Talk:Koneswaram Temple

message: I have replaced the image with the new version. Should reflect the current view of the holy temple. For backup reasons I put the earlier picture here. --Umapathy (உமாபதி) 18:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image is moved here

message: Whether we like it or not, these claims exist and are part of mainstream discussion even amongst SL historians. Pathmanathan's book on Hindu temples of Sri Lanka about Koneswaram is written from a defensive point of view to refute the claims without acknowledging the claims. I have three citations about this in the article, push comes to shove I will find even more which are available. Just pushing only a Tamil point of view will make this article not relevent to knowledge about it. Already there is a lot of emphasis on the history of this  temple not about the temple, its festivals and its layout, why ? That itself is an indication of the underlying claims and counter claims about this temple. Kanatonian (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:VALID. It is wrong to attribute equal weight to pseudo fringe claims that are covered in a handful of questionable sources, next to accepted historical fact of this Hindu Tamil temple in larger global discourse and accepted academic scholarship, which is why these counter claims are likely covered the way they are, or not at all. Per WP:BOLD, I have removed a source you've included that fails WP:RS, and refined the edits and merged info to avoid failing policy and to make it clearer in relation to the unity government's collapse in 1970. You are more than welcome to contribute to the layout and festivals sections of this temple article. Of course, these too should be cited reliably, and mention can be made to its changing layout over time.  Lifebonzza (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have blanked a whole section on counter claims. It is called Vandalism and not acceptable nor will I let it go without an argument all the way to ANI. The more I read on this subject less I am sure about all exclusivist claims whether it is Buddhist or Hindu temple. All claims are full of holes. Kulakottan is a myth, Pathmanthan’s theory on Kalingas is a far fetched hypothesis. Tevarams could have been sung about other Gokarnams in India as well. All what is clear is that archeologically and literature wise only evidence we have is that the Cholas had built number of temples in the region, but that is my POV . Hence I am agnostic as any Wikipedia writer ought to be about any subject that he /She contributes. The peer reviewed Journal Tamil culture published in 1953 clearly says that the temple had Buddhist relicts and had a section on Buddhas as well. It is already cited and you removed it. The Journal Buddhism in 1960’s published a peer reviewed article on this very controversy and I will locate that article as well. We do disservice to when we try to white wash and only present one point of view. I am not going to walk away from this article in the near future nor I am interested currently to add sections on festivals and layout. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Source that was eliminated from this article on questionable interpretation of RS is also published in a peer reviewed Journal article. See this. I will locate it in the local library and cite. Readers also have to know the role the conflict about this temple played in the tragic political history of the island. Tamil political leaders of the day quit a unity government over this that ended only with the slaughter of 20,000 people in 3 months in 2009. To claim that fact cited with RS sources should not be explained in the article is not understandable. So many sources are available on this very subject. Kanatonian (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure this can be worked through. Firstly, the information you want has not been removed, it is already in the main body. We write articles based on what the majority of reliable sources say. We do not rewrite history based on what two sources you manage to bring here claim to the contrary. To devote an entire section ( of two lines at that!) to this issue is plain wrong. I am happy to hear a third opinion from an administrator on this if that need be the case. I note, that as this particular moot point is connected to an incident with government it makes it slightly more notable, which is why it is included in the main body of the article. To repeat it like you have done here  is redundant. Please back your assertions with facts. Nowhere have RS been removed by myself. To stick to policy is not vandalism and I urge you to WP:Assume good faith.Lifebonzza (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First it is not RS and when I find RS sources it is now changed to  majority of RS, come on what are you trying to hide here. Hiding contrary opionion only makes this article worthless not worth more. I intend to expand on the section about the conflict. I see here an attempt only to show the exclusivist claims of one side of the argument not both and try to bury that information where no one will notice. See how the Kataragama temple article treats trhe conflict of Hindus and Buddhists about that temple in an encylopedic manner. That's how this should be treated as well because Hindus and Buddhists only claim few places of worship as their own exclusively, one is Kataragama and other is thsi temple. It is significant to note that in an article about these temples. Kanatonian (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

text: As I said I am agnostic about the claims and counter claims. I have restored the section, retitled it specifiaclly about Buddhist claims  and assured that readers know that the Buddhist claims only began in the 1950's in the context of conflict between Tamils and Sinhalese. I also expanded the information that a Primie Minister got involved and was influenced by a letter from a monk to disband a committe that was looking into turning the place over as holy cite what ever it meant. Kanatonian (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please save your condescension for someone who has the patience for it. We are under no obligation to cover minority fringe opinions on the article, let alone in separate sections. This is globally held to be historically a Hindu temple. Reread what my first post stated. You are violating WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID by creating the section, so for now, what was reincluded with something notable in it's historical trajectory and an RS, not some fan site, was done within the main body, along with the rest of the information. It's your point of view that this constitutes "burying", personally, the article does not suffer without this claim. Now you wish to overstate it by giving it its own section, so that it better fits your warped vision of giving parity of status between history and a monk's claim. It's not acceptable, and I'll be looking for more opinions on this.Lifebonzza (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming it to be exclusively a Hindu place of worship is done primarily by Hindus authors such as Pathmanathan, Natarajan and countless others listed in this article and pseudo historians like Arthur C. Clark. Claiming it to be exclusively a Buddhist place of worship is expounded by writers such as Bandu De Silva. All others including Kamalika Peiris, Urmila Padhnis are willing to accept that there might be two versions to the claims including the journal article Tamil literature as cited. Exclusivist claims may suite chauvinistic political rhetoric of both Buddhist and Hindus but in an encyclopedia we have to follow neutral point of view. There is nothing undue about mentioning that Buddhists too claim this temple and such claims have led to a collapse of a government in a crucial period of race relationships between the communities.  How many other temples in Sri Lanka have the distinction of being catalyst for a cataclysmic civil war? Not many, so why not have that listed as a seperate section. Anyway go ahead and get a third opinion if you want. Kanatonian (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Also from your statement that parity of status between history and a monk's claim betrays that you have fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not writing THE history here, we are writing what others write as history as such there no only one version of THE history. History is seeing the past through an eye of a historian and as such we suffer their biases hence the need to balance the opinions of many to let the public know that there are different sources that needs to be looked at. If you want to write your version of what is THE history of the Temple then Wikipedia is not the place, a personal website or blog will do. Further the section does not gives parity to a Monk's claim but it informs the reader that irrespective of (mainly Tamil Hindu) scholarly opinion, majority of Sri Lankans (read Sinhalese Buddhists) may belive that  Tirukoneswaram was originally a Buddhist temple and  Hindus have taken it over and wrote many books to justify it. How can we not let the reader know about that ? Kanatonian (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Read any travel guide, book, literature even colonial documentation and you have the history of this Hindu temple documented. So many sources about the Siva Pagoda of Trincomalee on Swami Rock are available to be used on its history. The Tevarams not only praise Konamamalai and Ketheeswaram temples of Eela Nadu, but the Gokarna temple of Karnataka as well. Even the cite you choose to include by Wilson says the committee was scrapped because the precincts (of significance to Tamil Hindus) were not declared, not because of significance to both. It is based on what the majority of reliable sources that we write articles, and minority fringe counter opinions are described if notable in the appropriate way, not using personal websites and blogs to better put forward these claims full of unrelated fluff and about the war to warrant them to exist. Between majority globally agreed fact and Sinhalese Buddhist monk opinion, we look at things globally. So, again I have no issue with it being described that this fringe belief from the 1950's onwards led to the govt collapse, so long as it is weighted appropriately. Although it is better written now than it was before, with better attribution, yet another questionable source has been removed, regardless of whether the view is correct or not. Lifebonzza (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We have some balance now, but if Mahasena Vihara claim is not supported by arechology then him destroying a deity temple also can be questioned. That's for readers to figure. One more very important information. Tamils in general did not propitiate Shiva at such an early age (See Cankam literature, it is Murukan, Tirumal and Korkai)  and also Hindus did not have temples as we have today until prompted by the Jains and Buddhists in early Tamil history, first to . These factors are bigger issues people need to remember when talking a temple that is supposedly over 2000 years old to a deity that is not that old to begin with. Kanatonian (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That may or may not be true Kanatonian, but let's avoid Synth issues here and just focus on what the sources say about Koneswaram temple. Sangam literature refers to gods including Siva and his attributes. That Vihara may or may not have existed in "Gokarna", but as for being on this site, Swami Rock, home of Koneswaram, there's no evidence to support that. I think Angkor Wat is a great featured article that can be used as a template to build on this article. More cites have been added. Lifebonzza (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If this goes to FA then all what you just mentioned as Syn will come out because the citation you removed as non RS but now published in a peer review journal brings all that out. It asks some very fundamental questions, how can there be a Shiva temple even before Tamils had Shiva as a deity and how can there be a Hindu temple before the Pallavas began to build stone Temples in South India in the 7th century in copy of Jaina and Buddhist temples ? So be prepared to present a balance point ofview if you want to take it to FA. Kanatonian (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I've already said, regardless that Tamils have had Shiva as a deity in Sangam literature, I'm confident in the numerous reliable sources that have been cited on the article as more than adequate elucidating the history of the temple before 300 CE. If there are more, brilliant. As I've said, wikipedia policy has been stuck to with the article, and it will remain that way.Lifebonzza (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempts to remove information on Buddhist claims

message: If this article wants to go to FA, first the citations have to changed to the Harvard style (see Munneswaram temple, then after completion peer review, (i know few people whom I can ask help from) then it goes to GA review, then it goes to FA review. 
Other than citations sections on layout and festivals have to be done. History has to be considerably pruned and may have to link to a seperate article clled History of Koneswaram temple. Many subarticles needs to be created as well like Swami Rock, Kullakotan... Kanatonian (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just expanding for the moment, but other articles of temple cousins of Koneswaram such as Mahabalipuram and the Seven Pagodas of Mahabalipuram are proving useful.Lifebonzza (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: FA

message: The article is too long and it could confuse the readers. A hundred of references are not enough to maintain the reliability and elegance of a wiki article. Someone please try to clean up and I'll join asap. If the article looks too long even after the clean up, I suggest that it is better to create a new page with the title of "History of Trincomalee" merging the historical parts from here and a piece of the article, Trincomalee. Apart from all, beware of the continuous vandalism. --5anan27 (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite template added

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Koneswaram temple. 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/20150924095907/http://www.sdstate.edu/projectsouthasia/upload/Pliny-Taprobane.pdf to http://www.sdstate.edu/projectsouthasia/upload/Pliny-Taprobane.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629044948/http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/07/31/fea25.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/07/31/fea25.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified