Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

Shortcuts

• WP:DRNWP:DRN
• WP:DR/NWP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not enter text that has been generated by a large language model or other artificial intelligence. All statements in dispute resolution must be in your own words. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.			Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Laos	In Progress	TheodoresTomfooleries (t)	12 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours
Parantaka II	In Progress	TeenX808 (t)	9 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	7 days, 11 hours	Zoozaz1 (t)	5 days, 7 hours
Draft:JioStar	Closed	Ajitsinghbhagat (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.

Current disputes

Laos

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by TheodoresTomfooleries on 22:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Laos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TheodoresTomfooleries (talk · contribs)
• TheUzbek (talk · contribs)
• ErickTheMerrick (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute itself is concerned with the 'standard' for how countries like Laos, Vietnam, or other states like it, should be described as. As such this does not necessarily wholly concern Laos, but the dispute started on there regardless and this dispute is focused on it.

The dispute in question is how to describe Laos' government form in the infobox. TheUzbek seems to prefer to call Laos a 'Unitary people's democratic state' based off of sources he's provided. ErickTheMerrick seems to prefer the 'status quo' before TheUzbek inserted that into the article, which was 'Unitary Marxist-Leninist one-party socialist republic'. I preferred 'Unitary Marxist-Leninist state'.

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I would normally discuss this, it has been rather clearly shown by TheUzbek- both with his conversations with Erick and with me, that he is not willing to see compromise or to actually engage in good faith with other editors.

This is not about his conduct; but it is a reason why I feel though I must come here to resolve it.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Laos#People's democratic state vs. socialist state

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A decision should be made on how to describe the Laotian government form in the article. This has the possibility to concern other articles as well.

Summary of dispute by TheUzbek

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

See Talk:Laos#People's democratic state vs. socialist state.

Comment on content, not contributors. See Focus on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I truly think user TheodoresTomfooleries is a sockpuppet of ErickTheMerrick. He started editing immediately after the conflict with Erick concurred and takes his side on everything: this conflict has been going on for a while, see Talk:People's Socialist Republic of Albania.

The conflict is easy. Erick and Theodores propose adding a text that is completely made up, "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party republic". There are no scholars or scholarly work that defines the form of government as this: "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party republic". None. Marxist-Leninist state redirects to communist state, but they refuse to link "Marxist-Leninist state" to the communist state article. Instead, having it be "Marxist-Leninist state", in which "Marxist-Leninist" redirects to "Marxism-Leninism", an article not about the communist form of government or the state formation known to social sciences as communist. I suggest the following:

1. We follow the academic consensus, which is the accepted usage of the term "Communist state"
2. Marxist-Leninist state is synonymous with communist state, both in social sciences and here on Wikipedia, so we should prefer the usage of communist state over it (since the article is named "communist state")
3. We should add short, concise, and uncontroversial definitions of the form of government in infoboxes of states. More does not mean clarification; in most cases, it means the opposite.
4. All information that is supported by a reliable source about the form of government should be included in the article in written form, even if more controversial, as long as it's cited by reliable sources.
5. Note: communist states either call themselves (normally) socialist states or people's democratic states. For example, Laos does not claim to be a socialist state, but its a communist state. China claimed to a people's democratic state until (legally) the 1975 constitution (one can claim that this was earlier; the first proposed draft was released in 1971 and proclaimed China a socialist state). Stalin and the Soviet communists were very clear that the USSR became a socialist state in the 1930s. The term people's democratic state was established in the 1940s, but the Mongolian communists, in retrospect, claimed that the Mongolian People's Republic was established as a people's democratic state in 1921 and transformed into the lower-levels of socialism only in 1960 (when it became a socialist state). This is all referenced in List of communist states by reliable and academic sources. What is my point? The form of government: the one-party state that controls the unified powers of the supreme state organ of power did not change in Mongolia from 1921 to 1960. The form of government is communist, as in the communist form of government, as in communist state. That is the least controversial term and the most correct one as well.

--TheUzbek (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed, and have been using Marxist-Leninist state, which does as a matter of fact redirect to communist state, not Marxism-Leninism. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why have Marxist-Leninist state when the actual article name is communist state? Again, those not make a whole lot of sense.

I have always been open for discussions, and still am. TheUzbek (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to highlight the fact that the regime follows Marxism-Leninism, is all. Marxist-Leninist state isn't any more or less incorrect than communist state: they're both perfectly equal and valid terms for the same topic. Marxist-Leninist state I think deals with this subject better because it emphasizes Marxism-Leninism as the system of government rather than 'communism'. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that communist state would be better used for articles like North Korea, where the government is very clearly Marxist-Leninian(?) in its structure, but which does not officially follow Marxism-Leninism; but for those articles which deal with countries that officially adopted Marxism-Leninism, Marxist-Leninist state is better used. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP, Marxist-Leninist state and communist state are synonymous terms. According to academic literature, these terms are synonymous. You are making a big deal out of nothing; the articles name is communist state and not Marxist-Leninist state. TheUzbek (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah. I said that. And the article also acknowledges that Marxist-Leninist state and communist state to be equal names. Communist state isn't any more or less of a valid name. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, since the article is named "Communist state". TheUzbek (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think we're going to get any progress on this front, then. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, since you do not accept the consensus of Wikipedia. The article could have been titled Marxist-Leninist state, but it isn't. TheUzbek (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their edits have been reverted by countless of other editors as well: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. I am not alone in this... --TheUzbek (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by ErickTheMerrick

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Laos discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth Statement by Possible Moderator (Laos)

I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Some of the discussion is getting too personal. Please state whether you agree to the ground rules. It appears that one of the content disputes is how to characterize the government of Laos in the infobox. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to list all of the changes that they want to make to the article that another editor disagrees with, and all of the proposed changes that they disagree with that another editor wants to make. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do.

I think that "Unitary Marxist-Leninist state" should be how the government is characterized in the article. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to this is very simple: if you search "Marxist-Leninist state" on Google Scholar you get 1810 hits. In contrast, if you search "communist state" on Google Scholar you get over 50000 hits. "Communist state" is a scholarly term. Few academics use the term "Marxist-Leninist state" since every communist has been Marxist-Leninist; there is no point in specifying it. I mean, darn, if I ask Chat GPT or DeepSeek what is the most common term (Marxist-Leninist state or communist state), both answer that the communist state is the most common term. Wikipedia is about what the sources say and not your personal opinion. TheUzbek (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth Statements by Editors (Laos)

Regarding TheodorTomfoolerie's point on the use of Unitary Marxist-Leninist state, there has been extensive discussion on Talk:China which may be relevant:

• Talk:China/Archive 16#Single-party state too socialist_republic/state

• Talk:China/Archive 19#Government_type/Form of government in infobox

• Talk:China/Archive 19#Undue change of infobox + discussion on "socialist_state" / "socialist_republic"

These examples are specific to China, but some of the point raised may be generalizable to other article on communist states

— 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 01:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Statement by Possible Moderator (Laos)

@TheodoresTomfooleries, TheUzbek, and ErickTheMerrick: - Is there still an article content dispute? I apologize for the delay. If there is still an article content dispute, is it about the infobox, or about the body of the article, or both? If there is a dispute about the infobox, please state what you think should be in the infobox. State only what you think should be in the infobox, and I will develop a Request for Comments. If there is a dispute about the text of the article, please state concisely what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Statements by Editors (Laos)

Parantaka II

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by TeenX808 on 15:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Parantaka II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TeenX808 (talk · contribs)
• Ranithraj (talk · contribs)
• Zoozaz1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I removed a part a user has edited into the article and he recovered the content back and he’s using sources which are outdated and does contain what he edited into the article. The user is using 3 sources as of now to justify his actions on the talk page of the article, the first one he used as a source does not even mention the statement he cited, second source is out dated and the author is talking about it in a probability and this hasn’t been mentioned by other historians, 3rd and the final is a source which is in a non English language and its author is unknown and has no mention on the internet.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[9]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By reviewing the sources and its content and asking the user to provide relatively new and reliable sources to back his statement, if he’s unable to back his statement with up To date sources, the info needs to be removed or modified depending on the situationship

Summary of dispute by Ranithraj

During the reign of Parantaka II, following the battle of Sevur, Parantaka II engaged in a conflict with the Pandya king. During this battle, the Sri Lankan king supported the Pandya king. The details regarding this event were originally included in the Wikipedia article Parantaka II under the section titled "Pandyan War," until it was removed by a user named TeenX808 on June 22, without providing any valid proof or explanation. Then I added this event in a new section.

The user argued that my first source did not mention the statement I cited. However, the source does indeed refer to the event I mentioned. The first source is The Colas by Nilakanda Sastry 1955. I have provided a link where you can verify this. In the page no 154 he mentioned it. https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.4293/page/n170/mode/1up And it's latest edition is 2013. https://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/colas-most-comprehensive-book-ever-written-on-cholas-nak218/?srsltid=AfmBOopkkj34tPxbu67svvd6Tq3Sx3vJaPJsR-OIwrDhsZ5KOHFwTRdX

He also stated on the talk page that Nilakanda Sastry's Cholas Volume 1 (1937) does not mention this event. Once again, this is incorrect. Sastry did mention it, and I have provided a link for reference. https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.35382/page/186/mode/1up

Regarding my second source(published in 1963), the author explicitly says that, in all probability, the event occurred. It means that means that it is highly likely or almost certain that a Ceylonese army came to help Vira Pandya .But the user said, author mentioned "Probably". In the Page no 63, you can find this event. https://archive.org/details/aclcpl00000663a1401/page/63/mode/1up The user also said that this event has not been mentioned by other historians, but historians like Sastry and Rasa Manikkanar have referenced it. This source is not outdated. Author has retained the same information regarding this event in his History of Cholas book, that is my third source which is published in 1977.

For the third source, I have provided the link to a trustworthy reference published by the Tamil Nadu Textbook Society you can go through it. It is written in Tamil, for the translation you can refer the Talk page of disputed article, there I provided it. https://archive.org/details/dli.jZY9lup2kZl6TuXGlZQdjZMdkJly.TVA_BOK_0000838/page/159/mode/1up

Additionally, I have included a fourth source that was published in 2013. It also said this event happened .For the translation refer the talk page. [10] Here it is the link to the source https://archive.org/details/MEQm_history-of-cholas-by-r.-manikkanar-2013-tamilvarachithurai-tamil-anon/page/142/mode/1up

Fifth source 5) India Ceylonese History Society And Culture by M. D. Raghvan pg -42 "the Cholas under Parantaka II (953-973 A.D.) again invaded Ceylon by way of reprisal, as the King of Ceylon, Mihindu IV (956-972 A.D.) had helped the Pandyans against the Cholas."

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.29968/page/n66/mode/1up?q=Parantaka He explained that invasion in which Parantaka II defeated the allied forces of Pandya and lanka.

6) Patrick Peebles History Of Sri Lanka 2006 pg 20 "The Colas extended their empire at the expense of the Pandyas and Sin-halese in the tenth century. Early in the century they occupied the Pandyan capital at Madurai, and the king took refuge in Sri Lanka. The Coļas retaliated for Sinhalese support for the Pandyas with at least three major invasions in the tenth century. During the last of these in 993, Mahinda V (982-1029) aban-doned Anuradhapura to the Coļas. He was captured in Rohaņa in 1017"

The explanation outlines that the Cholas invaded Lanka three times—under Parantaka I, Parantaka II, and Rajaraja I—primarily because the Lankan kings supported the Pandyas against them. This interference by the Sinhalese rulers in Chola-Pandya conflicts led the Chola rulers to retaliate with military invasions of Sri Lanka.

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Parantaka II discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

As a neutral third party involved in this dispute through a question on my userpage, having gone through the sources I believe they support Ranithraj. That said, both editors need to adopt a more civil tone when discussing and avoid personal attacks. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the sources and providing your perspective. I appreciate your role as a neutral third party in this matter.I agree that it’s important for both sides to maintain a civil tone and focus on the content rather than personal attacks. Ranithraj (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoozaz1- The page he has cited as a source for Nilkantha sastri colas pg-154 I was using Colas volume 1 initially now. I’m using https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.4293/page/n169/mode/2up the correct one.

South India and Ceylon by K.K Pilay - In this book the author does mention the invasion but he’s neither fully determined about the invasion and isn’t this source a WP:Old Source and K.K Pilay other non English book also

Also @Ranithraj can you tell us the Background of R. Manikkanar

Also I will cite some reliable sources here which does not mention of Ceylon sending troops to pandya to support them

The ancient heritage of Sri Lanka 2016 part 1 pg 151-152

Sinhalayo 2012 by Senerath Paranavitana pg 28-29

Warfare in Sri Lanka 2017 by W.I Siriweera and Sanath de Silva pg 28-29

Comprehensive history of Sri Lanka by yoga sundaram pg-88

The Politics of Expansion: The Chola Conquest of Sri Lanka and Sri Vijaya by G.W Spencer pg- 49-50

There are more sources if you want I’m more than willing to provide also majority of these historians/Scholars does not mention about Ceylon sending troops to pandya to support like those statements also Zoozaz if you want I can tell the background of each one here and there direct statements here. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding South India and Ceylon by K.K. Pilay, he suggests that it is highly probable, or almost certain, that a Ceylonese army came to the aid of Vira Pandya. Pilay is quite confident in this assessment, and his certainty is further demonstrated in his subsequent work, where he references this event, which I have used as my third source. The third source, published in 1977, is relatively recent (less than 50 years old). I assume you used Pilay's book in your article, but I also noticed that you referred to sources that are older than this one.

As for R. Manikanar, he was a historian, scholar, and professor at the University of Madras. His contributions are extensive, and he authored numerous books on subjects such as the history of the Pallavas, Pallava emperors, Mokanjadharo or Sindhuveli Civilization, Tamil Nadu history and culture, Tamil language and literary history, Chola history, Tamil identity, Tamil Nadu governance, Tamil Amudham, Literary Amudham, Northern Boundary of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu arts, Modern Tamil Nadu, Scenes from Silappadhikaram, Research on Sekkizhar, Shaiva religion, Development of Shaiva religion, Periyapuranam research, Four Great Poets, and many more.

Regarding The Politics of Expansion: The Chola Conquest of Sri Lanka and Sri Vijaya by G.W. Spencer (pg. 49-50), this book primarily focuses on the Cholas' overseas expansion, which is why it overlooks the specific event in question. It also omits the invasion of Parantaka II, but does that mean Spencer is suggesting that this invasion didn’t happen either?

As for the Sinhalayo book, I question the author's interpretation of Chola history. The Chola rule in Lanka is dated from 993 to 1070, but the book claims that Kassapa, who hid in the hills, defeated the Cholas and recaptured Anuradhapura, driving the Cholas out of Rajaratha. We know that this event never occurred, as the Cholas were expelled from Rajaratha around 1070, not during Kassapa's reign. The book also mentions that in one expedition, Mahendra liberated the Pandyas from the Cholas, but this is inaccurate, as the Pandyas were never liberated during this period. Such discrepancies indicate that the book might be flawed in its understanding of Chola history, and it's likely that the author missed key events.

Finally, the fact that some historians have not mentioned this event does not necessarily mean they disagree with it or prove it didn’t happen. It's likely that it was overshadowed by more significant events, which is why it was overlooked in their accounts.

Also added two more sources to prove this event. Ranithraj (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not planning to comment any more on this, but there are three things to note, which are the reason I concluded that Ranithraj's sources do establish the contested claim. Firstly, a source being old does not discount it as providing evidence for a claim. Secondly, sources not mentioning an event do not prove the event did not happen - you would need a source explicitly saying that the event did not happen, rather than one that just omits it. Thirdly, non-English sources are just as valid as English-language ones.

However, as some of the sources do refer only to a high probability, rather than certainty, perhaps a compromise would be to change the description to stating that the event probably, though not certainly, took place. Perhaps both editors can agree to this, and spend their time on something else instead of continuing this very lengthy discussion. Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranithraj@Zoozaz1 As of now this is what is included in Wikipedia - After the battle of Chévür in which Vīra Pandya sustained a bad defeat, the Chola forces led, among others, by Parāntakan Siriyavēļār of Kodumbālür, continued the campaign into the Pandya country, and forced Vīra Pandya to seek refuge in the forests. The Pandya sovereign was on this occasion also supported by Ceylonese troops in his endeavour to resist the Chola aggression, in the end both the troops were defeated by Cholas.

Since @Zoozaz1 has given his guidance and Ranithraj sources can be used. This what needs to be changed According to Chola account after the battle of Chévür in which Vīra Pandya sustained a bad defeat, the Chola forces led, among others, by Parāntakan Siriyavēļār of Kodumbālür, continued the campaign into the Pandya country, and forced Vīra Pandya to seek refuge in the forests. The Pandya sovereign was on this occasion also supported by Ceylonese troops in his endeavour to resist the Chola aggression, in the end both the troops were defeated by Cholas this account is supported by some historians.

@Ranithraj@Zoozaz1 tell me if you agree on this change and thank you so much for both of your participation TeenX808 (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like that would be a good change, there's a few grammatical changes I would make but generally it seems good. Zoozaz1 (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems good; however, I would like one change: in the last line, I prefer it to say 'This account is supported by historians.' Using 'some historians' could imply that other historians have rejected it, which is not the case. Ranithraj (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking for info regarding R. Manikanar couldnt find any but since you have provided background I guess it’s acceptable.

Also G.W Spencer has talked about Chola invasions on Ceylon ‘ Up to mid-tenth century, south-Indian military expeditions to Sri Lanka had been brief, ad hoc affairs, designed to facilitate short-term gains with minimal involvement and followed by withdrawl to the mainland.’

Sinhalayo by senerath- He says that the Cholas were completely defeated in 1073 A.D but multiple princes such as Kassapa have been trying to capture north also senerath is the most well known and backed historian in SL plus what you are trying to say doesn’t change anything in this specific topic

Not some majority of historians have ignored plus this isn’t a controversial take for them to ignore even comprehensive books have ignored this.

so there’s a total of 4 sources TeenX808 (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pg. 29 in Sinhalayo

" Having joined forces with Kassapa son of Sena V who had found refuge in the hills, he recaptured Anuradhapura and drove out the Cholas from Rajarattha"

This is what mentioned by Senerath , he clearly said Kassapa drove Cholas out of Rajaratha but we know that never happened during his reign.

Spencer has talked about Chola invasion on Ceylon which I never disagree ,here in the Chola Conquest of Sri Lanka and Sri Vijaya by G.W. Spencer this book primarily focuses on the Cholas' overseas expansion, which is why it overlooks the specific event in question. It also omits the invasion of Parantaka II, but does that mean Spencer is suggesting that this invasion didn’t happen either?

I have provided total of 6 sources not 4. Ranithraj (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pg 29 and 41 you can find the answer and he mentions of Vijayabahu being crowned of whole island and second this has nothing to do with the current event.

Also lot of history books which gives comprehensive study has ignored this event but has mentioned Parantaka II invasion on SL.

I have given a change at the top let me know if you are willing to agree or not @Zoozaz1 @RanithrajTeenX808 (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could just change the proposed compromise to "this account is supported by some historians while being unmentioned, though not rejected, by others." Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoozaz1I agree to this, I’m waiting for him to say something. Also thank you so much for your time.TeenX808 (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"this account is supported by some historians while being unmentioned, though not rejected, by others."

I agree to this. Ranithraj (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to this. Let's close this. Thank you Ranithraj (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhalayo pg. 29

"Having joined forces with Kassapa,the son of Sena V, who had found refuge in the hills, he recaptured Anuradhapura and drove out the Colas from the Rajarattha. He remained at Anuradhapura for five years, and returned to Śrīvijaya where he became Mahārāja. Kāśyapa ruled at Anuradhapura and his brother Sena at Mahatirtha (Matoța, present Mäntai)......

Mahendra, on his return from the Pandya expedition, became ruler at Anuradhapura, Käśyapa having abdicated. This Mahen-dra, who may be referred to as Mahinda VI, reigned for seventeen years. After his death, his son, another Käśyapa, an infant prince, held the sceptre for one year, after which Vijayabahu I was consecrated king of the whole of Lanka. Vijayabahu secured power by defeating the forces of Viraräjendra, who made an attempt to re-impose the Cola yoke on Ceylon, and countering the designs of Samara Vijayottunga who wanted to make Ceylon a satellite of Srivijaya."

On page 29, it's clearly stated that Kassapa, Mahinda VI, and his son ruled Anuradhapura. However, this assertion is incorrect, as historical records confirm that this event never took place. The Chola rule ended in 1070, not during the period mentioned by Senerath. Regarding Vijayabahu, Senerath suggests that he became the king of all of Lanka after defeating the forces of Virarajendra, who allegedly attempted to re-impose Chola rule. This implies that, according to Senerath, after the rule of Kassapa, Mahinda VI, and his son, the Cholas made another attempt to invade and rule Lanka. However, this is inaccurate, as the Cholas maintained control over Lanka from 993 to 1070 without any interruption during this period. In fact, the Culavamsa does not mention any expulsion of the Cholas during the reign of Kassapa or Mahinda VI.

Comprehensive works such as Cholas by Sastry and History of the Cholas by Pillai do acknowledge this event. The fact that certain books may have overlooked it doesn't mean they disagree with the established historical narrative.

I accept the change made by Zoozaz1

"this account is supported by some historians while being unmentioned, though not rejected, by others."

I agree to this. Ranithraj (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not certain books but majority of them skipped this event but have spoken about the invasion of Ceylon by Chola at that time @Ranithraj

Since you have agreed the changes will be made

Thank you all for participating TeenX808 (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think majority of them, since we haven't go through majority of the books. There are many books regarding the History of Cholas, Tamilnadu in both Tamil and English and haven't read even half of them. So can't say majority of them but sure that some historians didn't mention it. Ranithraj (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“ After the battle of Chévür in which Vīra Pandya sustained a bad defeat, the Chola forces led, among others, by Parāntakan Siriyavēļār of Kodumbālür, continued the campaign into the Pandya country, and forced Vīra Pandya to seek refuge in the forests. According to the Chola account the Pandya sovereign was on this occasion also supported by Ceylonese troops in his endeavour to resist the Chola aggression, in the end both the troops were defeated by Cholas this account isn’t mentioned in the chronicles but it is supported by some historians while being unmentioned by other historians though not rejected by others.”

This what the change is gonna look like tell me if it satisfies you @Ranithraj TeenX808 (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to most of it, instead of Chronicles add Srilankan Chronicles. And make it look like this"while being unmentioned, though not rejected, by other Historians" Ranithraj (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your time both @Ranithraj and @Zoozaz1 TeenX808 (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TeenX808@Zoozaz1just one minor change instead of "not rejected by, Others" add "not rejected by, some others". Cause it will confuse the readers that majority of the historian silent on this event in which we are not sure as we have not gone through all the sources in both Tamil and English. That's it. Lets end this. Ranithraj (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome TeenX808, I'm glad we all came to a resolution. Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cholas 1955 by Nilkantha sastri

South india and Ceylon by K.K Pilay and his other non English book

R. Manikanar history of Colas

The other two doesn’t mention clearly about military support because Ceylon supported during the Parantaka I period also and it is clearly mentioned the problem here is if they were involved during Parantaka II period. TeenX808 (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth source 5) India Ceylonese History Society And Culture by M. D. Raghvan pg -42 "the Cholas under Parantaka II (953-973 A.D.) again invaded Ceylon by way of reprisal, as the King of Ceylon, Mihindu IV (956-972 A.D.) had helped the Pandyans against the Cholas."

Fifth source is clear that during the Parantaka II reign lankans helped pandyas.

For sixth source author indirectly said not directly, but we can understand it Ranithraj (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth Statement by Possible Moderator (Parantaka II)

I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on Indian military history. If you agree to these ground rules, you will be acknowledging that the history of India is a contentious topic. The contentious topic procedures provide an expedited procedure for sanctions for disruptive editing. An editor need not be concerned much about the contentious topic procedures if they are careful to be civil and collaborative and to cooperate with the moderator.

One of the other editors has been notified of this filing and has responded. The other editor has not been properly notified and has not responded, and should be notified on their user talk page. The statements by the two editors who are taking part in this discussion are long. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements do not always clarify the issues. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I am asking each of the editors to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. If there are multiple article content issues, please provide a list with concise bullet points.

Please notify the third editor of this case filing. Please provide a concise list of disputed changes to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Robert McClenon most of this dispute has been resolved also I have put a DRN notice on his page.

As of now I have given the editor what changes have to be made and I’m waiting for him to say something.

Some of the most comprehensive and detailed history books failed to mention this topic but they made sure to mention latter event which happened soon as after this event don’t you think the reason why they left out was because they don’t believe this event which happened also this hasn’t been mentioned in the chronicles but only mentioned in the Chola account so this event comes from one side, with this said I’m waiting for him to say if he agrees to the changes. TeenX808 (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Robert McClenon,I agree to below statement "this account is supported by some historians while being unmentioned, though not rejected, by others.". We both(me and other User) the editors agreed to this. Let's mark it as closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranithraj (talk • contribs) 03:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth Statements by Editors (Parantaka II)

Hi Robert McClenon (talk), the issue has been resolved, and the other user has agreed that the event occurred. We are now finalizing the last line. The other User suggest saying "This account is supported by some historians", while I believe it would be better to say "This account is accepted by historians", as using 'some historians' might imply that other historians have rejected it, which is not the case.

Draft:JioStar

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ajitsinghbhagat on 10:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Closed discussion