Talk:Anula of Anuradhapura

Untitled

The statement that Buddhism was brought to Sri Lanka during the reign of king Tissa that appears in this article is incorrect. Buddhism was actually brought during the reign of king Devanampiyatissa, sometimes also referred to as Tissa, and occurred in 237 B.C. Emperor Ashoka of India was a contemporary of this king Tissa. Queen Anula and the other Tissa mentioned in this article lived approximately 200 years later

What About Queen Athaliah?

Around 840 BCE (see article for details) Athaliah, wife of the King of Judah and daughter of the King of Israel, became Queen, reigning for five years. Shouldn't this count as an earlier female monarch in Asia? I know its the Middle East, but that is still Asia. Rendsburg 20:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You're both right!

Hi guys. You're both right. Buddhism was brought to SL in the reign of Devanampiya Tissa, whose wife was *also* called Anula - hence the confusion. Also I'm fairly certain Anula was not the first reigning female monarch in Asia. Incidentally please check out the entry for Leelawathi, another Sri Lankan queen, whose article is similarly full of unsubstantiated claims.DocSubster 09:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

House of Vijaya

All these monarchs are from the House of Vijaya, a Sinhala dynasty, hence being Sinhalese. It is a widely known and accepted fact in Sri Lanka and in the history of Sri Lanka, and all these articles have been cited. [1]--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There are Tamils in the Cabinet of Mahindha Rajapakse who is a Sinhalese. That doesn't make those Tamils are to be called as Sinhalese. That is the way if you want to assume, then that is the way the Sri Lankan history was corrupted how it was in the [2] and was assumed by many Sri Lankans as true and wanted the rest to believe so on their line or brand them as traitors.Hillcountries (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you produce any non biased evidence, or is that your point of view?--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Why I should go for non biased evidence when I didn't add initially anything there. But what your source is POV of at least somebody who is from the Sinhalese community. The era which you identified are highly controversial and better you leave it blank if you don't have valid source.Hillcountries (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked for a source for what you said concerning "That is the way if you want to assume, then that is the way the Sri Lankan history was corrupted how it was in the [3] and was assumed by many Sri Lankans as true and wanted the rest to believe so on their line or brand them as traitors." Ok then prove to me that the source I provided is POV. Its only controversial if you make it controversial, which you are currently doing.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The source is Prepared by one Manjula de Livera, who is he? and what is his authority over Sri Lanka's history? Please clear my doubt then I will proceed on this.Hillcountries (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who she is, but she is obviously associated with Ancestry.com and they are a US company so I'm pretty sure this is a valid source.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't know someone how her works have come to as a valid source. Are you hiding some one or her views are in the line your preconceived views?Hillcountries (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you really think a company as big as Ancestry.com, and the work it does, will hire someone whose work is questionable? heres another source by a well known and respected Wilhelm Geiger who has authority on the subject.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you know Ancestry.com hires people to write for them? It can be even a free space. Your source[4] doesn't support Anula is from the House of Vijaya. Again you all claim Sinhalese are descendants of Vijaya. But according to the source which you given above, Anula is only married to Mahanaga, a descendant of Vijaya's sister Sumitta.Hillcountries (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this matter is settled!--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not settled.Hillcountries (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anula of Anuradhapura. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912125102/http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2002/01/20/fea11.html to http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2002/01/20/fea11.html

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).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)