Talk:Portuguese Ceylon

message: Sri Lanka was never fully occupied by the Portuguese. For that reason today, it is widely accepted by scholars that the term Portuguese Ceylon is inapplicable. Rather the term Portuguese period in Ceylon (Sri Lanka)‎ is more applicable, because "Portuguese Ceylon" may seem to those who are unaware, as if all of Sri Lanka was occupied by the Portuguese at that time period. Therefore I would like to contest the term being used to refer to this article.--Svm1 63 (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Svm1 63. In fact you had previously moved this article to "Portuguese period in Ceylon (Sri Lanka)" - you did so without discussion, which is was not good. Having said that, I am not completely deaf to your reasons. Notice however that the rationale user Domino theory used for rv your move was one of simplicity, and he makes a good point there. Regarding your substantive claim, notice that the phrasing Portuguese India is used without implying that Portugal controled all of India. The same is done for Spanish America, French Indochina, German Africa, Dutch Brazil, etc. The way they are phrased is in the sense of saying that parts of X (in this case Ceylon) were under X colonial control (in this case Portuguese). Of course a full explation, stating that there was never control over the whole of Ceylon and the exact boundaries or areas controlled is needed. But the title sould remain simple. Notice also that the title you proposed could be read as meaning the Portuguese period in the whole of Ceylon! An exact title would be impossible ("Portuguese period in parts of Ceylon plus a full description of the territores dominated an the respective time frame"). The title, I believe is good as it is. Of course we can discuss further. You should notefy user Domino theory of your position. Thank you! The Ogre (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have notified all important editors in this article about a discussion going on here. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am persuaded by the argument that Portuguese Ceylon implies, Portuguese had controlled Ceylon but Portuguese period in Ceylon or Portuguese rule in Ceylon or even Portuguese in Ceylon may be better ? Taprobanus (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the measure suggested above there is never to have been an entity such as Portuguese Ceylon, simply because the entire island was never under Portuguese control. By that same account we ought conclude that the Portuguese controlled all of Africa, except the north and the south, since there were both a Portuguese East Africa and a Portuguese West Africa. This is ofcourse ludicrous... The name is not used in the sense that all of Ceylon was under Portuguese control, just as not all of East Africa was under Portuguese control, or that all of India under British control for that matter, it merely states that some territory were under the control the respective colonial power.Article names should be kept simple, and the articles on colonies and dependencies are no exception. Dutch Ceylon should also be restored to its original position prior to the unannounced move, before we start getting other bizzare constructions such as the Dutch period in the East Indies (Indonesia), Dutch period in Guiana (Surinam), Dutch period in Saint Martin (Sint Maarten), etc. The Dutch weren't, or aren't, fully in control of all of East India, Guiana or Saint Martin either. -- Domino theory (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pardon me, why is so bizzare and  ofcourse ludicrous to have a name in Wikipedia  such as Dutch period in the East Indies (Indonesia) & Portuguese period in Ceylon? Per WP:NAME, it says Be precise when necessary not always. It is clear to any reader that Portuguese India  means just that, Portuguese had Controlled India when they controlled not even 2% of what became India. Thanks for being civil Taprobanus (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of article

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Blackknight12  (talk)
I'm correct? And the author little discusses some religious matter in those 3 or 4 pages (only maybe later), except to refer to a passage in a massacre of Christian converts. But it's better review and correct me if necessary. And if I'm wrong on this. Anyway, see if this is correct, and if you have time (or the IP editor or other Editor), see this source or other more closely, and reformulate as you wish. Added etc. If happened - i think it happened in some cases(?) and whether it happened at that level where it was placed, against Buddhism and its Temples, was largely some decades later (?), and more, after the Inquisition, instal. in India after 1560s, and around 1570s -1600s. It was obviously a shame and a crime, unfortunately common in those times. for the Portuguese involved or its religious authorities. This should have source, but serious, not private religious sites anti one another religions, with "black legend" and white legend mixed with truth. --LuzoGraal (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: My last reversal

message: Fellow users, I have gone ahead and provided a basic structure that I believe to be convenient for the continued improvement of this article in the future. Most of it was (and still is) blank, which is regrettable, but need not be so, since the necessary information is available in primary sources like Fr. Queiroz's Temporal and Spiritual Conquest of Ceylon and Capt. João Ribeiro's History of Ceylon and more recent works such as The Portuguese in Ceylon 1617-1638 by C. R. De Silva, Portuguese Rule in Ceylon (1594-1612) by Tikiri Abeyasinghe, The Fatal History of Portuguese Ceylon by George Winius, Ceylon: the Portuguese Era by P. E. Pieris and several others. Wareno (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Article expansion