Talk:Girihandu Seya

History of Ceylon, Volume 1, Part 1

Dear Xenani, This google link you had added to this article says that the authors of History of Ceylon, Volume 1, Part 1 (1959) book are Ceylon. University and K. M. De Silva. That is completely wrong. K. M. De Silva is the author of A history of Sri Lanka book not the History of Ceylon. The contributors of the University of Ceylon:History of Ceylon, Volume 1, Part 1 (1959) are given below,

H. C. Ray- Editor in chief
Nicholas Attygalle, W. J. F. Labrooy, S. Natesan, and S. Paranavitana. I think that link provides us false information--L Manju (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L Manju. K.M. De Silva have written several books which include a book called "History of Ceylon" consisting of two volumes that where published 1959 and 1960 and also a book called "A History of Sri Lanka" in 1981. They are two different books you see. So I will add the source back. And also even if the book don't mention the term "Dravidian", is the Pallava style of the Dravidian Art. The word "Dravidian" is mentioned to give the readers a better understanding, so I will add it back. There are ample of books that mention that the Pallava art is part of the Dravidian art. Thanks Xenani (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xenani, The book called "History of Ceylon" consisting of two volumes, that is true. Both books were published in 1959 and 1960. But there are no evidence that the K.M. De Silva had contributed to above volume. Give me references that K.M. De Silva have written the books named "History of Ceylon" consisting of two volumes or otherwise do not add false reference book links. Because you had already said that following quote is belonged to K.M. De Silva.

The dvadrapala figures at the circular shrine at Tiriyay, which is datable in the eighth century, (Plate XIX b) exhibit the elongated limbs and the cold severity of expression with distinguish Pallava work.

This quote is actually in an article written by S. Paranavitana not by K.M. De Silva. The page number as well as the book name is correct but not the authors. I am not sure why you add these false information in to articles? I rm them again--L Manju (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the comprehensive list of authors who contributed to the aforesaid volume (History of Ceylon, Volume 1, Part 1),

Editor in chief - Proffesor H. C. Ray
Editorial board for volume 1 - Sir Nicholas Attygalle (chairman), W. J. F. Labrooy, S. Natesan, C. W. Nicholas, S. Paranavitana (editor)
Book I: Chapter I: K. Kularatnam, C. W. Nicholas, Chapter II: B. L. T. de Silva, C. W. Nicholas, Chapter III: N. D. Wijesekara, D. E. Hettiarachchi, S. Natesan, Chapter IV: L. S. Perera, Chapter V: N. D. Wijesekara, Chapter VI: S. Paranavitana, Chapter VII: L. S. Perera.
Book II: Chapter I: Nalinaksa Dutt, Chapter II: S. Paranavitana, Chapter III: S. Paranavitana, Chapter IV: S. Paranavitana, Chapter V: S. Paranavitana, Chapter VI: J.N. Banerjea, Chapter VII: S. Natesan, Chapter VIII: S. Paranavitana, C. W. Nicholas, Chapter IX: S. Paranavitana
Book III: Chapter I: R. C. Mujumdar, K. A. Nilakantha Sastri, Chapter II: W. A. Jayawardane, Chapter III: L. S. Perera, Chapter IV: L. S. Perera, Chapter V: K. A. Nilakantha Sastri, Chapter VI: S. Paranavitana, C. W. Nicholas, Chapter VII: S. Paranavitana.

Here in the book I couldn't find the name K.M. De Silva. Also in this Wikipedia article it has mentioned (Without valid references) that these two books (History of Ceylon: Volume I Part I (1959) and Part II (1960)) are works of K.M. De Silva. Due to dubious information I tagged them.--L Manju (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L Manju. You may be right on this. However it is strange that the google link itself mentions K.M. de Silva as the author and the same quote is also found in the book at this link at page 403.Xenani (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of content with unsupported references

Dear Xenani, By this edit you had added the following content,

Scholar holds the view that Mahayana influenced seafaring merchants from the Pallava Kingdom were responsible for the construction of this temple.

To affirm this statement you have used 2 references, one is the book by Karthigesu Indrapala, (2005) and other reference is the History of Ceylon, Volum 2 (1959) by K. M. De Silva (page 383). I checked the google link for 2nd ref which you have provided and I identified that the content in the page no 383 caption is identical to the content in the page no 383 of History of Ceylon, Volume 1, Part 1 book by H. C. Ray. Then I read the page and found that the above statement is not supported by any of the thing in that page (There are nothing regarding the seafaring merchants).--L Manju (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L Manju. The second reference does not directly refer to that. However it mentions this "Inscriptions with Maha- yanistic contents, written in Pallava Grantha characters, found at Tiriyay and Mihintale, were probably due to these teachers who came to Ceylon from the Pallava country." at page 383.

Further does the source of Karthigesu Indrapala mention this in page 218 "Seafaring merchants of the Mahayanist faith and connected with the Pallava kingdom, were active on the east coast (present Trincomalee District) in the eighth century. They were responsible for the construction of the Mahayana shrine named Girikanda-caitya at Tiriyay." So the statement is supported by both sources. Would be nice if you first start and finish the discussion on the talkpages before removing the sources. Would be appreciated if you could add back the source. Thanks Xenani (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xenani, I don't think so. Because your statements about the seafaring merchants not about the Mahayana teachers. Are there any confusion between the merchants and teachers? According to the ref it is assumed that this two inscriptions with Mahayanistic content probably due to these teachers not due to the merchants. Further it doesn't refer about the construction of the shrine, just mentions about the inscriptions of Tiriyaya and Mihintalaya. Therefore the second reference doesn't support that statement. So why I put back that irrelevant reference again. Thanks for your description on the 1st ref but I didn't expect an answer for that one (Karthigesu Indrapala (2005)) --L Manju (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]