Talk:Devaraja

This article obviously needs work but this is better than nothing for the time being. I don't know why the page was deleted earlier. Consider this bit a weak stub and improve upon it if you'd like.

I've tried to elaborate and perfected the article. It is not just a Cambodian kingship concept, it has wider distribution and meanings. More contributions are welcome.Gunkarta (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This may help. - Windows72106 (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article cites many recent sources (as Vickery) but actually expresses an old interpretation of devaraja (by Coedes), which latest authors have largely questioned. Moreover calling it a "Hindu-Buddhist cult" is PURE INVENTION. Please provide sources of known authors which connect devaraja to other "kingship concepts", as the book cited as source appears purely speculative from its abstract, maybe belonging to the trend of Greater India (Majumdar etc.), as this (Abhinav Publications). (--Shivanarayana (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW a casual query on Google Books could support any statement, but if you can't find similar statements on Chandler, Higham or Vickery, or more general works like Tarling and A New History of Southeast Asia there's should be a reason, isn't it? E.g. see Higham or this. Even speculative correlations between dhamma-raja and deva-raja have not to be presented as historiographical, 'cause they are not.--Shivanarayana (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just added some common references and remove "Hindu-Buddhist cult" sentence, as some source quotes it was more likely that the cult grow from the combination of Hinduism and native element (possibly ancestral cult). The most established interpretation of this concept mainly took Coedes' opinion, feel free to add criticism or opposing views such as Vickery's, maybe in separated section. Gunkarta  talk  10:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica doesn't speak of "southeast asia". At least you rectified the "hindu-buddhist" absurd claim, thanks (sorry for the summary, I didn't see you've already deleted it). The most recent mainstream historiographical interpretation is roughly this.--Shivanarayana (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to say Coedes' work is "the most established interpretation", as every specialized source of some value has largely acknowledged different interpretations, from Filliozat, Mabbet and Kulke onward (this is Legge's essay, a fundamental source on indianization debate, BTW). And they count much much more than some "mr.Fic" or "mr.Sengupta". It's clear to me that if you want to use these as main sources (inserting Britannica for minimal or neutral issues), there's something deeply wrong.--Shivanarayana (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, feel free to add other well-referenced opinions, theory or interpretations, if their scholarly interpretations counts more. I just add "Fic" to convey Indonesian perspective. This article welcomes attention and positive contributions.Cheers. Gunkarta  talk  11:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]