Talk:Portuguese conquest of the Jaffna kingdom

Jaffna Kingdom edits

Extend of the Kingdom

I notice that my edit to Jaffna kingdom has been removed. I cannot understand why as it was accurate. The map of the kingdom of Jaffna has also been removed. That map dated 1672 was more accurate than the new ones which are displayed on your site, which have been made recently and are inaccurate. For example.; Your map shows the kingdom in 1600's including the Vanni (mainland. Baldeus who was in Sri lanka at the time states that Kandyan troops were at Elephant pass in control of the mainland harassing the portuguese who had to build fortifications near Elephant pass, the entry to the mainland from the peninsula. Baldeus map, which I provided supported this. Most of the historical stuff on the internet that you seem to be relying on is inaccurate and biased, as 99% of them are sites supported by Sinhalese and Tamil nationalists distorting history to support their cause. reality is that both Sinhalese and Tamils were interdependent and married and mixed greatly with each other. Almost all Sinhalese rulers married tamils from South India. This factor is ignored and downplayed by all the stuff on the web. Large sections of Sinhalese are tamils. The karave, Durave and Salagama Sinhalese castes are infact Tamil castes and are not found in great numbers in the central region. nationalism is greatly distorting history as being presented on the web in relation to Sri lanka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.8.250 (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See this for now but I am not done updating that article, then you will see what I am eventually going to do. Give me some timeTaprobanus (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am done for today, see this there is conflicting information on the size at the time of its conquest. That's why I have both the versions in there. Baldues may have been misinformed where as Queyroz may have been exaggerating but at the end we have to put both the primary source versions on the article. Secondary sources are preferable and I have Tikiri Abeysinghe’s book, which sort of agrees with Queroz’s version where as K. M de Silva and everyone else want to believes Baldues so considering the passions this kingdom creates in Sri Lanka I try put out all version out there for the readers to make up their mind. Taprobanus (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a very salient fact that can determine this issue. Fr Phillipus Baldeus lived in Jaffna for almost 10 years, traveled all over the Jaffna peninsula and sri lanka, preached to its inhabitants, drew maps, sketched many churches and inhabitans in Jaffna, learnt the language and returned to Amsterdamn and published his book in 1672 for the public. I own a 400 year old original of his book published in 1672.

Queroz never set foot in Sri Lanka and wrote his book for the church and portuguese authorities and not for the public, sitting in Goa, India crying over lost spoils of the Portuguese after the Portuguese were kicked out of sri lanka much later. It was made public by Paul E Peiris, last century, while baldeus was available to the public from 1672. facts of baldeus book could have been challenged from 1672, not Queroz.

Now whom do you think is more accurate, the man who was on the spot, or the man who was sitting in India?

There is another issue. motive. Baldeus was a dutch preacher writing about his travels of Sri Lanka and India. Queroz was a Portuguese sitting in goa and writing about the lost spoils of the portuguese and pleading to the Portuguese king to retake ceylon, extolling its riches.

There is another important indicator of the extent of the kingdom of Jaffnapatnum. The Portuguese built churches all over the kingdom and Baldeus visited them all, described them in his book and sketched them. There are no churches in the mainland South of Elephant pass, which was under the control of Kandy.

The same could be seen the the Western coast. Areas under Portuguese control has churches and catholic communities.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebadda (talk • contribs) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All what you say may be correct but both the books are primary sources and one cancels each other. There are secondary sources in which K. M De Silva agrees with version 1 and Tikiri Abeysinghe agrees with version 2 both are recent books. I know it is such a controversal issue for Sri Lankans so may you should start another article called Extend of the Jaffna kingdom during the Portuguese conquest and cite it with all kinds of sources so that it is a balanced article. Do read my Aryacakravarti dynasty talks about the origin theory Aryacakravarti_dynasty#Origin_theories where all theories have been discussed with all points both for and against. Anyway I am taking a break today Taprobanus (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Simhao's tablet

You have placed simhao's tablet on your site.

this might be helpful

Tablet from the pediment of the Saman Devale(Ratnapura) depicting Simao Pinhao in armour defeating Pararasasekaram in the conquest of Jaffna.

Text on tablet- COM-ESTA-RENDI-ESTE-HA 2-3ANNOS-QUANDO-NA-INDIA-E HA-16-QUE-SIRVO-DE-CAPITAO-E-AO QUE-OS-PEIS-VEDES-HE-O-REI-DE IAFANAPATAO-EU-SIMAN-PINHAO-O-VENCI

Translation – With this sword I overcame this man and it is 23 years that I am in India, 16 that I serve as Captain. And he whom at my feet you see is the king of Jaffnapatnum, I Siman Pinhao, vanquished him. --Bebadda (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it was the Kings son that he stood on top of not the king as the king was killed by someone else. This is the problem with Primary sources Taprobanus (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But I added Saman Devale in Ratnapura in the pic. Thanks  DoneTaprobanus (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Senarat

There are other inaccuracies.Here is an example.In Vimaladharmasuriya you have correctly stated that he died in 1604. In kingdom of Jaffna, end of kingdom, Cankili is supposed to have been defeated in 1619. Then under consequences ...over the next 40 years we have Vimaladharmasuriya invading Jaffna. How can he, when he died in 1604? It was his successor Senerat who sent an army to Jaffna.--Bebadda (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)  DoneTaprobanus (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Emperor title

Everybody calls themselves Emperors, but you can decide who was the Emperor, by how outsiders viewed it.

All Portuguese period maps, drawn for the benefit of the Europeans refer to many kingdoms in Sri Lanka, but only one Imperio de Kota (Imperial Kotte.) I own a collection of original portuguese maps and they all state so. After the fall of Kotte, all Portuguese and Dutch publications refer to the ruler of kandy as Emperor. No Portuguese or Dutch reference exists that refers to the king of Jaffna, king of Trincomalee, King of Ouva, King of Batticaloa, King of Chilaw, King of the Korales etc as Emperor.

In relation to the catholic issue above I referred to this in my article by stating " the Catholic(?)ruler of kandy", indicating the possibility, perhaps in a subtle mannar.--Bebadda (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you say above that you do not use things like Emperor in Wiki? Take a look at Victoria, EMPRESS of India? Some exceptions huh? Then there is Haile Selassie, EMPEROR of Ethiopia and so on... --Bebadda (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Did Sri Lanka ever have a legitimate empire, I have not yet come across that in any reputable source. But Chinese Empire, Egyptian Empire, Pandyan Empire are legitimate articles but can you write about Sri Lankan Empire, can you call the Kotte Kingdom, Kotte Empire ???

You don't need a huge empire to become an Emperor. See your own section titled Emperor. In Sri Lanka it simply means king of kings. As I explained all portuguese maps indicate Reino Jappnapatnum, Reino Chilaw, Reino yala, Reino Batticaloa, Reino Kandy, Reino Sitavaka, Reino Dasa Korale etc and one Imperio de Kota. It would suggest that the country was administered via various petty rulers(kings) with one overlord (Emperor) in Kotte. --Bebadda (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to understand that an RS source means usually secondary sources. Primary sources are suspect because they are not properly evaluated by other scholars. That’s] why we cannot write an article using Mahavamsa as a source alone. Parâkramabâhu I featured attempt failed because SL editors couldn’t understand that Culavamsa cannot be used alone to write a proper encyclopedic article. We cannot write about Troy using Illiad as a source. But we can write an encyclopedic article using K. M de Silva who has looked at Mahavamsa and comments on it and is published by reputable organizations. It takes a while to figure out how to effectively contribute to Wikipedia. It took me one year. Look at my stub here and look at it how people tagged it and look at it now. It takes a while to be a proper contributor but you have to be patient and not get upset with the process because you are still trying to the grasp the system. Taprobanus (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of February 20, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: There are a few minor grammar, MOS and other fixes I'll do myself, but overall the article is well written and in compliance with the Manual of Style. When I've done these and if there are no objections, I'll change this to a support. Copyediting done.

2. Factually accurate?: The proper use of in-line citations to reliable sources which verify the content. Great work here. The place where the article speaks on "The remaining captives were "encouraged" to become monks or nuns..." is not a neutral and informative tone. It just needs to straight out say that individuals were coerced to take such actions. Facetious language like that is inappropriate for a history article.

3. Broad in coverage?: Broad in coverage.

4. Neutral point of view?: Gives fair representation to all significant points of view.

5. Article stability? No edit wars, etc.

6. Images?: The central image criterion for GA is that all images used have proper licenses and fair use rationales (where necessary). Currently, the lead image (Image:Jaffna.gif) has no license template. It claims {{PD-Old}}, so it may be as simple as applying that template.

Overall, outstanding work. Thank you very much for your patience, GAC is currently undergoing a heavy backlog of reviews. If you are so inclined, please consider taking on a review or three. I'd be happy to shepherd anyone interested through the process. Thanks again!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. VanTucky 04:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!

2. Factually accurate?: - Changed from "encouraged" to asked to  Done Taprobanus (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

6. Images?: - Changed lead image  Done Taprobanus (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift and thorough response, the article is now GA to the best of my knowledge. If there's anything else you'd like, feel free to ask. VanTucky 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

GA issues

Start. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)