Talk:Shaishunaga dynasty

India: History Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Jainism Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style – Naming conventionsJainismWikipedia:WikiProject JainismTemplate:WikiProject JainismJainism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Please see the discussion here--sunil 10:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent chronologies[edit]

We have two chronologies in one article, and they don't agree. Sisunaka / Shishunaga appears to have ruled from 684 BCE, and to have been the first of the dynasty. Yet here we see Bimbisara in first place.Fconaway (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been edited. It is now consistent with what is in Magadha empire Salilb (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be consistent, but, in keeping with wiki policy, just a consistent crime to history. As if the Egyptian Shisank & Tutenak-amun & c. are not forms of Shisunaga. Maybe we should find out if these same types of devils at wikipedia had anything to do with Sir WIlliam Jones untimely death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.6 (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

about mahpadm anand[edit]

his name was mahapadm anand its anand not and he was a kuru king of anand tribe khukhrain according to hindi when mahapadma and anand combines we can use only one a so it became mahapadmanand and and some think it is mahapadma nand it is mahapadam anand so please do it right and his mother was not shuder chander gupt maurya' mother was shudr he belonged to kuru dynesty that was exit on the time of maha bharat he is kuru king and mahapadam anand was from royal anand family and porus was puru king Khatrihistorypm (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think heading is in correct[edit]

Shaishunaga is incorrect because in books of history they mentioned shung not shaishunaga Because is not connecting with shai or naga so your trying to draw anything and what you think people are not knowledgeable so they expect you,

Bharat and world people have good knowledge and vibe to understand what you people trying to do is End of kaliyug (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The heading you are referring to is the opening sentence of the article which is intended to summarise the whole article. It should not be removed. Instead, it can be modified but only if you have citations for your claim or you can demonstrate that the existing claim is not cited properly. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that this page is not cited properly but few people does not understand that End of kaliyug (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heading must be shunga to understand by people End of kaliyug (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]