Talk:Solar dynasty/Archive 1

Archive 1

From 2007

How Can Ramakatha Rasavahini Comapared with Valmiki Ramayana? I know that Sai Baba has told this story and I am devote too. But this should historical grounds not upon our Beliefs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.199.73.201 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[Question seems to be relevant no longer, and related to this edit.] Shreevatsa (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Genealogy

This article has suddenly taken on the appearance of being basically a family tree. Much of it is gibberish and I suspect a lot of it might be contested, bearing in mind that the primary sources have many forms, were written over many centuries and are in some cases incomplete. Is it really worth it? Are our secondary sources actually discussing the dynasty or is this a case of synthesis etc? - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This is both what Wikipedia is not and synth. We don't need elaborate patrilineal lists because it's not notable. What is notable is that famous people are assigned to the Ikshvaku/Okkaku dynasty, which I remind editors is mythological. It says this dynasty is mythological in the first sentence. There is definitely more than one version of these lineage charts and honestly, it's not Wikipedia's purview to list fifty invented names. Ogress _smash! 18:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Andhra Ikshvaku

Adhra Ikshvaku dynasty and the Ikshvaku dynasty mentioned in this article are one and the same. Anciently Andhras were subtribes of Satavahanas. I feel having two articles is redundant. Correct me if I am wrong about this. :-) Nagarjuna198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

Agree with you, it should be merged into this article-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 18:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Mythical or Not

Hello Sitush (talk · contribs), Ikshvaku is not a mythical dynasty but an actual one from history. There are significant evidences of Mahavira, Parshvanatha and even Gautama Buddha to actually exist in history. All of them were from Ikshvaku Dynasty, so how can you claim that its a myth? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 08:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Provide the evidence. I guess. - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~pluralsm/affiliates/jainism/article/antiquity.htm Check this link -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 11:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Why should we trust a source with so many errors in it? Even if we did, that source makes it clear that the entire subject of the origins of Jainism is very contentious. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

http://asi.nic.in/asi_monu_tktd_bihar_vaishali.asp and http://bstdc.bih.nic.in/vaishali.htm and even wikipedia page Vaishali (ancient city) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 14:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The link I provided just breaks the myth prevalent of Jainism being originated from Mahavira. It gives evidences that Jainism existed much before. What's contentious in that? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 14:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And what about Rama and Krishana? I suppose you don't think that Ramayana and Mahabharata is also Myth. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 14:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those other works are considered to be substantially mythological in nature. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that an asian country Sri Lanka formerly known as Lanka and ayodhya are myth? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 14:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Your questions are pointless. You are inviting further synthesis and we do not do that here. - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference

Is this source reliable? https://books.google.co.in/books?id=2fhCH-NRatUC page=20 -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Unlikely. Asian Educational Services mostly reprint Raj era stuff. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Merger

As I said at Talk:Ikshvaku dynasty, before we decide which, if any, articles to merge, we need to clean these articles up so that their content is sourced, and reflects what the source say (I am ok with the articles containing lineages, as long as there are solid secondary sources for the content). Right now, the cited sources I checked at random don't always support what they are being cited for; there seems to be synthesis/confusion between Ikshvaku dynasty and Suryavansha; and worse, between these mythological dynasties and Andhra Ikshvakus (which I believe is historical) etc. Any help in clean-up appreciated. Pinging @Ogress, Sitush, and Capankajsmilyo:. Abecedare (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is made difficult by the insistence that the Ramayana and Mahabharata et al. are historical narratives accurately describing prehistory. All these assignments to Lunar, Solar etc. dynasties are post-hoc narratives. Ogress _smash! 18:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to bring attention, we are discussing two separate mergers here. One brought here from Ikshvaku (Person) discussion by Abecedare and another of Ikshvaku (dynasty). -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ikshvaku dynasty has been replicated with various names over Wikipedia. Most of the other pages talking about Suryavamsa, Lunar Dynasty etc. lack significant cited content. The content can easily be contained in this article itself. Another alternative is shifting the content of Suryavamsa, Chandravamsa etc. from this article to their respective articles thereby leaving only few names here prior to Surya. I am not able to comment on Andhra Ikshvaku, since it being considered the only historical article in this discussion and rest all being mythological. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is a revised proposal on how the articles should be merged/reorganized:

1. Keep Ikshvaku dynasty and Suryavansha article separate, with the former discussing Jain mythology and latter discussing the Hindu mythology. Hat notes or internal links can be added to the articles link to the each other. Except for the Ikshvaku as the originator, there is little overlap between the lineages, legends, or sources between the two; in Hindu mythology the dynasty is almost always referred to as Suryavansha; and, attempts to cover both the Jain and Hindu mythology in one article, as at present, have led to considerable synthesis.
2. Merge Genealogy of Rama into Suryavansha. Ditto for Raghuvaṃśa dynasty, if any of it can be sourced; else just prod/delete it.
3. Don't merge Aila dynasty and lunar dynasty into any of these articles. In Hindu mythology they are a parallel dynasty to the Suryavansha, so I don't see the justification for such a merger.
4. Make Ikshvaku a disambiguation page pointing that (1) he is (possibly) identified with Rishabha in Jain mythology; and as the origin point for the (2) Suryavansha and (3) Ikshvaku dynasty in Hindu and Jain mythology respectively.
5. Don't merge Rishabha (Hinduism) into any of these article because, while in Jainism Iskshvaku and Rishabha are possibly identified with each other, that is not the case in Hindu mythology as far as I can determine (the wikipedia article inevitable contains some unsourced synthesis).
6. Don't merge Andhra Ikshvaku into any of these article since unlike any of the above discussed pages, that is supposed to be a historical entity (correct me if I am wrong).

Pinging @Capankajsmilyo, Ogress, and Sitush: for comments. Abecedare (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This is drifting somewhat away from territory with which I am familiar. However, the proposal seems ok to me. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply

1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. Please elaborate
4. We can simply add in header of respective pages, for 2-3 links disambig might not be a good option.
5. Rishabha and Rishabha (Hinduism) are same if I'm not wrong. Ikshvaku is what's different in Hinduism.
6. Agreed, add distinguish in header of Andhra ikshvaku — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capankajsmilyo (talk • contribs) 18:27, September 7, 2015

Pankaj, regarding 3 and 5, can you please make a positive case for what mergers you are proposing? I don't understand the point you are making in 4. Also can you please remember to sign your talk-page posts and follow other talk-page guidelines. Abecedare (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding 3 visit both the articles, they both talk about lunar dynasty and source about that is rare in both. So I am proposing alia to be merged into lunar dynasty.

Regarding 5, its mostly about Jainism. The only sourced info about Hinduism is the father. Is there a need for separate article for just 1 point? Can't it be a subsection of Rishabha as in hinduism.

Regarding 4 I am saying that a disambig might not be required. We can simply add at top of article that for ikshvaku in Hinduism see suryavamsha in Rishabha and ikshvaku dynasty.

Apologies for sign thing -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are proposing merging Rishabha (Hinduism) into Rishabha, please do so at those pages (although you should read the talkpages before, and wait till the numerous other mergers you have proposed are finalized). Ditto for Aila dynasty and Lunar dynasty.

And a disambiguation page is needed since otherwise Ikshvaku would be a redlink, and a user searching for that would not be guided to pages that contein the relevant content. Abecedare (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Okh Ikshvaku. I have read Rishabha talk page and commented on your talk page 2-3 days back regarding the same. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• By the way, we shouldn't forget ikshvaku dynasty of Buddhism here. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose merger of Aila dynasty and lunar dynasty, which is unrelated to Ikshvaku dynasty or Solar dynasty. However, Aila dynasty needs to be merged into lunar dynasty.
• Oppose merger of Andhra Ikshvaku: Andhra Ikshvaku is a historical dynasty, Ikshvaku dynasty is mythological. However, Andhra Ikshvaku did claim to be the Ikshvaku dynasty.
• Oppose merger of Ikshvaku into Rishabha They are separate characters in Hinduism
• Oppose merger of Ikshvaku into Ikshvaku dynasty Former is a king, latter is the dynasty.
• Support merger of Raghuvaṃśa dynasty--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Redtigerxyz I think you and I are on the same page on most of this. Would like your opinion on, (1) having the Ikshvaku dynasty and Suryavansha articles deal exclusively with Jain and Hindu mythology respectively (with hat-notes linking to each-other); and (2) making Ikshvaku dynasty a disambiguation page (I haven't seen much bographical details of the figure in Hindu mythology, and all that material can/will be covered in Suryavansha article in any case). Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

What about Buddhism? The Buddha is said to be born in the Ikshvaku dynasty.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support merger of Rishabha and Rishabha (Hinduism). Both are essentially the same. --Rahul (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion

I think that there is a broad consensus as regards Ikshvaku here. So shall we move Ikshvaku to Ikshvaku (Hinduism) and Ikshvaku (disambiguation) to Ikshvaku? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Also everyone seems to agree on merging Aila dynasty into Lunar dynasty and Raghuvaṃśa dynasty into Suryavansha, so shall we proceed? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. I wasn't in for the discussion earlier and didn't know anything about it until I was pinged by SpacemanSpiff to attend to the broken links after Capankajsmilyo departed the scene. I have now given my input at the Talk:Ikshvaku (disambiguation) RFM. Here I want to make some general comments.

Jainism and Hinduism (along with Buddhism) developed within the same space and time. Whereas Hinduism was/is based centrally on Puranas (epics/legends, probably with some roots in reality), Jainism was based on non-legendary Agamas, which are described as "canonical texts" by Cort. Only in due course, after realizing how popular Puranas were in Hinduism, that Jainism developed its own Puranas. In the process it adopted the Hindu legends and traditions for its own ends. The tirthankaras (ascetic preachers) were worked into the Hindu lineages whereas they probably had no connection to them at all originally. This was revisionist tradition (somewhat like we have revisionist history). Padmanabh Jaini has called it a "counter tradition". It is not clear to me how important this tradition is to Jainism (as it is "postcanonical" in Cort's description), but we shouldn't let it interfere with the Hindu traditions as documented here. It should be kept apart as far as possible.

There is no equivalence between the Hindu Puranas and the Jain Puranas because they are "canonical" in one case and "postcanonical" in the other. So, the importance of the traditions in the two religions is quite different. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

References

New problem: disambiguation needed fast

I arrive here because I and others participating in wp:DPL's Monthly Disambiguation Challenge are now seeing Ikshvaku (or Ikshvaku (disambiguation) to which Ikshvaku currently redirects) as the current top disambiguation page in the challenge. It has 38 inbound links. These are not allowed; they all need to be changed either a) to link directly to an item in the disambiguation page instead, or b) be delinked. IMO sometimes disambiguation-focused editors damage Wikipedia by delinking because they don't know what is a better target, disconnecting articles that should be linked. I want to ask editors here to please help quickly to do better in disambiguating these 38 inbound links. All you need to do is go to this "dablink-list" report for Ikshvaku, and then select "FIX" for one of the remaining ones (which brings up wp:DabSolver applied to it), and then use DabSolver's great functionality to select one of the disambiguation page's items from a drop-down menu. To save requires two steps: you have to select either "Preview" or "Show changes" at the bottom, then it brings up another page where you can select "Save". It's easy to apply the tools, what is needed is you with your expertise about the terms.

For the record, and if anyone wants to check whether the disambiguation was done correctly, afterwards, the 38 mainspace pages that link to Ikshvaku currently are: Gautama Buddha, Indo-Aryan migration theory, Jagannath, Kaikeyi, Kakudmi, Kartikeya, Kartikeya Temple, Pehowa, Kashyapa, King Mandhata, Kosala, Krishna River, Kusha (Ramayana), Lava (Ramayana), Legendary early Chola kings, List of Hindu soldiers, Manu (Hinduism), Muchukunda, Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve, Nalgonda, Origin of the Western Ganga Dynasty, Outline of Telangana, Palnadu, Pancharanga Kshetrams, Parikshit, Pasenadi, Raghuvanshi, Raju zamindaris, Scion of Ikshvaku, Shakya, Shraddhadeva Manu, Suparshvanatha, Suryavansha, Timeline of Guntur, Tumuluri, Varuthini Ekadashi, Velanadu, Vimalanatha and Vishvamitra.

TIA, --doncram 01:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: I have made Ikshvaku point to Ikshvaku (Hinduism) whereas it was pointing to Ikshvaku (disambiguation). Other than the fact the Hindu Ikshvaku is attested earlier in Ramayana, the more pragmatic reason was to recover all the references from within Wikipedia, which were getting lost otherwise. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: The disambiguation page has now been moved to Ikshvaku, and the links that doncram mentioned are again ambiguous (there are 36 now). -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 08:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Niceguyedc, I've left a note for Jenks24 to revert that move for now, pending a discussion among these participants regarding the whole set of articles. —SpacemanSpiff 08:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Jenks24 has unclosed and restored to the original location pending a proper discussion. Pinging the involved editors here to sort this out: @Redtigerxyz, Kautilya3, and Abecedare: the discussion is at Talk:Ikshvaku (disambiguation). This may be a good time to figure out the proper titles. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Split proposal

I propose to shift Hinduism part of this article to Suryavansha as per the discussion above. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Ikshvaku dynasty → List of Ikshvaku dynasty rulers – I suggest we move this article to a list and start afresh. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no clear-cut distinction between "articles" and "lists" and, when in doubt, they should IMO remain under the article title so that more about history, influence and legacy could be written. If you plan to do that, you're certainly welcome, but then, you can later split the material into an article and a list of rulers. Until then, they're better off here. No such user (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Clean up

Something needs to be done here because the article is a complete mess and makes little sense to me. There was a prolonged discussion - see here - but that, too, became a confusing mess. Can we perhaps start over in working out what needs to be done? It isn't a subject with which I am particularly familiar, which I guess also explains in part why I do not understand the article (but, of course, the article should be geared towards people like me). - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The article is too technical. Another problem is the overlap with the article on the Solar dynasty. The tag for original research at the top of the article seems unwarranted to me, though, as the article hardly presents any opinions. I am removing that tag, which was incorrect layout anyway.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

COPIED TO List of Jain Empires and Dynasties#Ikshvaku_dynasty

copied content from Solar Dynasty to List of Jain Empires and Dynasties#Ikshvaku_dynasty; see Solar Dynasty page's history for attribution Rishabh.rsd (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)