199:-This list is pretty interesting. Only thing is: A lot of it comes from folklore and mythology. Perhaps the list should begin with fact-based dynasties rather than dynasties, whose existence we can only trust based on scripture or who may be combinations of several real people. I am really pleased with the acknowledgement of the Achaemenid and Indo-Greek rulers. -] -I am not pleased with Persian dynasty and seleuid dynasty their empire boundries never crossed hindukush. It was only Alexander who empire stretch across hindukush and after his death Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta Maurya ruled indian parts of Alexandrian empire not selucus nector added by
125:
118:
31:
265:), removed monarchs include all of the foreign emperors in North-Western India (c. 538 BC – 750 AD), the Hellenistic kings, and all of the British Raj monarchs. I can't see a good reason why these should be removed: for completeness, the article should include foreign imperial monarchs, regardless of whether or not they ruled the country legitimately. I 've stopped reverting the blanking for now per
551:
In my opinion, the
Timurid section needs some improving. It does state that Timur conquered parts of India in 1398, but instead of years of his reign (as is the case in most other sections), we have years of his lifetime - 1320-1405, so it should be corrected in some way... As for the Rajput section,
336:
I am not pleased with
Persian dynasty and seleuid dynasty their empire boundries never crossed hindukush. It was only Alexander who empire stretch across hindukush and after his death Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta Maurya ruled indian parts of Alexandrian empire not selucus nector so plz check so
284:
Dai
Pritchard, I absolutely agree with your position. In my opinion, the removal of foreign imperial monarchs is totally irrational - all of them (Persian kings, Hellenistic kings, British Raj monarchs) ruled over vast portions of India, or in some cases (like the British) ruled over the entire
74:
I totally agree with you. It's like a curse with the Indian history pages in general, specifically south Indian dynasties. Some writers tend to exagerate the antiquity of the Tamil dynasties, even going to the absurd lengths of claiming an unbroken list dating back to c 9000 B.C.E!! See
414:, and it will remain so. I have no intention to get blocked over this nonsense. I hope you two (as well as other users) will have some idea what to do with this editor and his irrational removal and adding of material to this article. I can only say - good luck, you'll need it! --
179:
Hi! After 69 editions I think I finally fixed the format of this article. It was a mess. I also enforced chronological order. Now we should work on referencing it and checking the lists themselves, which sometimes differ from those in the main articles on each dynasty.
556:
not so sure about it anymore. Not only some parts of that section lacks references, but it looks very overstretched, unnecessary big and unsystematic to me when I look at it (like its just a big pile of data). If we put it back in the article, it must go through a
218:
Should the
Shakyas be listed here? I think it's doubtful whether their position in society should really be described as monarch. Right now, we're listing three such monarchs for the same time period. Also, if the Shakyas are listed, should they be under
456:
why did you remove timur ? , is not delhi part of India. I do not know if you have any personnal hatridisim, & how you view history does not apply to world, as per above, would suggest to discuss here before single handedly conquering India
260:
For the past four days, large sections have been removed from the article, mostly without comment. Now that editing on this article has gone quiet for the day (about midnight DST), I'd like to understand these edits better. At the moment
289:, and it must be noted in this list. As for the editor - being relatively new to Knowledge, and seeming to be acting in good faith, can't be excuses for section blanking which, honestly, looks almost like vandalism. --
833:
that supposedly conquered the world and established Indian civilization and its kingdoms. It's important to
Hinduism and India's own ideas about its prehistory, even if it's clearly ahistorical in its received form.
227:
06:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Shakya dynasty ruled
Kingdom of Kapilavastu present day Nepal not magadh and was a Kshatriya Hindu dynasty.So no they should be listed as seperate Indian monarch and not under Magadh .
503:, as part of a rollback of all edits to before the edit war started on the article. It's a shame that this rollback was required, when a simple discussion here could have resolved the disagreement amicably.
361:
In the first place, you are not putting edit summaries. So we have no idea what you are doing and why, except that you have deleted large portions of the page that have been here for a long time.
699:
This article seems to be based on fictional mythological characters from puranas and vedas. Provide sources from non mythical and archaeological sources and update the list
537:
about the
Timurid and Rajput monarchs were uncontroversial additions, though as noted above some parts need referencing. Would all editors here agree with that assertion?
364:
When there are contentious changes, you should always raise them here on the talk page first, and get feedback from other involved editors before you make those changes.
139:
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class.
367:
Barring that, once your change has been reverted at least once, you should be coming here and discussing the issues before you make the same changes again and again.
641:
637:
623:
837:
From the comments above, they used to be here. Someone kindly restore at least mention and a link, if not the full canonical list to the extent one exists. —
780:
without a new consensus. I don't feel like getting into any edit wars at the moment, but it should be restored and can be by any interested editor.
609:
303:
May be he feels because the name says Indian , the foreign names are really not "Indian" enough to digest for him !, so lets rewrite history !
748:
160:
101:
Dynasty of south India. I've up loaded two photographs of the dynasty tree. The was made by the archeological department at a site in
379:
So, please open a separate section here for each contentious issue that you would like to raise, and tell us your rationale. Cheers,
619:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
488:
244:
81:
I have restricted myself to writing NPOV articles on Cholas. I have therefore modified the list of Cholas to keep within reality.
714:
374:
page. So, even if these "foreign rulers" were in control of
Baluchistan, Sindh, West Punjab etc., they would be listed here.
370:
Finally, you should note that when we speak "India" in the historic sense, we mean the entire Indian subcontinent. See the
684:
47:
17:
38:
791:. A common era would be dated from an event common to humanity, like dating from the moon landing in 1969 or the
640:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
430:
744:
610:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090119095422/http://paradoxplace.com/Insights/Civilizations/Mughals/Mughals.htm
164:
675:
601:
593:
542:
508:
274:
597:
613:
740:
659:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
647:
523:
484:
342:
269:, as the editor doing the removal is relatively new to Knowledge, and seems to be acting in good faith.
240:
204:
600:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
220:
825:
of time on it but this article should definitely have at least some mention and link to the legendary
838:
802:
736:
702:
566:
476:
462:
438:
419:
322:
308:
294:
232:
156:
792:
706:
384:
140:
317:
I think the problem is also there exists no references, this will cuase some editwars in due time
710:
538:
504:
397:
270:
846:
810:
718:
689:
644:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
570:
546:
528:
512:
492:
466:
442:
423:
388:
345:
326:
312:
298:
278:
248:
208:
189:
168:
143:
109:
87:
660:
185:
124:
117:
729:
Shouldn't the dates on this page and this entire
Project use the BCE/CE format? yes I agree
518:
480:
451:
371:
353:
338:
236:
200:
667:
285:
subcontinent. We shouldn't speak about whether they ruled over India legitimately or not -
562:
458:
434:
415:
405:
318:
304:
290:
224:
106:
626:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
380:
666:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
830:
826:
760:
411:
266:
181:
732:
Shouldn't you use the more accepted B.C.E instead of B.C and C.E instead of A.D?
633:
105:. May be of help to people who are enthu on expanding the so called 'king list'
98:
84:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
632:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
410:, as well as others concerned: As you can see, I've stopped reverting as per
153:
Why are the
Bahmanids not in the side box? Surely they're important enough.
801:. If you're dating from the miscalculated birth of Christ, just say that. —
499:
No, you didn't remove the part about Timur: an administrator removed it in
614:
http://www.paradoxplace.com/Insights/Civilizations/Mughals/Mughals.htm
76:
472:
I didnot remove timur I only removed Persian and seleuid dynasties
102:
25:
358:
There are several problems with the way you are operating.
604:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
552:
at first I also considered it as uncontroversial, but I'm
763:
534:
500:
262:
337:
don't make them indian monarch without proper proof .
517:
Let me know where and I'll add Timur to the list. --
636:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
429:Just for the record, see also what's going on at
622:This message was posted before February 2018.
695:Not accurate and based on fictional mythology
533:Thanks RegentsPark. My understanding is that
8:
764:this edit and the decades of edits after it
592:I have just modified one external link on
123:
116:
785:Personally, put me down for continuing
766:established the usage of this page as
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
821:Obviously we don't need to spend a
24:
596:. Please take a moment to review
778:and it shouldn't've been changed
29:
287:their rule is a historical fact
1:
690:04:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
256:Large-scale section blanking
144:18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
18:Talk:List of Indian monarchs
571:17:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
547:14:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
529:14:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
513:13:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
493:06:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
467:06:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
443:15:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
424:14:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
389:18:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
346:13:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
327:07:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
313:06:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
299:20:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
279:18:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
249:13:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
209:13:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
190:17:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
97:For any one working on the
70:Keeping the king lists real
862:
847:01:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
811:01:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
653:(last update: 5 June 2024)
589:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
169:20:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
110:10:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
88:02:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
719:16:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
431:Lists of rulers of India
135:WikiProject class rating
594:List of Indian monarchs
585:External links modified
128:
121:
127:
120:
42:of past discussions.
751:) 17:48, 9 July 2014
634:regular verification
448:I do not understand
817:Legendary dynasties
624:After February 2018
93:Vijayanarar Dynasty
678:InternetArchiveBot
629:InternetArchiveBot
129:
122:
793:Curse of Greyface
753:
739:comment added by
705:comment added by
654:
527:
496:
479:comment added by
252:
235:comment added by
221:Magadhan emperors
159:comment added by
67:
66:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
853:
844:
843:
808:
807:
800:
799:
790:
789:
777:
776:
771:
770:
752:
733:
721:
688:
679:
652:
651:
630:
521:
495:
473:
455:
409:
401:
372:History of India
357:
251:
229:
171:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
861:
860:
856:
855:
854:
852:
851:
850:
841:
839:
831:Lunar Dynasties
819:
805:
803:
797:
796:
787:
786:
774:
773:
768:
767:
734:
727:
700:
697:
682:
677:
645:
638:have permission
628:
602:this simple FaQ
587:
474:
449:
403:
395:
351:
258:
230:
216:
197:
177:
175:Big copyediting
154:
151:
137:
95:
72:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
859:
857:
818:
815:
814:
813:
782:
781:
726:
725:BCE/CE - BC/AD
723:
696:
693:
672:
671:
664:
617:
616:
608:Added archive
586:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
535:these sections
446:
445:
392:
391:
377:
376:
375:
368:
365:
362:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
257:
254:
215:
212:
196:
193:
176:
173:
150:
147:
141:BetacommandBot
136:
133:
131:
114:
94:
91:
71:
68:
65:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
858:
849:
848:
845:
835:
832:
828:
824:
816:
812:
809:
794:
784:
783:
779:
765:
762:
756:
755:
754:
750:
746:
742:
741:65.101.167.97
738:
730:
724:
722:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
694:
692:
691:
686:
681:
680:
669:
665:
662:
658:
657:
656:
649:
643:
639:
635:
631:
625:
620:
615:
611:
607:
606:
605:
603:
599:
595:
590:
584:
572:
568:
564:
560:
555:
550:
549:
548:
544:
540:
539:Dai Pritchard
536:
532:
531:
530:
525:
520:
516:
515:
514:
510:
506:
505:Dai Pritchard
502:
498:
497:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
471:
470:
469:
468:
464:
460:
453:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
427:
426:
425:
421:
417:
413:
407:
399:
398:Dai Pritchard
390:
386:
382:
378:
373:
369:
366:
363:
360:
359:
355:
350:
349:
348:
347:
344:
340:
328:
324:
320:
316:
315:
314:
310:
306:
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
288:
283:
282:
281:
280:
276:
272:
271:Dai Pritchard
268:
264:
255:
253:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
226:
222:
213:
211:
210:
206:
202:
194:
192:
191:
187:
183:
174:
172:
170:
166:
162:
161:41.185.146.90
158:
148:
146:
145:
142:
134:
132:
126:
119:
115:
112:
111:
108:
104:
100:
92:
90:
89:
86:
82:
79:
78:
69:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
836:
822:
820:
758:
735:— Preceding
731:
728:
701:— Preceding
698:
676:
673:
648:source check
627:
621:
618:
591:
588:
559:huge cleanup
558:
553:
475:— Preceding
447:
393:
335:
286:
263:current diff
259:
231:— Preceding
217:
198:
178:
152:
138:
130:
113:
96:
83:
80:
73:
60:
43:
37:
519:regentspark
481:YashShah008
452:YashShah008
354:YashShah008
339:YashShah008
237:YashShah008
201:YashShah008
155:—Preceding
99:Vijayanagar
36:This is an
685:Report bug
563:Sundostund
554:definitely
459:Shrikanthv
435:Sundostund
416:Sundostund
406:Shrikanthv
319:Shrikanthv
305:Shrikanthv
291:Sundostund
225:Nat Krause
107:Pratheepps
668:this tool
661:this tool
501:this edit
381:Kautilya3
149:Bahmanids
61:Archive 1
840:Llywelyn
804:Llywelyn
749:contribs
737:unsigned
715:contribs
707:Dtheetla
703:unsigned
674:Cheers.—
489:contribs
477:unsigned
245:contribs
233:unsigned
195:Monarchs
157:unsigned
795:in 1166
598:my edit
524:comment
214:Shakyas
182:Againme
39:archive
761:WP:ERA
757:Nope,
412:WP:3RR
267:WP:3RR
85:parthi
77:Pandya
827:Solar
788:BC/AD
103:Hampi
16:<
829:and
772:and
759:per
745:talk
711:talk
567:talk
561:. --
543:talk
509:talk
485:talk
463:talk
439:talk
433:. --
420:talk
402:and
385:talk
343:talk
323:talk
309:talk
295:talk
275:talk
241:talk
223:? -
205:talk
186:talk
165:talk
823:lot
642:RfC
612:to
394:To
842:II
806:II
798:BC
775:AD
769:BC
747:•
717:)
713:•
655:.
650:}}
646:{{
569:)
545:)
511:)
491:)
487:•
465:)
441:)
422:)
387:)
325:)
311:)
297:)
277:)
247:)
243:•
207:•
188:)
180:--
167:)
743:(
709:(
687:)
683:(
670:.
663:.
565:(
541:(
526:)
522:(
507:(
483:(
461:(
454::
450:@
437:(
418:(
408::
404:@
400::
396:@
383:(
356::
352:@
341:(
321:(
307:(
293:(
273:(
261:(
239:(
203:(
184:(
163:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
