Talk:Shailendra dynasty

Kalinga

I edited writing Kalinga was an eastern kingdom of India which is presently Odisha.And Odisha is considered as eastern state in India not an south eastern state.User:diptiprakashpalai —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

earlier comments

There is no really evidence, that 2 different kingdoms had existed on java at this time. sanjaya is just the name of a king and maybe the ancestor sailendras. later were Singhasari and Majapahit - nothing is written, that they had ruled on java meanwhile. --Lofor 20:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So far as I can see, neither of the two external links from this page have information about Saliendra 87.194.56.187 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Willow4

Sanjaya dynasty was founded by King Sanjaya, it's pretty obvious that the article about Sailendra refers to Sanjaya the dynasty, so I don't get your point, Lofor. I don't get why you raise the issue about Singhasari and Majapahit either. Both of these kingdoms were established much later. You should brush up your knowledge. 203.82.80.27 (talk)

"external links are not sources"

Yes they are. Paul Beardsell 10:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you check them? If you look at the history you will see that the external links were added after the article was written. Either way, the article is badly referenced. Can you dispute that? --Merbabu 12:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No I did not check them. If you look at the history you will see that the external link was there when I removed the template that said there wasn't one. And, yes, I agree, the article needs improvement. But what point are you trying to make? Paul Beardsell 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sailendra, king? prince? or a Buddhist refuge?

It is stated in the text "At its peak the Sailendra kingdom ruled the eastern two-thirds of Java, Bali, Lombok, coastal areas of Kalimantan, southern Sulawesi, and the Funanese successor state of Water Chenla." I doubt that Sailendra ever gained power in central Java. I just read this: W. J. van der Meulen (1979). "King Sañjaya and His Successors". Indonesia. 28: 17–54., and at page 41 here what it says:

The simple facts that stand out with clarity are that the guru asked and received permission to build a temple and were granted the village of Kalasan (by Panangkaran) as a freehold. This simple message became complicated, however, by a mass of flowery language about an unnamed gem of a mysterious Sailendra dynasty reigning in some unspecified country. This gem may have been connected with the Sailendra who was not able to finish his inscription on the Ligor stone (before 755), probably because he had to flee from the Malay Peninsula in connection with a con- flict with Srivijaya. In any case this is the only Sailendra king known to history before the Kalasan inscription. He may have found refuge with the Buddhist community in Java, bringing his royal title, some followers, a resolve to return and not much else. He would of course have been accepted by the Buddhists as their leader, and also have been recognized by the Amrati king (the first four Sanjaya kings) as such, the latter being inclined to a laissez-faire policy and not sufficiently aware of the eventual political implications.

We need to rewrite this article based on reliable sources. — Indon (reply) — 11:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Sail.article can be improved at several points. Regarding controversial points, it's good not to rely on pers. suggestions of particular historians but concentrate on evidence.

concentrating on the claimed territories, for now ; The Kalimantan, Bali , Sulawesi , Chenla etc part can surely be deleted. No historical evidence for this (atleast not during the Javanese period of the 800s).There is evidence that Chenla was under suzerainity of Java for some time,but we dont know if the sailendras were involved.That the sailendra 's became prominent in the Srivijaya kingdom after the 800s is recorded in inscriptions.A. Post-Muller 00:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

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. BetacommandBot 17:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated

The unsourced info is removed ( also the talk about Deva raja and ricefields) Its shorter now but many in text-citations are added ; the content is backed up by studies and its the most common version . A. Post-Muller (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Shailendra vs. Sailendra

Hi, the article was previously using the IAST spelling of Śailēndra which IMO, is confusing. Ś is romanised further to Sh which is also used by reliable sources instead of Śailēndra. Thanks. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes the Shailendra is also correct and used in Brittanica. Yet, the common spelling of this dynasty in most of english language sources (books, journals, news etc.) is Sailendra without any "h" or written in "Ś". In Indonesian we even have also equally valid spelling as Syailendra, yet I think we should stick to common most simple spelling instead of favouring certain Indian/Sri Lankan/or certain Indonesian versions/spellings (Sh or Sy). Plus, I think it is weird to have Sailendra dynasty article, but having the Shailendra spelling all throughout the article. Gunkarta  talk  18:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Other user already moved the page from Sailendra to Shailendra. And after careful thought, I think the spelling Sh (although less common in most of literatures) is actually right, more close to the original Sanskrit spelling. Cheers. Gunkarta  talk  11:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shailendra dynasty. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131101014301/http://nsc.iseas.edu.sg/documents/working_papers/nscwps012.pdf to http://nsc.iseas.edu.sg/documents/working_papers/nscwps012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)