Talk:Parakramabahu I

Rating

While helping you to check on the reference formatting, I had a chance to read the article. I found it very well written, comprehensive and impressively referenced; hence the B rating. Why don't you polish it a bit and submit it as a Good Article? Jeffpw 13:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Whoops, I mistyped. It should be B until it is completed. Sorry bout that. Jeffpw 13:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Wow. You've worked really hard on this article, and it shows! I have reclassed it as GA. I have also made some minor spelling corrections (Thank God Mozilla has automatic spell check) and removed one POV statement. In "Preparations for War", you wrote, "which seems an exaggeration". That seems POV and/or original research to me, so I removed it. Feel free to put it back in, but I think others will qustion statements like that, too.

I also suggest you add one or two more pictures. You have a lot, but I notice that a couple times there is only text on the screen, and I think another 2 images would give it an important boost.

You can submit this to the Wiki Biography Project for a peer review here, but at this point I would suggest you just nominate it as a Featured Article. I think it has a great shot at that, and even if it is not successful on its first try, you will get valuable suggestions from very tough critics. You can do that here.

Good luck to you, and please let me know if I can further assist you. Jeffpw 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good article?

I don't find the nomination or listing at WP:GA or WP:GAC; can someone please clarify which section it is in? Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 23:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Doc originally asked me to assess this as part of the biography project (I have assessed several articles there). I originally gave it a B rating, then after he wrote to me that he had completed it, I reread it and assessed it as GA. If I did not follow protocol, please accept my apologies. I wasn't aware that it needed to be nominated for GA. I thought it could be assessed that way. Hope this clears up any confusion. Jeffpw 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Have a look at WP:WIAGA and WP:GAC. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Jeff, sorry for the confusion, but Sandy's right, the only 2 grades on our assessment scale that cannot be given by us are GA and FA. Thanks for all your hard work though! --plange 23:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed in accordance with Wiki protocol. Sorry for the confusion. Jeffpw 10:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags

Lead does need a citation. If not then it would be because people understand that lead should be expanded in the body and a source should be provided there. However, this article does not have a citation at the body for that statement either. So please go ahead and find the citation. Thanks Watchdogb 18:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to cite the intro. Current version of WP:LEAD does not states that since admins were edit waring regarding the Citations section of it and one of them protected the wrong version. So wait until admins resolve the disputes there. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing yourself here. Anything that is protected is the "wrong" version. In this article the body does not have a citation for that either. Watchdogb 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)\

Read the artidcle

On this occasion however the Sri Lankan help came too late. By the time Parâkramabâhu's general Lankapura arrived in [[Pandya Nadu]], Kulasekhara had captured the capital [[Madhurai]] and killed King Parakrama's wife and children. His son Prince Virapandu however had managed to escape. Rather than head for Madhurai, Lankapura landed in the vicinity of [[Ramanathapuram]] and captured the city of [[Tamil Nadu|Rameswaran]], which remained in Sri Lankan hands for the next thirty years or so.<ref name=CodIV/> Here they built a fortress called Parakramapura. In this early phase of the war they fought Kulasekhara on several occasions, eventually laying siege to him in Madhurai and seizing the city. Virapandu was restored to power, but apparently only as a puppet, as the Sri Lankan army under Lankapura remained in Madhurai and continued to engage the Chola across south India.<ref>Culavamsa, LXXVII, 6</ref>

See the citation?--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I still do not see a citation for the comment in the lead section. This citation you are pointing out to is a whole different case. Even if it was the same thing it has citation to only one incident which does not cite the statement in lead section. Watchdogb 00:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources

This article depends too much on primary source such as Culavamsa to make claims against Indian and Burmese rulers. Please read WP:RS and the section on primary sources. Depending on Culavamasa to make a fact that he invaded Burma without corroborating evidence from the Burmese side (primary or otherwise) is like writing an article on Troy based on Iliad and OdysseyTaprobanus 20:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Taprobanus and would like to add that as a consequence it cannot be claimed that the war against Bagan was the cause of Narutha's death or that Bagan was actually conquered completely by the Sinhalese. It can however be claimed that King Narathu was killed by assassins of the Sinhalese King Parâkramabâhu based on the cited website. Regardless, further citation from Burmese sources is most certainly needed. For instance, in Arthur Phayre's "History of Burma" the author writes that Parâkramabâhu's envoys were actually dispatched to punish the King of Begu who had committed the acts referred to by this page as having been committed by Bagan's King Narutha. [1]Saffron.unity (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   1. clarify tag in "In Rajarata" 2. "The location would almost certainly have been the capital of Dhakkinadesa, Punkhagama" ?? 3. Varying spellings: "Kitti Sri Megha" and "Kirthi Sri Megha" 4. I am not so sure about the tone of the article: its more like a story with comments like "If Parâkramabâhu had hoped for a swift victory, it did not happen."; "but the war was far from over."

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   1. What is Culavamsa in refs? Are the editors referring to Geiger's "translation of the Culavamsa" or his book "The Culavamsa: Being the More Recent Part of the Mahavamsa"???? What is Mahavamsa (ref 62)? Are the editors refering to Geiger's book or using the primary source of Mahavamsa??? 2. REf 8: a b c d e f g h i j k l Codrington, A Short History, chap. IV. Page nos. needed. If the facts cited are on diff pages, IMO named refs are not neccessary. 3. citation needed in "Death and legacy"

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   1. "Trade was an important component of Dhakkinadesa's income since the island of Sri Lanka, given its geographical position, had always been at the junction of several major trade routes. Chinese silk was a significant import and was used in the consecration of statues and shrines.[33] Pearls and gems (of which the king took particular interest) constituted an important part of the island's exports, as did cinnamon (which remained, until the 19th century, Sri Lanka's major export), and war elephants.[34] Most trade was carried out through the main seaports of the principality, Kalpitiya, Halaavatha (Chilaw) and Colombo" how is Parâkramabâhu related. clarify. UNdue to trade.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

   1.Dagoba(disambig) in img cap "In Rajarata" means stupa right? corrected dagoba link. 2. img cap "War with Gajabahu": write which temple, did Parâkramabâhu I build it, where is it?, without this info can be as an img OR. 3. "Gal Vihare" img, add how related to Parâkramabâhu I 4.img cap of "In Rajarata" which dagoba??

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

On hold--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected some problems, but there was no response from the nominator, though a note was left on his talk. No improvements in Article since review. I would have loved to promote this only if these problems were resolved. This article is very very close to GA. I request the editors to make the minor above, renominate and leave a note on my talk so i can promote the article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason to use â instead of ā?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Naming_and_transliteration would recommend IAST unless primary sources use sth else. IAST uses ā for long /a:/ and not â Jasy jatere (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Srilanka-banknotes 0001.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Srilanka-banknotes 0001.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The disambiguator is unnecessary and the naming conventions apply to European monarchs that have a common name stock. The google searches below are not restricted to reliable sources: such searches show over 6000 for "Parakramabahu I", 9 for "Parakramabahu I of Polonnaruwa". DrKiernan (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Parakramabahu I of Polonnaruwa → Parakramabahu I – As per WP:Precise PHEONIXTER 18:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see why you want to move it but Parakramabahu I of Polonnaruwa is a more common name than Parakramabahu I and also keeps to proper naming conventions in line with all other monarch articles.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest to change names of all monarch article titles to reflect the name not the kingdom. Every other biography article has the name of the character if it is precise enough. eg - Elizabeth II.
I've found only one reference using the name Parakramabahu I of Polonnaruwa through the search while many had Parakramabahu I or just King Parakramabahu. PHEONIXTER 18:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits

@Blackknight12: The reasons I removed that information was: WP:INDICSCRIPTS; then we are left with his name three times in a row. (Also, his name is not correct in Sinhalese, as Sinhalese has no long vowels: Mahā Parākaramabāhu is not Sinhalese, it's either Pali or a Prakrit.) Do we really need all that cruft at the beginning of the article? I'm removing the Indic scripts again (and only those right now) because that policy is crystal clear. Ogress _smash! 03:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait also I removed "<ref>Paranavitana, ''History of Ceylon'', p. 199</ref><ref>''Encyclopædia Britannica'', [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058393/Parakramabahu-I#161133.hook Parakramabahu I]</ref>" because we seriously need to cite his name in the lede? That's super overkill. Ogress _smash! 03:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

This article is infact impressively done but largely contains original research. I put up some new sources for previous content. Maybe remove the Culawamsa sources because its an primary source: Bibliography of Sri Lanka. Hopefully there are secondary sources that can be better. Kommune12 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)