Talk:Jaffna kingdom/Archive 1

message: What on earth is going on here? A total revision on known history it seems.Pubuman 18:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Er... 

message: Hi friends
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which presents trustworthy information from neutral sources. 
This article relies heavily on websites which support an organisation known as the LTTE which is conducting an insurgency in Sri Lanka. 
According to following sources tamilnation and tamilnet are clearly pro-LTTE sites 
 - reuters refers to tamilnet as a pro LTTE site 
 - tamilnet itself refers to tamilnation as a pro LTTE site
 - A Phd thesis which clearly names sangam.org as part of the LTTE media network
Therefore Wikipedia should not present a version of history which has probably been concocted by pro-LTTE nationalists to support their argument for an independent state. 
Facts about history need to be sourced from independent reliable sources. otherwise we will have situations like where people have denied the existence of the holocaust appearing as the official version of history . Similarly the Serbian and Croation websites have vastly different accounts of the Balkan war but we should not present either side as the absolute correct version of history in wikipedia because both versions necessarily contain lies 
Dutugemunu 23:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agrred Wikipedia should not be link farm should be based on WP:RS books and references RaveenS 16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of sources 

message: Actually this is not the same article which i disputed a couple of weeks ago..The earlier article we had here was hilarious and a complete twist of the history..The  Jaffna Kingdom came to existence in the 13 th century ,after the rule of kalinga maga and its wrong to attribute the demala kings who ruled northern part of SL as Jaffna kings.While historians still do not universally agree with this term, to my knowledge its not 100% false to call this as Jaffna Kingdom..BUT we should definitely state the duration of this kingdom,which is 13th to 16 th century..Having said so, we definitely know Prince sapumal acting as commander of the king Parakramabahu's army invaded and ruled Jaffna in the 16 th century and from what I read in the books written by Portugese and Dutch writers tamil Kingdom was heavily depended On foreign rulers since early 16 th century..So we are not sure how independent was it in the 15 th century.So i believe it is better to say that there was an independent tamil kingdom from 13 th to 15 century.This MUST be mentioned in the article otherwise we are giving a wrong picture to the readers.
I still haven't gone through the whole article, But this looks much better than the previous edition..BUT, the very first sentence is completely false and though i prefer to have citations ,I doubt whether editor can provide anything at all. thanksIwazaki  会話。討論 14:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a lighter note, if not for this kingdom, I will be speaking in Sinhalese and praying to lord Buddha (or Jesus) and going to Pathini devale and Kataragama devio on the side like most southerners do. Also Velapilli Arachilage Prabhakara will be furiously recreating the Govigama supremacy myth article in wikipedia rather than to send suicide bombers south:)RaveenS 15:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On even lighter note, thanks for accepting what we all knew from the right beginning..The ghost of Govigama supremacy myth was non other than the person who is responsible for the creations of lot of other hoaxes and blatantly POV template(s) in Wikipedia..many thanksIwazaki  会話。討論 08:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sri Lankan articles must be so special that even ghosts are editing them. I sometimes wonder what happens to all those raped and killed, assassinated and shelled and plastered people’s souls. The country must be full of them in every nook and corner of tortured souls from the more than 200,000 people killed since 1971 alone. But anyway Wikipedians are smarter than silly Sri Lankan ghosts. They have a ghost catching device called request for check user in ghost language it is called WP:RFCU. No need to have loose sleep over ghosts or go to sorcery temples to pay a shaman some dead chickens to resolve this matter as we do in Sri Lanka.   Just go to a human Administrator and say boo we have ghost in Wikipedia and they will nail it to banyan tree. Otherwise the ghost is going to get you banished for WP:ATTACK ing him. Sleep well:)RaveenS 13:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This may be the first time ever in the GHOST history that a ghost has accepted the use of Sock Puppets to manipulate human beings..While some says ghost can be what ever they want, it was here,for the first time in the GHOST history where a ghost changed it appearance, by being a tamil and sinhalese at the same time!!While admitting the fact as a human being I was astonished with that, may be ghost has its own reasons for changing colours and even races..And the ghost, once again for the first time in the ghost history, trying to be funny(thought it failed miserably)toooo..Its even copying human way of expressing sarcasm with limited success..Well, I am glad that we humans, at least ahead of ghosts in this thing call "sense of humour".Any way I am happy that even ghost taking interest at my country,good or bad they are contributing and keeping our motivations high.who would have ever thought that !!?? Iwazaki  会話。討論 17:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be still confused with the ghost of Russel Pushpakumaran Arnold. Now is he a Tamil or Sinhalese. I know it is so easy to get confused in Sri Lanka. Anyway coming to the point, are you now confused that User:Wikramadithya who created the Govigama supremacy theory is me. Well come out and say so instead of hiding behind humor. We can all have a belly laugh about your deductive ability to connect dots between a Sri Lankan IP and Canadian IP. Seriously, ROFLOL! RaveenS 17:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghost must have been a very afraid person for not even coming to vote to save the article it seems to love a lot..Afraid of getting caught for sock-puppeting ?? If ghost can be Sinhalese and tamil at the same time, why can't it pretend to be In Canada and SL at the same time ?? (See the word pretend is bolded here) ..Ghost can do wonders,including belly laughs,how wonderful is that.Iwazaki  会話。討論 18:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must now confuse me with Sai Baba who can be at two places at the same time. Enough confusion between Pushpakumaran for Sinhalese, Fonseka for a Tamil today, may be it is too many sakes.  RaveenS 18:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is much better now.BUT..... 

message: The book A History of Sri Lanka by K. M. de Silva is widely used to cite this article. I have the book, and the said page numbers do not correspond to the citations. For example "p91-92" is used to cite 3 sections of text
*But what most historians agree about the history of what eventually became the Kingdom of Aryacakravarti began with the devastating invasion of an previously unknown Chieftain called Magha (1215 - 55), from Kalinga in India.
*He deposed the ruling king Parakrama Pandu and began a process of destruction with the help of his soldiers and mercenaries from Kalinga, Kerala and Damila regions in India.
*After the devastation of Rajarata he moved his capital to the Jaffna Peninsula and ruled as a tribute paying client of the Chola empire in India. During this period, in 1247, Sri Lanka suffered its only invasion ever from South East Asia. A Malay chieftain and a sea pirate named Chandrabhanu from Tambralinga invaded the politically fragmented island. Although one Parakramabahu II (1236-70) from Dambadeniya was able to defeat him, Chandrabhanu moved north and secured the throne for himself around 1255. This prompted the Pandya's to intervene on behalf of the Sinhalese king from Dambadeniya. They forced Chandrbhanu to submit to Pandya rule in 1258. When Chandrabhanu embarked on a second invasion of the south, the Pandyas again came to the support of the Sinhalese king and killed Chandrabhanu in 1262. They eventually installed one of their ministers in charge of the invasion, one Aryacakravarti as the King. When Pandyan Empire in India became weak due to Muslim invasions, successive Aryacakravarti rulers made the Jaffna Kingdom independent and a regional power to be recon with in Sri Lanka. It should be noted all subsequent Kings of Jaffna Kingdom claimed descent from ‘‘Magha’’ while maintaining their Pandyan progenitor’s family name."
p. 91 and 92 of my book, while covering the same period, does not mention the Kingdon of Aryacakravarti, Magha, Parakrama Panu or any of the other characters in the 3rd section. p.91 describes the arrival of Arabian traders to Sri Lanka and their absorbtion into society, their casts etc which is carried on to the next page. p.92 has the heading  a little way down, "Religion and Culture", and starts off descibing the culture during Vikramabahu and Parakramabahu's time, going on to Buddhism and it's relations with Mahayana and Hindu deities. (Given the "omg your a damn liar" claims that usually follow such comments, I can scan the page and email it to anyone who wishes)
It appears the two editions of the book are different, I have the 1981 University of California Press version and that mentioned in the article is from 2005. I would guess the two editions changed stuff like text size, moving about the page numbers. But just in order to verify that, will the editors who believe the citations are accurate please mention the section the above material comes from? For example the content above from page 92 on my book comes under 
Part II: The decline of the Sinahalese Kingdom -> The fragmentation of the Sri Lankan polity from c. 1250 to the end of the fifteenth century -> Religion and Culture
which is immediately after the "Aspects of economic and social change" section. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 04:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2005 edition Polonnaruva Kingdom:Foreign Relations: South East Asia 91, 92.. there is an entire section on Jaffna kingdom called Th periphery stakes claim chapter 8, page 128... that I will be using extensively on the other articles. Taprobanus 04:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  K.M. De Silva's ''A History of Sri Lanka'' 

message: There is an ongoing discussion regarding this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation#Jaffna Kingdom article conflict; interested editors are invited to share their thoughts. – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at WT:SLR 

message: I will go through this article and see how I can help, though it will be limited to format, presentation, cpedits. I have consolidated the history section. There are some improvements that could be made right away, to be inline with other history related articles.
*# Let the territorial map of the kingdom show in the "former country box"
*# There is special provision for the kingdoms flag in this box.
*# All images should be at normal magnification. Currently they are pinched.
*# Try to create subarticles for red-links, or dont link them untill you have the subarticles ready.
*# The map currently shows "Pandyan tribute paying areas". But we need a map of the Jaffna kingdom. Please have this drawn.
*# In the Kings box, try to avoid "epithets" for kings names or second names they were known by. It makes the box crammed up for space and lengthens it. Use the most popular name and mention (in brackets) the other name in the history section in prose format.
*#It is important to cite often, instead of at the end of a large paragraph, such as in the "Literature" section, even if all the info was obtained from a single page in the source book. Also, writing a few lines explaining the content of few classics adds depth to the section.
*#Its generally important to minimize number of choppy sentences (sentences with < 10-15 words)while it is also good not to have very lengthy sentences (sentences with over 40-50 words). So far I have seen many of the choppy kind.
*#inline citations should be seperated from next sentence by a character space. Thought I noticed a few that violated this. Unless absolutely necessary, avoid citations in the middle of a sentence. If you cant avoid it, a comma helps.
*# I dont understand this paragraph. He helped the re-founding of the Kandyan kingdom under Kings Vimaladharmasuriya I and Senarat during the period 1593-1635 with the intent of securing help from South India to resist the Portuguese. He however remained independent (autonomous?) without provoking the Portuguese. What is a client? Do you mean trade partner? or a ally or a subordinate? If he was installed on the throne by the Portuguese, how was the king independent? I can see he trying to covertly align with the Kandyan kingdom and such, though. Also, when mentioning kings names, no need to add the era if it already exists in the kings table. When mentioning names of persons, no need to use the term "one so and so", just "so and so" will do.
:I am using the terms from Tikiri Abeyasinghe's book. The citation says that EC was a client because he was installed by the Portuguese under stiffer tribute conditions. But then the Portuguese withdrew to Colombo.As far as Portuguese colonial documents were concerned the Kingdom was still independant but paying 12 elephants instead of the 10 elephants as tribute. The Kingdom was officially incorporated into the Portuguese Empire in 1621 (although they had military and political control from 1619) when the surviving son of EC in Goa signed off the Kingdom to the King of Portugal. 
*# The sections Literature, Religion, Architecture and Society are rather skimpy. Please try to add one additional paragraph for depth. 
*#For instance, in Religion, you dont have to only describe religion in the Jaffna area. You may discuss developments in rest of Sri Lanka and even Tamil Nadu region, if they had an influence on Jaffna kingdom.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you ver much for your contributions. I will work on them Taprobanus (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My comments 

message: Move Jaffna Kingdom to Jaffna kingdom, as only proper nouns should be in Capital letters. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Requested an admin to move over redirect 
"Although the circumstances are unclear, by 1582 The Jaffna King" - punc and Capital letters in between. THe words "King" and "Kingdom" should begin with lowercase k as common nouns, throughout the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: "It should be noted that not all payments in kind were converted to cash, offerings of rice, bananas, milk, dried fish, game meat and curd persisted." It should be noted are Wikipedia:Words to avoid as gives undue importance to 1 fact. Rephrase. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Link charm in Religion to proper article than disambig.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Taprobanus (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: 
Also i suggest moving :Image:Sangili2.JPG as the text is getting squeezed betn img and template.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Taprobanus (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  NOT DONE. The img is creating the same problem.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: "Many of its kings confronted and eventually made peace with the Portuguese colonials. Eventually Cankili II, an usurper to the throne, confronted the Portuguese but was defeated, thus bringing the kingdom’s independent existence to an end in 1619."
There are a lot of "eventually"s in the second and third paragraphs. Excessive repitition of words can lead to loss of impactfulness, in terms of style, particularly when the words are very close together, as in the example above. Consider using a synonym, like "ultimately," or something else. Otherwise great. AaronCarson (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eventuallys 

message: Also it is clearly said that the confident of Cankili was Modeliyar Anandayana Amarakon, which is very much a Sinhala name.
 
^^ Gayan shows his ignorance by claiming a Tamil Name as a Sinhala one. 
The So called "Modeliyar Anandayana Amarakon" is as Tamil as a name could get.  Mudhaliyar/Mudhalali  (Mudhal = money Aali =owner-of) is purely Tamil.   "Amarakon" is Tamil too.   "Amarakon = Amarar + Kon" , Amarar means "the immortals/demigods" and Kon means "king" or "Shepard".   The Sinhala names of Amarakon; Tennakon are all derived from Tamil names/Tamils who settled in the southern part of the island. The name "Tennakon" means "Tennavar + kon" = Southerner's King   . Tennakon is a common name in the Pandya Country of Tamil Nadu. Furthermore, one of the titles of the Pandyan king was "Tennavar kon".  Kon also means "Shepard"  In Tamil. 
: It is no secret that there are Sinhalese with Tamil ancestory. 
: Amara is not Tamil. It is Sanskrit. There are many Sinhalese words which come from amara. 
: I looked up "Kon" in the Tamil dictionary. It doesn't mention King as a meaning. Do you know of a dictionary which states this? I have seen this written in other places too, and have always wondered about this. SriSuren (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Ko that is King DED would be agood place to start. Taprobanus (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to False History

message: This is currently being discussed at Talk:Sri Lankan Tamil people. Obi2canibe (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The way Jaffna Kingdom is presented by the Tamil nationalists, is in itself an alternative history of Sri Lanka. I think its importance was almost nothing, until the Tamil national question came into being. Most of its history is like the rest of the Tamil history in Sri Lanka - if that, then this, type of talk. SriSuren (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guyan46's Alternative History of Jaffna 

message: I have created a central spot for discussion relating to the history of Jaffna, which seems to be a topic on several talk pages. Please raise your concerns and suggestions there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people.2C_History_of_Jaffna.2C_Jaffna_kingdom  Jasy jatere (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  central discussion 

message: This sentence is deleted: "The origin of the kingdom is obscure and still the subject of controversy among historians. Some historians believe that there was an independent kingdom in Uttaradesa (northern part of Sri Lanka) during the classical Sinhalese kingdom period, which is contested by Sri Lankan historians".
There is no obscurity as to when the Jaffna Kingdom started and how it came about. It is described clearly here, and you yourself have defined the Jaffna Kingdom as the Aryachakravarti dynasty. Therefore there is no need to attempt to confuse the reader by refering to undocumented theories about an independant Tamil Kingdom in the North, prior to this, which displaced the Sinhalese rule in the north. There is absolutely no proof of an independant or semi-independant or any considerable Tamil presence in Jaffna prior to this. Magha or Kulingai Cakravarti, didn't fight against any Tamil Kings in Jaffna, but he fought against the Sinhala king of Rajarata. If there were any independant Tamil kings in the north he would have fought them to get controll over the area, would'nt he? --SriSuren (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Chandra bhanu fought against Rajarata kings in pollanuruwa.. We cannot deny there is sub kingdoms in North before Jaffna kingdom. Even during Chola and Pandya rule in Sri Lanka there was sub kingdoms or feudal lords who ruled north. We have to give details of Mummudi konda chola puram and Pandyan feudal lords in North Sri Lanka. We may start those with new article also. During Second century BC to 8th century there were local rulers in North it may either Tamil or sinhala rulers. Especially Pallavas had a control over Sri lanka during that period the name Pallavarayan Kaddu or Thondamanaru shows there is Pallava connection with North Sri lanka atleast during Nissanka malla period. so lot of hard work on this article is needed because such are quite sensitive . --BlueLankan 16:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Removed the offending sentence, but as recorders of what is happening out there we have to let the readers know that this obscure history of  the kingdom is of some considerable controversy in Sri Lanka. Taprobanus (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History - early period 

message: This article is very interesting and looks good. Keep up the good work! Omegastar (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice read 

message: The title topic seems to have attracted an edit war, User:Obi2canibe as a certain point regarding POV on certain wording, this is no reason for deletion. Rewording would be more appropriate. Cossde (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole section is a copy paste from another Wikipedia article. Who ever did it should be warned not to do it and the section needs to be rewriten. I have pruned it to fit this article's scope. More work needs to be done. Kanatonian (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conquest of Jaffna Kingdom 

message: Who ever added that portion of the article, did a good job in researching and finding sources. But I am afraid that it has nothing to do with the Jaffna kingdom article. There is clear consensus between Sinhalese, Tamil and Western historians about the origins and conduct of the Jaffna kingdom. Nevertheless in a poisonous ethnic environment in Sri Lanka non historians and extreamists tend to deny even the kingdom existed. To add sections such as early history that has nothing to do with this kingdom only adds fodder to the line of thinking that the whole concept of Jaffna kingdom is false. That section belongs in an article called History of Tamils in Sri Lanka that is yet to be written but most materials for it can be found in Sri Lankan Tamils, Koneswaram temple, History of Eastern Tamils and now in early history section of Jaffna kingdom. If ever the History of Tamils in Sri Lanka is written, then that can be linked to this article in a sentence or two but a whole section on that only makes the whole Jaffna kingdom article suspect. Kanatonian (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early History