![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Panchatantra appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 April 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Based on the article texts, there doesn't appear to be any reason why the Syriac translation of the fable collection deserves an article of its own, but then again I'm not an expert on ancient literature. Opinions? 84.239.128.9
The articles have grown independently to cover much of the same material in different words, which is why a merge would seem appropriate. I don't quite see how the oldness of the translation would be relevant, can you expand on that? As far as I can see, the main question would be whether the Kalilag and Damnag is substantially different from the original. 84.239.128.9 21:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that three distinct versions (in Sankskrit, Arabic and modern Persian) are ethnocentrically regarded by each originating culture as being the 'true' literary masterpiece. Yet in each culture's verison there are very siginificant variations of story and treatment -- including gratuitious moralistic additions to satisfy local time-bound religious or political ideologies. Furthermore the original Sanskrit version is LOST as is ALSO the first translated version into Pehlevi (or old Persian). The Syriac translation of 570 AD (two removed from the original lost Sanskrit 'Panchatantra') according to Keith-Falconer¹ (a 19 Cent Cambridge Syriac scholar) refelects the Pehlevi "perhaps more perfectly than in the Arabic". Be that as it may, it is the Arabic version, 'Kalila and Dimna', (also translated from the Pehlevi by a Persian convert to Islam, later in 750 AD) that ensures the book survival in world culture, much as Arabic scholarship sustained Greek learning for humanity during the same period.
'Kalila and Dimna' remains a classic of secular Arabic prose², known throughout the Arab world -- rather like Chaucer is to English speakers. Similarly the 15th Cent version in Persian called the 'Anwari Suhali' is also deemed a great classic by Farsi speakers. The novelist Doris Lessing, in her Introduction to Ramsay Wood's 1980 English retelling of 'Kalila and Dimna' ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0892818166/202-1445389-2081465?v=glance&n=266239 ) discusses many of these issues in detail. She begins with these words: "The claim has been made for this book that it has travelled more widely than the Bible, for it has been translated through centuries everywhere from Ethiopia to China. Yet it is safe to say that most people in the West these days will not have heard of it..."
Thus to put all versions of these worldwide fables under one article about 'The Panchantantra' would firstly be misleading as there isn't a single source Sanskrit manuscript. There are dozens, and indeed it was only in 1924 that Franklin Edgerton³, a Yale Sanskritist, reconstructed a defined modern version based on a "a minute study of... all versions which seemed to provide useful evidence on the lost Sanskrit text to which, it must be assumed, they all go back." Secondly it would ignore the unique and separate (though related and certainly equal) classical masterpieces that are enjoyed in Arabic and Persian today. -- Debongu 12:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
–––– Thanks, I shall. But I'm new to Wikipedia so am stumbling along trying to master its rules,terms, language and usage skills. Do you want to see here what I've got so far, or do I just stick it up and wait and see what reaction, if any, occurs? My concern is some areas of this subject are ethnologically sensitive, so what happens in disagreements -- do different factions start wiping each others words/ideas out in the interest of 'their' truth? -- Debongu 04:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Are there any updates on this discussion? For the reasons stated above, the complex history of the work, the lack of a stable origin, and the fact that different translations (especially the Arabic one) had a life of its own, the Arabic being the source of most modern translations, a separate entry for the Arabic translation would seem necessary, even if there some overlap with the this entry (which is not uncommon in Wikipedia). By the way, how come there is a separate entry for the Castilian translation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.36.49.251 ( talk) 09:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
From Dutch wikipedia. Relief from Java, Indonesia. deeptrivia ( talk) 14:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The article on Aesop's Fables says,
The collection under the name of Aesop's Fables evolved from the late Greek version of Babrius, who turned them into choliambic verses, at an uncertain time between 3rd century BC and 3rd century AD. In about 100 BC, Indian philosopher Syntipas translated Babrius into Syriac, from where Andreopulos translated back to Greek, since original Greek scripts had all been lost. Aesop's fables and the Panchatantra share about a dozen tales, leading to discussions whether the Greeks learned these fables from Indian storytellers or the other way, or if the influences were mutual.
This seems to contradict the glaringly incomplete section in this article which says there are exactly two stories shared (which two is not said) and that India is seen as the source of the fables.
I'm inclined to trust the "Aesop's Fables" version more.
Can any expert on this subject clear this up? Perhaps the section should be removed for its seeming incompleteness if not for inaccuracy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pediddle ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Good point! I've added in the names of the two stories from Edgerton, once a Professor Emeritus of Sanskrit at Yale. This is a contentious and tricky area; in fairness it's up to the writer of the Aesop article (or someone checking his/her references) now to specify the titles of the "about a dozen tales" that overlap with The Panchatantra. And the source of that information. Debongu 14:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
May I request editors of this wikipage to go through a proper review process. For me, it looks better than B. Thanks. GDibyendu ( talk) 09:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This page needs heavy editing.It tells more aboutbouzy and less about actual panchatantra stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitneosh ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
abdulazim gharib mentions in his introduction that 9 years before the death of anushirvan (i.e. 570) one christian iranian with name "پرودیوت" (peridut bud?) translated the book into syriac language from pahlavi. this has two centuries difference from what the article says. ref: abdulkarim gharib's copy of Nasrollah munshi text, tehran 2005 page 6-- خنیاگر ( talk) 04:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC).
Many of the footnotes refer to other footnotes by number, e.g. "See Note 21 below", and so on. This is not stable, because as footnotes as inserted and deleted the numbers will change -- is it possible to come up with some other way of referring to them? (It might even be a good idea to move all that prose out of the footnotes and into the article itself.) Shreevatsa ( talk) 19:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
One of the footnotes had, within <ref>...</ref>
tags, the following quote:
"... when we in our time talk of stories, tales, we often forget that for most of human history, thousands of years — tales were told or sung. Reading came much later, is comparatively recent, and changed not only our way of receiving tales, but also the actual machinery of our minds. The print revolution lost us our memories — or partly. Before people kept information in their heads. One may even now meet an old man or woman, illiterate, who reminds us what we once were — what everybody was like. They remember everything, what was said by whom, when and why: dates, places, addresses, history. They don't need to refer to reference books. This faculty disappeared with print." Problems, Myths and Stories by Doris Lessing, Institute for Cultural Research Monograph Series No. 36, p 13, London 1999
This is certainly a fascinating quote, and I thank whoever found it, but it's not a reference for anything in the article. Some of the other footnotes are also of this nature... I feel guilty about removing them, but they're clearly not supposed to be there :) What should be done? Shreevatsa ( talk) 07:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? Is THAT even remotely encyclopedic to include?! In any case, I will remove it and provide a brief description of each chapter in the book.
Cheers!
Λuα ( Operibus anteire) 15:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This has got to be one of the worst written articles in Wikipedia. Long winding sentences, informal terms (goody-goody, etc.) and no coherent structure. Plus the article is highly opinionated. Who is this Professor Edgerton, who is never referenced, but whose opinion about Panchatantra is deemed so important as to make its way into an encyclopedic article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.227.33 ( talk) 15:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The caption of this image (the one with the fire) says its syriac, however the writing near the illustration are undoubtly arabic and NOT syriac (which uses totally different alphabet). This should be changed. -- Histolo2 ( talk) 20:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I put this textual pedigree together several years ago. In principle, I think it would be useful to the article since, while the existing Joseph Jacobs pedigree seems to be very good for the most part, it does not reflect subsequent findings on the early history of the Pancatantra. However, I do not think this chart is acceptable as it stands; maybe it can be used as a basis for a more useful one? Its sources (as I recall) were the Joseph Jacobs pedigree (which IS currently in the article), a stemma in one of Hertel's editions, and mostly Edgerton's notes; but other sources may have crept in (such as the questionnable dating by Isabel Burton). Its problems are 1) it is PNG and should be SVG; 2) it would probably be better to leave the "Western" branch at Ibn al-Muqaffa's Arabic translation, and leave the rest of that massive branch to Jacobs; 3) although it is correct, the unexplained presence of Nepal in "South and East India" seems wrong... perhaps a note or re-labelling would help; 4) I have no idea whether this represents the latest findings (although glancing at Olivelle's introduction, it appears that this configuration has remained relatively stable); 5) Olivelle's translation is actually based on Edgerton's reconstruction, NOT strictly on the "Southern" version as claimed in my chart; 6) the weird shading (which represents texts with relatively large ranges of possible composition dates) puts undue emphasis on these texts. I'm sure you will think of additional ways to improve it. What I DO think is useful is the quasi-2-dimensional layout, which locates a text both in geography and absolute time (which a regular stemma doesn't do). Phil wink ( talk) 06:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The article contained a word "Alghlim" that doesn't seem to much exist on the internet outside of mirrors of this page. For several months it was tagged with a request for its meaning, but since none has been forthcoming, I've just removed the word. Shreevatsa ( talk) 18:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Alghlim is actually the arabic word الغليم which mean a male turtle. He is the character in the story of the turtle and the monkey (although I understand in the nonarabic version it is a crocodile and the monkey).
Id 1948 (
talk)
07:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking of listing all the stories of this ancient work. In all there are about 62 stories. Should I do it in a separate article? please suggest. Lokesh 2000 ( talk) 15:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Tale | E | D | P | H |
---|---|---|---|---|
Karataka and Damanaka (Book I Frame Story) | I.Frame | I.Frame | ||
The monkey that pulled the wedge | I.1 | I.1 | ||
... | ||||
A rat, crow, turtle, and fawn become friends (Book II Frame Story) | II.Frame | II.Frame | ||
Birds with two necks and one stomach | - | II.1 | ||
The ascetic and the mouse | II.1 | II.2 |
On the Hebrew version of this article (and on other websites, e.g. http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/people/bidpai.html ) I see that Bidpai is credited for the writing of the Panchatantra, yet on this article, Vishnu Sharma is credited with the writing of this work. Does someone know anything regarding this matter? Itamarm10 ( talk) 20:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Panchatantra. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Just a character from the story, that too with an odd spelling. Shreevatsa ( talk) 04:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC) It is different from the others because all related things to panchtantra can not be mentioned at one page. 103.60.3.22 ( talk) 10:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Since 'India' is the name of the newly formed nation in the Indian subcontinent, the work cannot be mentioned as 'Indian'. If that be so, Red Indian traditions should be mentioned as 'American'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.241.209 ( talk) 09:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Panchatantra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Five Strategies. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Panchatantra appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 April 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Based on the article texts, there doesn't appear to be any reason why the Syriac translation of the fable collection deserves an article of its own, but then again I'm not an expert on ancient literature. Opinions? 84.239.128.9
The articles have grown independently to cover much of the same material in different words, which is why a merge would seem appropriate. I don't quite see how the oldness of the translation would be relevant, can you expand on that? As far as I can see, the main question would be whether the Kalilag and Damnag is substantially different from the original. 84.239.128.9 21:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that three distinct versions (in Sankskrit, Arabic and modern Persian) are ethnocentrically regarded by each originating culture as being the 'true' literary masterpiece. Yet in each culture's verison there are very siginificant variations of story and treatment -- including gratuitious moralistic additions to satisfy local time-bound religious or political ideologies. Furthermore the original Sanskrit version is LOST as is ALSO the first translated version into Pehlevi (or old Persian). The Syriac translation of 570 AD (two removed from the original lost Sanskrit 'Panchatantra') according to Keith-Falconer¹ (a 19 Cent Cambridge Syriac scholar) refelects the Pehlevi "perhaps more perfectly than in the Arabic". Be that as it may, it is the Arabic version, 'Kalila and Dimna', (also translated from the Pehlevi by a Persian convert to Islam, later in 750 AD) that ensures the book survival in world culture, much as Arabic scholarship sustained Greek learning for humanity during the same period.
'Kalila and Dimna' remains a classic of secular Arabic prose², known throughout the Arab world -- rather like Chaucer is to English speakers. Similarly the 15th Cent version in Persian called the 'Anwari Suhali' is also deemed a great classic by Farsi speakers. The novelist Doris Lessing, in her Introduction to Ramsay Wood's 1980 English retelling of 'Kalila and Dimna' ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0892818166/202-1445389-2081465?v=glance&n=266239 ) discusses many of these issues in detail. She begins with these words: "The claim has been made for this book that it has travelled more widely than the Bible, for it has been translated through centuries everywhere from Ethiopia to China. Yet it is safe to say that most people in the West these days will not have heard of it..."
Thus to put all versions of these worldwide fables under one article about 'The Panchantantra' would firstly be misleading as there isn't a single source Sanskrit manuscript. There are dozens, and indeed it was only in 1924 that Franklin Edgerton³, a Yale Sanskritist, reconstructed a defined modern version based on a "a minute study of... all versions which seemed to provide useful evidence on the lost Sanskrit text to which, it must be assumed, they all go back." Secondly it would ignore the unique and separate (though related and certainly equal) classical masterpieces that are enjoyed in Arabic and Persian today. -- Debongu 12:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
–––– Thanks, I shall. But I'm new to Wikipedia so am stumbling along trying to master its rules,terms, language and usage skills. Do you want to see here what I've got so far, or do I just stick it up and wait and see what reaction, if any, occurs? My concern is some areas of this subject are ethnologically sensitive, so what happens in disagreements -- do different factions start wiping each others words/ideas out in the interest of 'their' truth? -- Debongu 04:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Are there any updates on this discussion? For the reasons stated above, the complex history of the work, the lack of a stable origin, and the fact that different translations (especially the Arabic one) had a life of its own, the Arabic being the source of most modern translations, a separate entry for the Arabic translation would seem necessary, even if there some overlap with the this entry (which is not uncommon in Wikipedia). By the way, how come there is a separate entry for the Castilian translation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.36.49.251 ( talk) 09:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
From Dutch wikipedia. Relief from Java, Indonesia. deeptrivia ( talk) 14:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The article on Aesop's Fables says,
The collection under the name of Aesop's Fables evolved from the late Greek version of Babrius, who turned them into choliambic verses, at an uncertain time between 3rd century BC and 3rd century AD. In about 100 BC, Indian philosopher Syntipas translated Babrius into Syriac, from where Andreopulos translated back to Greek, since original Greek scripts had all been lost. Aesop's fables and the Panchatantra share about a dozen tales, leading to discussions whether the Greeks learned these fables from Indian storytellers or the other way, or if the influences were mutual.
This seems to contradict the glaringly incomplete section in this article which says there are exactly two stories shared (which two is not said) and that India is seen as the source of the fables.
I'm inclined to trust the "Aesop's Fables" version more.
Can any expert on this subject clear this up? Perhaps the section should be removed for its seeming incompleteness if not for inaccuracy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pediddle ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
Good point! I've added in the names of the two stories from Edgerton, once a Professor Emeritus of Sanskrit at Yale. This is a contentious and tricky area; in fairness it's up to the writer of the Aesop article (or someone checking his/her references) now to specify the titles of the "about a dozen tales" that overlap with The Panchatantra. And the source of that information. Debongu 14:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
May I request editors of this wikipage to go through a proper review process. For me, it looks better than B. Thanks. GDibyendu ( talk) 09:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This page needs heavy editing.It tells more aboutbouzy and less about actual panchatantra stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitneosh ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
abdulazim gharib mentions in his introduction that 9 years before the death of anushirvan (i.e. 570) one christian iranian with name "پرودیوت" (peridut bud?) translated the book into syriac language from pahlavi. this has two centuries difference from what the article says. ref: abdulkarim gharib's copy of Nasrollah munshi text, tehran 2005 page 6-- خنیاگر ( talk) 04:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC).
Many of the footnotes refer to other footnotes by number, e.g. "See Note 21 below", and so on. This is not stable, because as footnotes as inserted and deleted the numbers will change -- is it possible to come up with some other way of referring to them? (It might even be a good idea to move all that prose out of the footnotes and into the article itself.) Shreevatsa ( talk) 19:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
One of the footnotes had, within <ref>...</ref>
tags, the following quote:
"... when we in our time talk of stories, tales, we often forget that for most of human history, thousands of years — tales were told or sung. Reading came much later, is comparatively recent, and changed not only our way of receiving tales, but also the actual machinery of our minds. The print revolution lost us our memories — or partly. Before people kept information in their heads. One may even now meet an old man or woman, illiterate, who reminds us what we once were — what everybody was like. They remember everything, what was said by whom, when and why: dates, places, addresses, history. They don't need to refer to reference books. This faculty disappeared with print." Problems, Myths and Stories by Doris Lessing, Institute for Cultural Research Monograph Series No. 36, p 13, London 1999
This is certainly a fascinating quote, and I thank whoever found it, but it's not a reference for anything in the article. Some of the other footnotes are also of this nature... I feel guilty about removing them, but they're clearly not supposed to be there :) What should be done? Shreevatsa ( talk) 07:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? Is THAT even remotely encyclopedic to include?! In any case, I will remove it and provide a brief description of each chapter in the book.
Cheers!
Λuα ( Operibus anteire) 15:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This has got to be one of the worst written articles in Wikipedia. Long winding sentences, informal terms (goody-goody, etc.) and no coherent structure. Plus the article is highly opinionated. Who is this Professor Edgerton, who is never referenced, but whose opinion about Panchatantra is deemed so important as to make its way into an encyclopedic article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.227.33 ( talk) 15:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The caption of this image (the one with the fire) says its syriac, however the writing near the illustration are undoubtly arabic and NOT syriac (which uses totally different alphabet). This should be changed. -- Histolo2 ( talk) 20:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I put this textual pedigree together several years ago. In principle, I think it would be useful to the article since, while the existing Joseph Jacobs pedigree seems to be very good for the most part, it does not reflect subsequent findings on the early history of the Pancatantra. However, I do not think this chart is acceptable as it stands; maybe it can be used as a basis for a more useful one? Its sources (as I recall) were the Joseph Jacobs pedigree (which IS currently in the article), a stemma in one of Hertel's editions, and mostly Edgerton's notes; but other sources may have crept in (such as the questionnable dating by Isabel Burton). Its problems are 1) it is PNG and should be SVG; 2) it would probably be better to leave the "Western" branch at Ibn al-Muqaffa's Arabic translation, and leave the rest of that massive branch to Jacobs; 3) although it is correct, the unexplained presence of Nepal in "South and East India" seems wrong... perhaps a note or re-labelling would help; 4) I have no idea whether this represents the latest findings (although glancing at Olivelle's introduction, it appears that this configuration has remained relatively stable); 5) Olivelle's translation is actually based on Edgerton's reconstruction, NOT strictly on the "Southern" version as claimed in my chart; 6) the weird shading (which represents texts with relatively large ranges of possible composition dates) puts undue emphasis on these texts. I'm sure you will think of additional ways to improve it. What I DO think is useful is the quasi-2-dimensional layout, which locates a text both in geography and absolute time (which a regular stemma doesn't do). Phil wink ( talk) 06:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The article contained a word "Alghlim" that doesn't seem to much exist on the internet outside of mirrors of this page. For several months it was tagged with a request for its meaning, but since none has been forthcoming, I've just removed the word. Shreevatsa ( talk) 18:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Alghlim is actually the arabic word الغليم which mean a male turtle. He is the character in the story of the turtle and the monkey (although I understand in the nonarabic version it is a crocodile and the monkey).
Id 1948 (
talk)
07:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking of listing all the stories of this ancient work. In all there are about 62 stories. Should I do it in a separate article? please suggest. Lokesh 2000 ( talk) 15:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Tale | E | D | P | H |
---|---|---|---|---|
Karataka and Damanaka (Book I Frame Story) | I.Frame | I.Frame | ||
The monkey that pulled the wedge | I.1 | I.1 | ||
... | ||||
A rat, crow, turtle, and fawn become friends (Book II Frame Story) | II.Frame | II.Frame | ||
Birds with two necks and one stomach | - | II.1 | ||
The ascetic and the mouse | II.1 | II.2 |
On the Hebrew version of this article (and on other websites, e.g. http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/people/bidpai.html ) I see that Bidpai is credited for the writing of the Panchatantra, yet on this article, Vishnu Sharma is credited with the writing of this work. Does someone know anything regarding this matter? Itamarm10 ( talk) 20:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Panchatantra. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Just a character from the story, that too with an odd spelling. Shreevatsa ( talk) 04:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC) It is different from the others because all related things to panchtantra can not be mentioned at one page. 103.60.3.22 ( talk) 10:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Since 'India' is the name of the newly formed nation in the Indian subcontinent, the work cannot be mentioned as 'Indian'. If that be so, Red Indian traditions should be mentioned as 'American'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.241.209 ( talk) 09:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Panchatantra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Five Strategies. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)