling Shaivism as a sect back then is your point of view. Building Vishnu temple does not necessary make them the follower of Vaishnava religion. The Cholas are the kings and they have to maintain and support communal harmony in their land. They were tolerant with religions such as Vaishnavam, Buddhism, and Jainism and they financially supported to build Vaishnava temples, Buddhist temples and Jain temples. They did not force their religion (Shaivam) on the people of the countries they invaded.

To a large extent chola did not worship Vishnu and did not promote literary works for vishnu like they did for Saivam. In fact, Athirajendra Chola prosecuted Vaishnavites and that led to Civil war between the two religion Shaivites and Vaishnavites in Chola Kingdom.

You are confusing modern day Hinduism with Chola era religions. When we write about chola history we need to talk about what is norm at their era. That is Shaivism was a separate religion for the Chola kings and the citizens of Chola Kingdom. Post Chola era, unification of Saivam and Vaishnavam which is what we call Hinduism now and this happened in order to avoid any further conflicts and counter the influence of Islam and Christianity. Muruganadimai (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

If you can prove that Shaivism was a religion, not a sect during the time of those kings, then I'm ready to reconsider my position and won't make any changes to any Chola king's article. But please provide valid sources that mention Shaivism was a religion and not a tradition or sect or mode of worship or school of thought of Hinduism. Also, when did Shaivism & Vaishnavism unified. Lastly, don't provide me with any proof or source which says that Cholas were Shaivaite, there is no dispute or conflict regarding this. They were primarily Shaivaite. But to believe Shaivism was a religion that merged with Vaishnavism, will need your points. Thanks! Peace~ FofS&E (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• It was already Hinduism. False claim that FofS&E is the one to engage in edit war and he edits contents that are already cited and engaging in Vandalism won't help you. >>> Extorc.talk 21:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  It was not Hinduism. It was in fact Shaivism and I was the one to add those citations. FofS&E engaged in edit wars. Please refer back rather being dishonest. Now the matter is in discussion so please make good arguments and reach a conscience before editing. Muruganadimai (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Calling me "dishonest" is also a personal attack. Read WP:NPA. What you are doing is called WP:OR. You don't have any sources to support your unsubstantiated theory that Hinduism in South India was not actually Hinduism but Shaivaism. You haven't provided a single source to prove it. >>> Extorc.talk 22:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope, I'm just stating the facts. It was shaivism and i maintained the status quo. I do have reference and citations to back this. Give me a week time to post a detailed supporting arguments on this. Until then please maintain status quo. Muruganadimai (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Why you consider them to be "facts" when they cannot be backed? Read WP:VERIFY. 103.249.233.126 (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Who said i cannot back it? I need more time to give a detailed response. Why you are in a hurry? Wikipedia discussions take a time to reach conscience and until then you maintain status quo. Muruganadimai (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Name calling other users is not a good behaviour. You were calling me a vandal who is vandalizing. Now, you are labelling another user as dishonest. I suggest you stick to the topic of discussion instead of name calling and personal attacks. I'm still waiting for answers to my questions asked on 6th October 19:00 UTC FofS&E (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding status quo, the onus is on you to prove that Shaivism was an independent religion during the time of Chola kings which merged with Vaishnavism (another religion according to you) to counter the influence of foreign religions. As of today, there is no doubt about Shaivism being a sect of Hinduism. There is no such mention that Shaivism became a part of Hinduism on this year and for these reasons. If you want status quo, then article should not be using Shaivism as religion, but as a sect since Shaivism is a sect of Hindu religion. FofS&E (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Religion vs sect/secular and Infobox royalty

Sect much appreciated than religion

Examples

• Napoleon - Catholicism
• Ellalan - Shaivism
• David - Yahwism
• Akbar - Sunni Islam

If you are not agree that sect not important, you have to change in above articles and I hope you have to create such Wiki guideline. --AntanO 12:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You can't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST for argument. There are millions of pages that disagree with your cherrypicked examples. Reliable sources call him a Hindu, and always have. Shaivism is no way rigid as Catholicism. Not a single scholarly source calls it a different religion. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

AntanO, the cited source isn't relible. It is cited from a 6th standerd school book, published by Ratna Sagar which isn't a reputable source nor the writer Behula Khan a reputed historian. Akshaypatill (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Antano If Sect is much appreciated than religion, then it should say sect instead of religion. I have no issue if Shaivism is used to describe the king, but then either the option should be renamed from Religion to Sect, or use Hinduism if religion is not changed to sect.

And this is what I found about another Chola king/emperor:- https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kulottunga_I

But if there is such a wiki guideline, then please enlighten me.

Thanks for your view!

FofS&E (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. What is the guidance to use "Infobox royalty". If Infobox royalty allow to use only religion than sect, why it differ to other article? Why many of you are keen to keep Hinduism here. If you cannot response, I have to restore the page and I would seek advice from sysop. --AntanO 15:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Ship compartments.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2023

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — mw (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Rajendra Chola I → Rajendra I – WP:COMMONNAME and matches format of other similar articles. SKAG123 (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support, consistent with others at Chola Empire#Emperors. BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Rajendra The great

Please provide citations that state Rajendra the great is a nickname for this monarch. The nickname is currently unsourced SKAG123 (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)